'Minutemen' to Patrol Arizona Border

Redhawk41,

I can see how you would get the wrong idea, but I thought saying "Probably 75 percent of the workers" would make it clear I was just estimating. I'm not sure why anyone who was pretending to use an official statistic would say "probably."

Dev_null, thanks for helping clear that one up for me.
 
Does Japan control immigration?
Yes, they do.

Does Australia control immigration?
Yes they do.

Does MEXICO control immigration?

Yes, they do. Mexico deploys their army on their south, and they
deport Hondurans and Guatemalans whenever, and wherever
they find them.

So are we, racist, unfair, unjust, or wrong to DEMAND that our
government enforce the laws and control the ILLEGAL
immigration?

Why should I have any kind attitude about an INVASION
of my country by MILLIONS of people, who in their very
first act of entering my country, they break the law?

EC
 
Americans Lose $68 Billion to Illegals

Using a new approach, Columbia University economists David Weinstein and Donald Davis estimate the net economic losses from immigration to Americans.

Unlike earlier studies, this new model does not treat the movement of immigrant labor into the country simply as a result of abundant resources and demand for labor, assumptions more appropriate to the 19th century.

Rather, the model takes into account globalization, the technological superiority of the American economy, and the resulting high standard of living.

Among the report’s findings:


In 2002, the net loss to U.S. natives from immigration was $68 billion.

This $68 billion annual loss represents a $14 billion increase just since 1998. As the size of the immigrant population has continued to increase, so has the loss.

The decline in wages is relative to the price of goods and services, so the study takes into account any change in consumer prices brought about by immigration.

The negative effect comes from increases in the supply of labor, and not the legal (or illegal) status of immigrants.

While natives lose from immigration, the findings show that immigrants themselves benefit substantially by coming to America.

Those who remain behind in their home countries also benefit from the migration of their countrymen.
Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein are both professors of economics at Columbia University, as well as Research Associates at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
 
Immigration Impact
on America
Source: Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services Records
and the U.S. Census Bureau - Compiled by The Washington Times


Population

The United States receives more immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.

The number of illegal aliens in this country is estimated at between 8 million and 12 million.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, accounts for nearly 80 percent of U.S. population growth in the past decade.

About 1.4 million illegal aliens come to the United States yearly. Roughly half of those stay.

If immigration continues at the current rate, the US population of 285 million will rise to 400 million in 50 years.
Costs

The net cost of immigration is $70 billion a year.

Mexican nationals sent $10.5 billion in remittances to Mexico in 2002. Remittances to Mexico are the second-highest source of income, exceeding tourism, and lagging behind only oil revenues.

The 1986 amnesty program cost $78 Billion to American citizens in services and benefits, or about $26,000 per legalized immigrant.

Medical Care for illegal aliens, required under the “emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act,” costs American taxpayers $3.7 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funds.

Immigration accounts for most of the increase in public school enrollment in the past 20 years.

Mexico is the 10th richest country in the world and has the fourth-highest number of billionaires. It is the fifth-leading exporter of oil in the world and has twice the oil reserves of the United States.
Crime

More than 20 percent of the inmates in federal prisons in the U.S. are illegal aliens, and the criminal-alien prison population cost taxpayers about $1 billion annually.

Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel, who has been agitating for the United States to grant amnesty to the Mexican illegal aliens, said on July 28, 2003, that his country will never help the Unied States secure its southern border.

Two-thirds of the cocaine coming into the United States comes via the U.S.-Mexico border, along with 50 percent of all the heroin in this country and 95 percent of the marijuana.

Twenty cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Seattle and Portland, Maine have adopted “sanctuary laws” banning police from asking people about their immigration status.
Source: Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services Records and the U.S. Census Bureau - Compiled by The Washington Times
 
First, the US government CAN NOT use the National Guard or ANY OTHER military unit ANYWHERE within the US. Unless they REPEAL the Posse Commitatus Act - don't remember when it was passed originally.
Click to expand...
The Posse Commitatus Act does not factor in for a couple of reasons. First, it's original intent was to disallow the military from getting involved in civilian law enforcement. It could be argued that the protection of the US border is within the scope of the military's role, as much as civilian.
Secondly, and probably more to the point, it is my understanding that the PCA originally covered the role of the Army and the Air Force. Later, it was expanded to cover the Marines and Navy. However, it has never included the Coast Guard or the National Guard. Therefore, it does not apply.
That is why the National Guard has been deployed to help enforce mandatory curfews during environmental disasters such as hurricanes, or to help regain order at out-of-control college protests.

Liked your cartoon. But if we let the bikers take over, will I have to give up my favorite Chicago Cub cap and switch to the the customary bandana? :confused:
 
this sounds like something that Dale Gribble would sign up for :p

but seriously though, if they can help out w/out resorting to violence then im all for it.
 
The Posse Comitatis Act never included the Coast Guard or National Guard.
Click to expand...

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was the result of abuses during occupation by federal forces in the South during Reconstruction. It effectively ended the army occupation of the South and forbade the military from engaging in civil law enforcement.
The National Security Act of 1947 creating the Dept. of Defense further ammended and defined the PCA of 1878 to include the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
National Guard units are not directly affected since they are entities of the State government until they fall under federal control. Once the NG is federalized it falls under PCA of 1878.
Although the Coast Guard is technically a military branch, it is purposely exempted from PCA of 1878 by placing the organization under the Dept.of Transportation rather than DOD.
The CG can and does use Navel assets for civil and maritime LE. However this is can only be accomplished by reflagging the naval vessel under the CG flag and transfering operational command and control over to a CG officer.
The NG could probably be used for border security as long as they were ordered to do so by the individual governors of affected states and that those govenors were acting independently in the interests of their states.
It could also be argued that military (active duty) guarding the borders are there repelling an invasion that threatens the security of the nation. It's certainly a very grey area and should be addressed legally and objectively by the government.
 
Wingman, here's some information from the other side of the debate:

http://www.anla.org/applications/PressReleases/releases/0118.htm

"On February 27, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, chaired by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). Greenspan’s testimony described the economic impact of an aging American population, which will lead to a slowly growing population, diminishing growth in the labor force, and an increase in the ratio of the elderly to the working-age population. By 2030, the growth of the U.S. workforce will slow from 1 percent to ½ percent, according to Greenspan. At the same time, the percentage of the population over 65 years old will rise from 13 percent to 20 percent.



Greenspan described how the aging population would have significant fiscal effects. “In particular, it makes our social security and Medicare programs unsustainable in the long run, short of a major increase in immigration rates, a dramatic acceleration in productivity growth well beyond historic experience, a significant increase in the age of eligibility for benefits, or the use of general revenues to fund benefits” Greenspan stated.



According to Greenspan, immigration could prove a most potent antidote for slowing growth in the working-age population. As the influx of foreign workers in response to the tight labor markets of the 1990s showed, immigration does respond to labor shortages.



An expansion of labor-force participation by immigrants and the healthy elderly offers some offset to an aging population. “Fortunately, the U.S. economy is uniquely well suited to make those adjustments” said Greenspan. “Our open labor markets can adapt to the differing needs and abilities of our older population. Our capital markets can allow for the creation and rapid adoption of new labor-saving technologies, and our open society has been receptive to immigrants. All these factors put us in a good position to adjust to the [impacts] of an aging population.”
 
Back in December, the "Diplomad" (a blog) espoused "The Saber-Toothed Tiger Law of Life." According to the tenets of this law, humans are supposed to be tiger food by age forty. He points out that by that age, our eyesight is going, our stamina has gone, our ability to throw a spear has sharply decreased and our foot speed has left us unable to outrun an attacker or to climb a tree.
Well, we've managed to cheat the system and extend out relatively worthless lives well beyond the age of seventy. While that allows us to enjoy our "Golden Years," (yeah, sure) it also throws a monkywrench into the gears of evolution... not to mention Social Security.
We've all read about the declining birth-rate in Europe; how immigrants are the only reason the population is growing. Well folks, it's happening here too. With rare exceptions, families are smaller now than when I was a sprout and old folks are much older too. I'm seventy, but when I was ten I didn't know anybody who was seventy years old. My great-grandfather died when he was sixty-eight and he'd been on death's doorstep for years.
So, with fewer young people to support they Social Security system and more old folks to drain it, it's a matter of time before it goes bust. Sure, past politicians "borrowed" from the trust fund and promised to pay it back, but so did France and Belgium. Much as I hate it, immigrants are what's going to save the Social Security system. But they gotta be legal!!
My family came over here from Wales early in the 1700's so I'm a product of immigration too, as are most of you. I have no problem with legal immigration, but those who begin their life in the U.S. by breaking the law should be sent back to whatever third-world, dirt-street, mud-brick hovel they were spawned in and never allowed to cross the border again!
If the Border Patrol can't do the job and if the Administration won't let them do the job, then I pray to God that the Minutmen can!
 
This is a case where the government has failed and patriots are picking up the slack. Times change, but human nature doesn't. Here we have volunteers, willing to sacrifice time and energy for the greater good. The border patrol reaction is typical of any group protecting their self interest. If the concern is really about proper training, then offer the training. It's likely there are qualified retired law enforcement or Boarder Patrol trainers willing to provide training voluntarily. Minutemen could become certified after having completed training, passing the appropriate tests, etc. There is no reason volunteers could not be as well trained as Boarder Patrol agents. It's certainly not rocket science! The real issue is those in authority are unwilling to give up power and control. The old adage applies to the Minutemen, "If you want something done right, do it yourself".
 
Interesting.
But should any incidents (or misunderstandings) occur with this contingent of 'patriots' and the US government officials-no doubt they'll be used in some manner to justify further intrusions into liberties.
Is there really a possibility that a government which is considering limiting access to matches...is going to tolerate extra-legal entities roaming around
on their 'turf'. No matter how poorly the US government has worked in securing our borders...the nature of government is not to release authority
and power, once obtained, to others.
Even if this group were a assemblege entirely noble minded people, eventually
they will be used for ends which they themselves do not intend.
This crowd is making the same mistakes that other organizations did back in the late '80's and early 90's.
 
'Minutemen' to Patrol Arizona Border Reply to Thread

"This crowd is making the same mistakes that other organizations did back in the late '80's and early 90's."

Not to mention the '70's... the 1770's!
 
Just from reading the first few posts...these guys are just another joke as the BP. I don't understand why they would want to help these aliens, smugglers, terrorists, etc. Might as well give them your car keys and some spending money....nothing more than a welcoming committee. Just talk.
 
MrBill said:
Just from reading the first few posts...these guys are just another joke as the BP. I don't understand why they would want to help these aliens, smugglers, terrorists, etc. Might as well give them your car keys and some spending money....nothing more than a welcoming committee. Just talk.
Click to expand...

And your solution to the problem is what?
 
"Oldphart",
Your analogy to the 1770's presents some ironic issues. If the 'minutemen' could be transported back to the pre-revolutionary, revolutionary era...they would have been fighting on the side of the British government.
One of the elements which led to the break between England and the colonies, was the attempts by the crown to quell, 'illegal immigration'.
In this case, people going into the trans-appalachian territories. That violated various treaties, and the crown wanted to avoid the costs of more insurrections by the various indian nations involved. It was an issue that all concerned struggled with for several generations.
And still hold to my contention that if the 'minutemen' do anything stupid...the guv'ment will use it as a rationale to dismantle a few more rights.
And its not like the Bush people need much prompting to do that...TSA for example is banning matches.
At least the colonists could keep their flint & steel lighters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top