New Arizona Immigration Law

#426
#426
hndog609 said:
If anyone can think of a better use for troops than to defend our borders from armed incursion I'd like to hear it. In fact, if US citizens are in fear for their lives and livelihoods from people from another country crossing our borders our country has already miserably failed them and if it takes tanks and gunships to keep them safe then so be it. These are our countrymen on our soil, right?
Click to expand...

All it takes is one questionable engagement by our military and the party is over, it will turn into a media circus and will all but tie the hands of our military, they will then be ineffective and sitting ducks.
 
#427
#427
KB5252 said:
All it takes is one questionable engagement by our military and the party is over, it will turn into a media circus and will all but tie the hands of our military, they will then be ineffective and sitting ducks.
Click to expand...

BHO and all the other politicians are the ONLY ones that care what the media thinks. Our military does not. The military will only be handcuffed if BHO does the cuffing.
 
#428
#428
The Army's line at the 38th parallel seems to have been pretty effective, as does the Marines line at GITMO.

I say that we employ the same methods here, including the orders to shoot trespassers on sight and the acres of anti-personnel land mines, all along both the northern and southern borders.

It seems counterintuitive to begin dewatering before plugging the leak.
 
#429
#429
Tenacious D said:
The Army's line at the 38th parallel seems to have been pretty effective, as does the Marines line at GITMO.

I say that we employ the same methods here, including the orders to shoot trespassers on sight and the acres of anti-personnel land mines, all along both the northern and southern borders.

It seems counterintuitive to begin dewatering before plugging the leak.
Click to expand...

you do realize how much bigger the Southern US border is than the examples you use right? The logistics of it, even for a military not engaged elsewhere, are almost too big to handle
 
#430
#430
KB5252 said:
All it takes is one questionable engagement by our military and the party is over, it will turn into a media circus and will all but tie the hands of our military, they will then be ineffective and sitting ducks.
Click to expand...

I understand your concerns in the manner you presented them so please don't take this as being dismissive of your point but screw the media. If I walk in on a group of people raping my mother if I have the means to do so I'm going to kill every last one of them. If it turns out they happened to be members of some minority as well as gay, crossdressing, underpriveledged and diagnosed with both ADD and spastic colons which drove them to commit this heinous act and the media tried to paint me into a monster I'd still feel no remorse whatsoever. My mother (or insert anybody you care about) is safe.

We have soldiers dumping munitions on people in other countries but we're worried about not defending American citizens on American soil based on how it might be portrayed in the media? Not saying you're wrong that it wouldn't be portrayed badly in some circles but US citizens living in fear on US soil is unacceptable in the extreme.
 
#431
#431
utvolpj said:
you do realize how much bigger the Southern US border is than the examples you use right? The logistics of it, even for a military not engaged elsewhere, are almost too big to handle
Click to expand...
That's assuming they're just sitting on boarder patrol all the time.

The alternative would be to simply annihilate any boarder threat to the United States.
 
#432
#432
hndog609 said:
I understand your concerns in the manner you presented them so please don't take this as being dismissive of your point but screw the media. If I walk in on a group of people raping my mother if I have the means to do so I'm going to kill every last one of them. If it turns out they happened to be members of some minority as well as gay, crossdressing, underpriveledged and diagnosed with both ADD and spastic colons which drove them to commit this heinous act and the media tried to paint me into a monster I'd still feel no remorse whatsoever. My mother (or insert anybody you care about) is safe.

We have soldiers dumping munitions on people in other countries but we're worried about not defending American citizens on American soil based on how it might be portrayed in the media? Not saying you're wrong that it wouldn't be portrayed badly in some circles but US citizens living in fear on US soil is unacceptable in the extreme.
Click to expand...

The simple truth is it is not so much the media as it is public perception, the media simply drives public perception. There will be the pieces done on ranchers who have had to cope with fear and threats, on the other hand there will be the pieces that document the illegals crossing the border to make a better life for their family and the harassment they get from the American military.

I'm not advocating either way but which do you believe will drive the American public and their perception on this issue? If recent history is any indication I think the illegal immigrant story would shape the rhetoric and public perception.
 
#433
#433
KB5252 said:
The simple truth is it is not so much the media as it is public perception, the media simply drives public perception. There will be the pieces done on ranchers who have had to cope with fear and threats, on the other hand there will be the pieces that document the illegals crossing the border to make a better life for their family and the harassment they get from the American military.

I'm not advocating either way but which do you believe will drive the American public and their perception on this issue? If recent history is any indication I think the illegal immigrant story would shape the rhetoric and public perception.
Click to expand...

Again you make rational points but I'm with T-Town's earlier post. You can have all the fuzzy "coming to America for a better life" propaganda pieces you want but when US citizens are facing armed foreign nationals and having to give ground then it's all out the window. It sounds bad and I'm aware of it even as I type it but if it comes down to "their" innocent lives being lost vs "our" innocent lives...so be it.

There is absolutely no greater repsonsibility tasked to the US government than defense of it's people from foreign threats. To think there are Americans on our side of a border that are considered expendable in the face of media driven political correctness or political expediency is destable to the point of madness.
 
#439
#439
utvolpj said:
wait until the polls show the majority actually supports it and illegals aren't supposed to vote.
Click to expand...

fyp. ACORN is still out there and if they can get Mickey Mouse to vote, what's a few hundred thousand illegals?
 
#440
#440
I say that we kill two birds with one stone.

If homosexuals are going to be allowed to openly serve in the military, they should be able to not only do so immediately, but should be afforded the same rights, protections and accommodations which their heterosexual counterparts now enjoy. However, it will be years before the modern military is properly prepared to provide them with such equitable accommodations (i.e. berthing quarters, heads / latrines, etc.).

In the interim, while these preparations for their full integration are made, why not form an intra-service military task force who's single objective was to effectively secure our borders.....and which would be comprised entirely of those homosexual members of our military who would volunteer for such service.

This would produce several positive benefits for all involved, including:

As a same-sexual preference unit, it would be far easier - and faster - for the military to provide appropriate accommodations. In doing so, the military would naturally begin to better understand the unique challenges and pitfalls which will be required in the full integration of homosexuals into the, "mainstream" military establishment.

Homosexuals will not only be available for immediate service in this unit, but both they and the military will be afforded with a, "safe harbor" until the necessary preparations for their full integration, are made. Simply, it would be a better - and safer - option, for all involved.

If our borders are to be effectively secured, a a sustainable and full-scale military operation will likely be required. Such would provide homosexuals (and proponents of their open service) with a much-needed (and highly publicized) opportunity to prove themselves capable of doing so. Should they successfully complete this objective, it would be difficult - even for the most staunchly opposed to their service - to continue to believe that they would be unable to do so, once fully integrated.

For those active or reserve duty members of the military who oppose the integration of homosexuals into the "mainstream" military, this interim period would provide them with both a necessary and finite timeframe to transition out of the military before homosexuals are fully integrated.

For BHO - its the best of all worlds. You would appease the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the border to be secured, and in doing so would force their complicit endorsement of homosexuals being allowed to openly serve. Essentially, if you want the borders closed, it will be done with homosexual members of the military. If you don't want them to serve - then stop saying that you want the border to be secured, because that's the easiest means toward accomplishing it.

The Latino / Hispanic groups in America (legal or not) are certainly a formidable group who BHO cannot afford to either overlook or underestimate. Without question, they would vociferously oppose the closing of the border. However, even their most ardent and sustained protests would pale in comparison to the overwhelming approval which he would receive from both the millions who want the border effectively secured, and the homosexual community, at large. And what long-term harm would really be done between the DNC and the Latino / Hispanic community? Do you think that they would then suddenly start voting Republican? Not likely.

Finally, while the outmanned and under-funded Border Patrol cannot secure the border themselves, it's reasonable to assume that they could maintain it, once secured, especially considering the amount of established resources which would not only remain (i.e. infrastructure, equipment, strategies, physical barriers, etc.), but which would endure long after the original homosexual units had left, after being fully integrated into the mainstream military.

Gays on the border sounds like a win for all-involved, if you ask me.

I apologize to those who have read all of this, all the while waiting on a punch-line that never came, and who are now disappointed in its absence.
 
#441
#441
T-TownVol said:
SO!....they are HUMAN BEINGS!...........sorry, I was channeling Cash there for a minute......I'm OK now.
Click to expand...
show me where I said protect the illegals?????????????????????? please, find that post... I said protect the LEGAL immigrants... But I guess facts aren't too high on your priority list
 
#442
#442
Cash Vallin said:
show me where I said protect the illegals?????????????????????? please, find that post... I said protect the LEGAL immigrants... But I guess facts aren't too high on your priority list
Click to expand...

Wouldn't distinguishing legal immigrants from those here illegally be the best and most certain means of ensuring that they were afforded all rights to which they are entitled?

In other words, couldn't it be argued that asking for ID was not only for taking punitive action against those here illegally, but of equal importance in the protection of the rights of those who had legally entered this country?

If you argue that there is some intrinsic difference in their physical characteristics, how will you avoid falling into the same profiling pitfalls that you have so long accused everyone else of doing?
 
#443
#443
Tenacious D said:
Wouldn't distinguishing legal immigrants from those here illegally be the best and most certain means of ensuring that they were afforded all rights to which they are entitled?

In other words, couldn't it be argued that asking for ID was not only for taking punitive action against those here illegally, but of equal importance in the protection of the rights of those who had legally entered this country?

If you argue that there is some intrinsic difference in their physical characteristics, how will you avoid falling into the same profiling pitfalls that you have so long accused everyone else of doing?
Click to expand...
All that's fine and dandy... The point is there are legal people of all races/ethnic backgrounds that live in Arizona. Only one group of legals, however, will be asked to prove they're here legally.

That's where the problem comes into play for a lot of people. If you ask EVERYBODY, than there's not as much of an issue. Even the Arizona governor said she doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like. Yet, somehow, the cops got to figure that out
 
#445
#445
Tenacious D said:
I say that we kill two birds with one stone.

If homosexuals are going to be allowed to openly serve in the military, they should be able to not only do so immediately, but should be afforded the same rights, protections and accommodations which their heterosexual counterparts now enjoy. However, it will be years before the modern military is properly prepared to provide them with such equitable accommodations (i.e. berthing quarters, heads / latrines, etc.).

In the interim, while these preparations for their full integration are made, why not form an intra-service military task force who's single objective was to effectively secure our borders.....and which would be comprised entirely of those homosexual members of our military who would volunteer for such service.

This would produce several positive benefits for all involved, including:

As a same-sexual preference unit, it would be far easier - and faster - for the military to provide appropriate accommodations. In doing so, the military would naturally begin to better understand the unique challenges and pitfalls which will be required in the full integration of homosexuals into the, "mainstream" military establishment.

Homosexuals will not only be available for immediate service in this unit, but both they and the military will be afforded with a, "safe harbor" until the necessary preparations for their full integration, are made. Simply, it would be a better - and safer - option, for all involved.

If our borders are to be effectively secured, a a sustainable and full-scale military operation will likely be required. Such would provide homosexuals (and proponents of their open service) with a much-needed (and highly publicized) opportunity to prove themselves capable of doing so. Should they successfully complete this objective, it would be difficult - even for the most staunchly opposed to their service - to continue to believe that they would be unable to do so, once fully integrated.

For those active or reserve duty members of the military who oppose the integration of homosexuals into the "mainstream" military, this interim period would provide them with both a necessary and finite timeframe to transition out of the military before homosexuals are fully integrated.

For BHO - its the best of all worlds. You would appease the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the border to be secured, and in doing so would force their complicit endorsement of homosexuals being allowed to openly serve. Essentially, if you want the borders closed, it will be done with homosexual members of the military. If you don't want them to serve - then stop saying that you want the border to be secured, because that's the easiest means toward accomplishing it.

The Latino / Hispanic groups in America (legal or not) are certainly a formidable group who BHO cannot afford to either overlook or underestimate. Without question, they would vociferously oppose the closing of the border. However, even their most ardent and sustained protests would pale in comparison to the overwhelming approval which he would receive from both the millions who want the border effectively secured, and the homosexual community, at large. And what long-term harm would really be done between the DNC and the Latino / Hispanic community? Do you think that they would then suddenly start voting Republican? Not likely.

Finally, while the outmanned and under-funded Border Patrol cannot secure the border themselves, it's reasonable to assume that they could maintain it, once secured, especially considering the amount of established resources which would not only remain (i.e. infrastructure, equipment, strategies, physical barriers, etc.), but which would endure long after the original homosexual units had left, after being fully integrated into the mainstream military.

Gays on the border sounds like a win for all-involved, if you ask me.

I apologize to those who have read all of this, all the while waiting on a punch-line that never came, and who are now disappointed in its absence.
Click to expand...

does this make u feel more safe? lulz

orig-5506011.jpg
 
#446
#446
Cash Vallin said:
That's where the problem comes into play for a lot of people. If you ask EVERYBODY, than there's not as much of an issue. Even the Arizona governor said she doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like. Yet, somehow, the cops got to figure that out
Click to expand...

and that's been explained many times yet you ignore it. They aren't setting up checkpoints on the sidewalk to enforce this
 
#447
#447
droski said:
i see and the cops have no common sense right?
Click to expand...
than please tell me the difference between an illegal and a legal just by looking at them and their actions.... you tried yesterday and failed horribly... taking a right turn doesn't cut it... I know plenty of Legal people that can't drive all that well.
 
#448
#448
utvolpj said:
and that's been explained many times yet you ignore it. They aren't setting up checkpoints on the sidewalk to enforce this
Click to expand...
I haven't ignored it... If people are checked for doing something wrong and then we find out they are illegal immigrants, I'm all for that...

The concern comes into play where that's not how the law will be used. We'll find out if it makes it past the courts, which i doubt it will.
 
#449
#449
Cash Vallin said:
I haven't ignored it... If people are checked for doing something wrong and then we find out they are illegal immigrants, I'm all for that...

The concern comes into play where that's not how the law will be used. We'll find out if it makes it past the courts, which i doubt it will.
Click to expand...

but that's how it reads and is all there is to go on. Didn't you point out in another thread that someone was making assumptions that just aren't there? Yeah, you're doing it too
 
#450
#450
Cash Vallin said:
than please tell me the difference between an illegal and a legal just by looking at them and their actions.... you tried yesterday and failed horribly... taking a right turn doesn't cut it... I know plenty of Legal people that can't drive all that well.
Click to expand...

i'll give you one difference. legal citizens have no problem showing their ID. legal citizens don't go out of their way to not get noticed by the police (like not turning on reds).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top