A line in the Sand- Homeland Security Report

[Trapper L]

Someone asked why all the references to the Mexican border security and why it seems more important than the borders to the North. Well, here it is from your Homeland Security. While I can't say about other areas, the area around Laredo, Texas is a war zone. My brother works ranches and it is not uncommon to find bodies in the pasture. Some are just tied to fence posts with barbed wire and the throats cut enough to pull out the tongue- better known as a Colombian Necktie. Death is slow and usually from exposure. Others are found cut into smaller pieces, placed in a 55 gallon drum and it's set on fire. Folks living in the country won't let the kids play outside unless someone is there to watch with gun in hand. Kidnapping is common and the results are usually not good. But here's the Homeland Security Report on your borders in the South.
http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf

After reading this report, you might want to see where your candidate for public office stands on this critical issue. As I see it, the borders are wide open and we are subject to attack from within. Considering they are bringing drugs across by the tons (note plural) everyday, I wouldn't find it out of the question that materials for a dirty bomb be in the mix. They have already arrested Iraqis and Cuban Nationals and these are the ones they caught. Imagine how many got thru and with what?

 

[Doublestack]

Trapper.

I read most of the report (scanning through some parts as it was very lengthy, but getting the highlights of each paragraph). If I and other folks who are not in charge can see the imminent danger to our country, I must ask, why in the name of all that is sacred, don't we have 100,000 troops lining that border with some serious deterrant weaponry?

If they would carve a "no-mans land" tract, say 200yrds wide along the entire border, and have a hundred or so helicopter gunships patrol it shooting anything inside it's path, the problem would stop immediately. Hell, if the problem is financing border security, all they would have to do is ask for volunteers. I would go down there and donate a months time. I would bet that millions of red blooded Americans would do the same. With that many concerned citizens donating time, you would have to wait in line to get called down. I can't fly a helicopter, but I sure as hell can shoot a 30-06 pretty darn well.

We need to keep the pressure on our politicians to get the damn wall built, and stop *****footing around with this problem.

Glad you posted this. Hope folks read it and remeber it when it comes time to elect officials.


DS

 

[JWT]

I scanned the report, there's certainly a wealth of information in it, and none encouraging in any way. How our congress can have access to this sort of information and still refuse to close the borders is beyond me.

Where candidates stand on closing the border should be a very high priority when election time comes around. Our security depends upon it.

 

[madmag]

I must ask, why in the name of all that is sacred, don't we have 100,000 troops lining that border with some serious deterrent weaponry?

Because Bush decided that having a trump card to help pass his immigration bill was more important than border security. This is a harsh charge, but I believe it is true. Bush has known for a long time that he would have to have some kicker to help him get his Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration bill passed. Remember many times him saying the best way to get border security was to pass his immigration bill. Of course that was a lie and most of the American people knew it was a lie. Bush has all the authority he needs to protect our borders. As a Republican, I thought I would never see the day the President would hold the American people hostage to a failed immigration bill as the only path to border security.

Bush is operating on luck on this issue. The border is porous, and if we have an attack that is traced to our lax border security then you will finally see action overnight to truly protect our borders....north & south.

Also, note the part of the report about military patches found from middle eastern countries.

I would bet that millions of red blooded Americans would do the same.

Some already are at: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/

Thanks Trapper L that was a good post.

 

[buckster]

Lines in the sand

With all this rain, Just put Crocodiles or Alligators in the River. That will keep those Kayaks out too. The invasion has begun.

 

[Bruxley]

Fact is it's illegal to us the US military domestically. Sorry Madmag, STILL not bush's doing. BTW, do you feel like bashing the President in every post on every occasion is really justified? If a man is accountable for all problems he also is credited for all successes. Are you willing to follow through on your own measure of his influence?

The border is problem #1 to most people. In the border States it is felt tangibly every day. The fence being built as we speak has just the no-mans land described above. But it will be monitored by electronic surveillance rather than military gunships.

The fence gets little attention and those opposed to it claim it will have no impact.

I feel the best approach is one that has been proven highly effective in the military, force integration. Local law enforcement is ACHING to have the authority to AT LEAST detain these illegals for Border Patrol. As it stands they have no jurisdiction to detain based on immigration status. Parallel State laws need to be passed to grant these guys the authority they need. This becomes a 'force multiplier'. Just the very presence of a police of sheriffs dept. would serve to deter. And border incursions could be dealt with by force.

It will take voter initiatives to make this a reality though. For fear of backlash from Hispanic constituencies State legislators are intrepid about introducing such legislation. Although a great many Hispanic citizens are just as opposed to illegal immigration as everyone else.

A petition drive and WELL WORDED ballot initiative would grant local LE the ticket to protect their jurisdictions.

 

[madmag]

Fact is it's illegal to us the US military domestically.

Absolutely not true. I suppose you are talking about the Posse Comitatus Act. This point has been argued down so many times it is not worth the space. This was a passed at the end of the civil war. The short story is their is a loop hole that says the President can act anytime he feels it is in the interest of US security. This makes the act void as far a the President is concerned. Why don't you think you hear the ACLU or Dem's saying he cannot act based on the Posse Comitatus Act. George Wallace found out the hard way that the President has full authority to federalize troops for police duty anytime he wants. Anyway, this has been debated to death on law sites and most agree it does not stop the President.

BTW, do you feel like bashing the President in every post on every occasion is really justified?

Yes I do. I supported Bush and vote for him his first term. IMO he deserted his supporters long before we deserted him. It's still a free country. I don't try to muzzle those that support him...just argue with them.

As it stands they have no jurisdiction to detain based on immigration status.

Wrong again. Local police can detain based on immigration status when arresting or stopping for suspected felonies. Hard to know where to start. Just north of me in NC they are authorized to detain based on immigration status. Also, in Phoenix, parts of Texas, and Florida, and others. We do need more of this, but this is not all on the border.
Just one story:
http://www.kpho.com/news/13732134/detail.html

It will take voter initiatives to make this a reality though.

Yes, it's already happening. Are you familiar with the latest legislation in Oklahoma?

The fence being built as we speak has just the no-mans land described above.

Actually not. I am not really for the fence, but in fact hardly any progress has been made. Been lots of stories that the money is there but almost no fence building has occurred. Again, I think the fence is a bad idea.

 

[Bruxley]

So you contend that it is NOT currently illegal to us the US Military domestically? Or are you saying he could get away with it? No worries about Bush bashes screaming FASCISM FASCISM or calling him a criminal for breaking the law eh.

And what about being accountable for all problems also meaning getting credit for all successes? Would you say the US has more problems then successes? Or that accountability is one sided?

As for Local LE. Currently they cannot detain based on immigration status ALONE. Sorry for the lack of ALONE as a qualifier in my prior post. Arizona SB 1157 was intended to give them said authority based on trespassing. It was vetoed last year. I live here, I hear this issue daily discussed, and LE IS aching for that authority. Most specifically Sheriffs of border counties. Immigration status is currently NOT a primary violation. Another crime must take place for detention for Federal Authorities.

As it stands, if they are being smuggled across they can be arrested for criminal conspiracy based on a fairly new smuggling law. But encountering an illegal and asking them their status won't buy em a free ride in a cop car.

EDIT: Hard to keep up with your edits, People against the fence are propagating information that it is not getting built and that it hasn't made progress. Truth is that it is making progress but they are measuring standing fence. As anyone in construction can tell you, A mammoth amount of work has to take place prior to erecting such a large fence. Surveying, site work, pilings, and so on are well under way. The actual final placement of fence is the last step in an enormous project.

 

[madmag]

So you contend that it is NOT currently illegal to us the US Military domestically? Or are you saying he could get away with it?

It's not illegal and he sure can get away with it as far as I am concerned. He should have done this one day after 9/11.

And what about being accountable for all problems also meaning getting credit for all successes? Would you say the US has more problems then successes? Or that accountability is one sided?

Too much for me to answer. It's past my bedtime. I am a senior and I need my sleep.

 

[Bruxley]

It's not illegal and he sure can get away with it as far as I am concerned.

OK...enough lawyer speak. Is it not illegal as far as YOUR concerned, or is it NOT ILLEGAL.........

It is, in FACT, CURRENTLY illegal right.

And I also contend the sky is blue during the day, water wet, and the sun bright. There has be SOMETHING you don't argue about in a post.

 

[Wildalaska]

You don't need fences, soldiers, minuteman, interdiction, alligators, teminators or sensors to stop illegal immigration.

Make it a felony to employ an illegal alien...with no scienter requirement.

Problem solved in 6 months.

More common sense, less politics, easy law, write your congressperson.

WildbyebyeAlaska

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

I bet you would feel differently about scienter if you had ever unknowingly hired an illegal Canadian with a fake driver's license, Wild.

Intent and knowledge requirements are dangerous parts to take out of any law, and even when this happens, high courts frequently put it back in. Strict liability crimes are of dubious worth when you consider that, by design, they put the harsh hand of the law on people who did not know and had no reason to suspect that they were breaking the law. Where is the deterrence value in punishing somebody who did not know what was going on? Where is the retribution value in punishing somebody who did not know they were doing wrong?

Besides that, there are only two strict-liability felonies that I know of (statutory rape and "felony murder") and those are only around because of emotional public-policy arguments. I bet there would be more if there was not a serious legal and moral problem with these types of criminal classifications. I know I would have a problem with a no mens-rea requirement for most charges, but I think the brain should steer justice, not the gut. I may be in the minority on this.

You can't cut out the only part of a law that gives dumbasses a break or you will end up jailing far too many of them. Jails are not common-sense schools. They are there to confine dangerous folks, not educate morons.

 

[Wildalaska]

I bet you would feel differently about scienter if you had ever unknowingly hired an illegal Canadian with a fake driver's license, Wild.

Well as it stands right now an employer needs MORE than just a driver's license to lawfully employ a person.

And if I can spot a fake driver's license, so can an employer.

And besides, do you want to solve the immigration problem or not? The illegal immigrants are doing what comes natural to folks, that is, they are trying to make a buck.

Take the buck away and they will go away. But, no everyone has an excuse as to WHY they cant do that....

Here, I fixie the law for you.

"Any person or entity who employs, hires, or otherwise pays any type of income to a person not lawfully in the United States shall be guilty of a felony. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosection under this section that said person relied upon fraudulent documents presented by the illegal alien to prove lawful residence in the US."

Simple and efficient. Problem solved.

WildsoeasyyetsohardAlaska

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

That'll do. I don't know about making it a felony, but otherwise the wording is fine. Make it "any person who knowingly employs..." and you have a real winner. You give it a little elbow-room to keep the dullards out of the joint with those nifty mens-rea words that end in "ly".

You should be Attorny General. Gonzales is just a crooked little flunkey dredged from the darkest pit in the Enron legal department.

WA for AG!

 

[oldbillthundercheif]

An ideer just rumbled through my cranium...

How about splitting it into two offenses? The worse variation would be a felony, but keep the mens-rea wording (knowingly, intentionally, ect...) for the worst offenders, and the misdemeanor variation would be a strict-liability type deal for people who "should-have-known-better" but stumbled into an illegal employment situation.

Put deterrence-type sentances on both (bad enough to hurt), and bingo... workable law?

Of course it would help to massively expand the legal immigration options for Mexicans while trying to squish the illegal side of things. We could crank it up to 10 if we were able to put a whomping on the illegal side of things.

 

[Doublestack]

Widalaska,

The most serious problem is folks who come here with the intent of doing us harm. The hardened criminals and potential terrorists are not coming here for legitimate work opportunities.

While I agree that making it illegal to hire undocumented folks is a great idea, and would stop a big part of the flow, I believe that only armed resistance will keep the others from getting here. "no more available jobs" is not going to deter terrorists, gang bangers, or other criminal types.

This is a type of invasion, and our military / national guard, etc. certainly can be used to stop an invading force from entering our country. This is no different than if an armed military from another country attempted to breach our borders. The only difference here is that they are not wearing unifotms when they shoot at our border patrol.

Seal the darn border!


DS

 

[Wildalaska]

While I agree that making it illegal to hire undocumented folks is a great idea, and would stop a big part of the flow, I believe that only armed resistance will keep the others from getting here. "no more available jobs" is not going to deter terrorists, gang bangers, or other criminal types.

The numbers of such numskulls is pathetically small.....if the hordes of job seekers aren't crossing the border, t'would be so much more relaxing for our border folk in enforcing the laws, eh wot?

WildarmedresistancenotneededAlaska

 

[applesanity]

I believe that only armed resistance will keep the others from getting here.

[SARDONIC_COMMENT]We're all gunowners here. We know what has to be done.

Let's all go on an outing to the US-Mexico border, armed to the teeth. Let's set up bench rests. OUTDOOR RANGE! No full-automatics though - that would make it too easy. Everyone gets a scorecard. For every confirmed kill within 100 yards, you get 1 point; an additional point for every 100 yard increment beyond that. However, confirmed kills by bayonnet charge gets you 20 points; bare hands = 50 points. And if your target screams "¡Ay, caramba!" just before his or her death, you get a 300-point bonus.

First person to reach 1,000 points wins a.... uh, to heck with a limit.

Let the bragging rights begin.[/SARDONIC_COMMENT]

 

[madmag]

[SARDONIC_COMMENT]Let's all go on an outing to the US-Mexico border, armed to the teeth. Let's set up bench rests. OUTDOOR RANGE! No full-automatics though - that would make it too easy. Everyone gets a scorecard. For every confirmed kill within 100 yards, you get 1 point; an additional point for every 100 yard increment beyond that. However, confirmed kills by bayonet charge gets you 20 points; bare hands = 50 points. And if your target screams "¡Ay, caramba!" just before his or her death, you get 300 points.

Sardonic & ridiculous. Same old act. One starts the fire and then the other throws gasoline. In fact, Sardonic is no excuse.

 

[madmag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

The Posse Comitatus Act was not intended to be a complete barrier to the use of the Armed Forces for a range of domestic purposes, including law enforcement functions, when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligations under the Constitution provide for the common defense or to respond promptly to insurrection, or other serious emergency.

There are actually other bail out clauses. Not to mention there have been some federal troops assisting on the borders for a while. Not just the National Guard. That's why you didn't hear Bush even one time say he was restricted from using troops per the Posse Comitatus Act. Dead issue.