Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or....

[Goobieman]

Great attitude, you guys. No wonder America is so hated these days.

Anyone that hates America for securing her borders should be ignored.

 

[Hoot]

I don't like to post generalities, but from everything I've read, most Repubs oppose citizenship to anyone who crosses the border illegally.

In Bush's last speech, he warned against "inciting anger or playing on one's fears." Hasn't he been doing this his whole presidency?

Bush is trying placate Congress by calling for more border security, but this just reinforces the fact that he isn't serious about border security.

If the GOP passed a law cracking down on company CEO's who hire illegals, with mandatory jail sentences, the job market for illegals would practically disappear overnight, and likewise, illegal crossings would drop a very large percentage...some estimates are as high as 80%.

But don't hold your breath waiting for Repubs to pass a law like this, because they do not want to slow the supply of cheap labor.

We have November elections coming up, and I doubt anything will be resolved before this time, however, the 'lame duck' session between November and the seating of a new congress in January would be the perfect time to reach a compromise, and for Bush to strike a deal...if Bush is serious?

Faux news had a report last night that the true dangerous illegals (Middle Eastern descent) are crossing the Canadian border, not the Mexican border.

So now what? Post troops and build a wall along the 5,500 mile Canadian border, much of which is in thick forest?

Just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard...whether we're speaking of a Mexican wall or a Canadian wall...sheer stupidity! That's why I posted my light-hearted jab at Jenna Bush as president being told to "tear down this wall." It was a joke...a bit of sarcastic humor. ( obviously no one would ever vote for Jenna, despite the large campaign donations she'd get from all the alcohol distributors! LOL)

The only solution...crack down on the companies hiring illegals.

We have far more to worry about the 16 million cargo containers not being inspected passing into our borders everyday.

And Scarecrow..if you don't think you were rude in your last post to me, go back and read your reply #16 in this exact same thread.

Keep it civil and you'll gain everyones respect.

 

[Hoot]

Anyone that hates America for securing her borders should be ignored.

This whole premise that the U.S. should thumb their noses at neighboring countries and do anything we want on our side of our border without consulting our neighbors, is political arrogance.

Suppose one of our neighbors suddenly posted their entire army along one of our borders, and didn't consult with us as to their intentions?

Don't you think it would arouse the suspicion of the U.S.?

 

[vexati0n]

Just a question here ... (or two)

Why have the States not done anything about illegal immigration? If it hurts the national economy as a whole, surely it's hurting state economies. Why do states not enact legislation and enforce it? Why don't the states put up barriers and fences? Why is it always the Federal Government's job? The reason nothing is getting done is because everybody is relying on the beaurocratic disaster that is our Federal government, that can't actually do anything except sometimes they almost sound like they're talking tough. States need to take this issue on themselves.

 

[Goobieman]

I don't like to post generalities, but from everything I've read, most Repubs oppose citizenship to anyone who crosses the border illegally.

As everyone should. If you dont want to follow our laws to get there then you shoudl not benefit from our laws once you are here.

We have November elections coming up, and I doubt anything will be resolved before this time, however, the 'lame duck' session between November and the seating of a new congress in January would be the perfect time to reach a compromise, and for Bush to strike a deal...if Bush is serious?

Like most liberals, you STILL don't get it.
If you dont provide a credible alternative to Bush and/or the GOP, people dont have any reason to think you;ll do any better.

And, what credible alternative do the Dems have in terms of Illegal Immigration?
None.

Just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard...whether we're speaking of a Mexican wall or a Canadian wall...sheer stupidity!

Because...?

 

[Goobieman]

This whole premise that the U.S. should thumb their noses at neighboring countries and do anything we want on our side of our border without consulting our neighbors, is political arrogance.

Its called "sovereignty"
How, exactly, does another country have any standing to expect to be consulted on how we decide to secure our border?

 

[Goobieman]

Just a question here ... (or two)
Why have the States not done anything about illegal immigration?

Securing the borders is the Federal government's job, as given to it by the Constitution. National defense, you know.

Having said that, at least one of the states down there has said it will start prosecuting illegals.

 

[vexati0n]

Securing the borders is the Federal government's job, as given to it by the Constitution. National defense, you know.

Having said that, at least one of the states down there has said it will start prosecuting illegals.

I understand that the Constitution says it's the federal government's job. But when the federal government is too full of people who want to sound tough while actually doing nothing to stop the problem, should we really rely on them to do what's right?

Like others have said, prosecuting illegals and securing the border are only going to go so far. The real problem is that when they get here, there is work for them, there are social services for them, and if they make it to a densely populated area it's almost a given that they won't get caught. We need agencies operating inside the borders to catch them and deport them as they're caught. But most of all we need strict laws against hiring illegals, and real enforcement of those laws, from the officer who hires an illegal to the owner of a company that knows it employs illegals or fails to properly ensure that their employees are legal. We need to ENFORCE those laws, not just pay lip service to them in order to get re-elected.

And that is something the States can do.

 

[Goobieman]

I understand that the Constitution says it's the federal government's job. But when the federal government is too full of people who want to sound tough while actually doing nothing to stop the problem, should we really rely on them to do what's right?

Well, I'm not sure how the legalities work, but:
-I'm not sure that the states can pass laws making it illegal to cross the US border;
-I'm not sure that the states can prosecute violations of US law.

But most of all we need strict laws against hiring illegals, and real enforcement of those laws, from the officer who hires an illegal to the owner of a company that knows it employs illegals or fails to properly ensure that their employees are legal. We need to ENFORCE those laws, not just pay lip service to them in order to get re-elected.

Again, not sure how the legalities work here, but I'm not sure that the states can pass laws regarding the hiring of non-citizens. This may be a plenary power of the federal gvmnt.

Not that I disagree with your points, mind you -- I'm just not sure that the states can do as you suggest.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't see how anyone that remembers the Berlin Wall could be in favor of erecting an "iron curtain" between the US and Mexico.

No one that remembers the Berlin Wall can make the mistake you're making.

That's all.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This whole premise that the U.S. should thumb their noses at neighboring countries and do anything we want on our side of our border without consulting our neighbors, is political arrogance.

Suppose one of our neighbors suddenly posted their entire army along one of our borders, and didn't consult with us as to their intentions?

Don't you think it would arouse the suspicion of the U.S.?

How about if a country suddenly decided to shift it's entire surplus population into ours, in violation of our laws. Do you think that merits a response? How about a little suspicion?

Certainly if Canade put it's two or three dozen men on our nothern border, we'd have every reason to send out the Boy Scouts, too.

That raises a big "so what?", doesn't it?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't like to post generalities, but from everything I've read, most Repubs oppose citizenship to anyone who crosses the border illegally.

In Bush's last speech, he warned against "inciting anger or playing on one's fears." Hasn't he been doing this his whole presidency?

Bush is trying placate Congress by calling for more border security, but this just reinforces the fact that he isn't serious about border security.

If the GOP passed a law cracking down on company CEO's who hire illegals, with mandatory jail sentences, the job market for illegals would practically disappear overnight, and likewise, illegal crossings would drop a very large percentage...some estimates are as high as 80%.

But don't hold your breath waiting for Repubs to pass a law like this, because they do not want to slow the supply of cheap labor.

We have November elections coming up, and I doubt anything will be resolved before this time, however, the 'lame duck' session between November and the seating of a new congress in January would be the perfect time to reach a compromise, and for Bush to strike a deal...if Bush is serious?

See? The problem is that so many people out there make this a partisan issue, having been possessed by some mental obstruction that prevents them from seeing the whole problem.

The whole problem is "politicians", not Republicans or Democrats.

Faux news had a report last night that the true dangerous illegals (Middle Eastern descent) are crossing the Canadian border, not the Mexican border.

So what? That means we should let the country be overrun from the South? Aside from which, there's also been reports of towelheads coming in from the South. Whatcha got there is a serious case of non-sequitur.

So now what? Post troops and build a wall along the 5,500 mile Canadian border, much of which is in thick forest?

See? Aren't land mines so much cheaper?

Just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard...whether we're speaking of a Mexican wall or a Canadian wall...sheer stupidity! That's why I posted my light-hearted jab at Jenna Bush as president being told to "tear down this wall." It was a joke...a bit of sarcastic humor. ( obviously no one would ever vote for Jenna, despite the large campaign donations she'd get from all the alcohol distributors! LOL)

I'd vote for Jenna. We've tried stupid people (Bush). We've tried dishonest people (Clinton). We've tried stupid and dishonest (Carter). Why not try cute?

The only solution...crack down on the companies hiring illegals.

That's what I've been saying, though it should be part of an overall border security philosophy, not in operation by itself.

We have far more to worry about the 16 million cargo containers not being inspected passing into our borders everyday.

That non-sequitur contagion is spreading. Better get someone to look at it.

And Scarecrow..if you don't think you were rude in your last post to me, go back and read your reply #16 in this exact same thread.[/qoute]

Why is it that ignorant socialists keep comparing the Berlin Wall with a proposed national barrier to protect our border? Let me guess, they don't know what the Berlin Wall was for. Actually, that's not a guess, that's a conclusion drawn from the evidence provided by their ignorant posts.

I don't recall saying it wasn't rude. I don't recall you responding to it in anyway. How about if you respond to what is said and leave the visceral emotional roadblocks to rationality home, okay?

Keep it civil and you'll gain everyones respect.

I don't want everyone's respect. The only respect that matters is the respect earned from doing the job right.

 

[The Mark]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Corrupt? Back this false statement up with truth, please?

Do you know what a Xenophobe is?

A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Sounds to me like a lot of Conservatives & Republicans, especially in this forum.

France provides the US CIA with excellent information. Perhaps some of you need to start reading more and listening less to Fox News Channel? For example (edited by me to keep your attention span):

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html

This is but one example of how France helps the USA. People who write idiotically xenophobic statements about France or Germany do not know what they're talking about or they're not telling the truth to further the point of view.

I like to post FACTS with a Democratic bent, but facts none the less. Calling France or Germany "corrupt" as a sweeping generalization of the country, it's people and it's government is in five simple letters WRONG.
:stop:

I agree with you to some extent. You could use less flammable wording however.

About France or Germany being corrupt:

I would say that all of Europe has at least some corruption in all areas.....as does the whole world. No country is free of corruption.

However, I think that Navy Pride was referring to the governments of these nations being corrupt, not the whole of them.

This may be the case, but I'm not sure either way.

However, I know some of the policies/laws/etc that are in place in various European countries are very bad, IMO.

For example, there is a law in the UK that somehow allows protesters protesting certain things to be arrested. That violates the idea of free speech, in my opinion. Not sure of the exact law.

The countries in Europe have problems, just as we here in the USA do.

The countries all over the world have problems, just as we here in the USA do.

And the countries all over the world have people like those here on DP, who dislike the current situation and want something different.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

I agree with you to some extent. You could use less flammable wording however.

About France or Germany being corrupt:

I would say that all of Europe has at least some corruption in all areas.....as does the whole world. No country is free of corruption.

However, I think that Navy Pride was referring to the governments of these nations being corrupt, not the whole of them.

This may be the case, but I'm not sure either way.

However, I know some of the policies/laws/etc that are in place in various European countries are very bad, IMO.

For example, there is a law in the UK that somehow allows protesters protesting certain things to be arrested. That violates the idea of free speech, in my opinion. Not sure of the exact law.

The countries in Europe have problems, just as we here in the USA do.

The countries all over the world have problems, just as we here in the USA do.

And the countries all over the world have people like those here on DP, who dislike the current situation and want something different.

What I am referring to is the corrupt French and German Governments that made billions in the oil for food program with Saddam while Iraqi babies were starving........

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

What I am referring to is the corrupt French and German Governments that made billions in the oil for food program with Saddam while Iraqi babies were starving........

The governments didn't make anything. It was a few French and German corporations. That's like blaming the White House for Enron. :roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

The governments didn't make anything. It was a few French and German corporations. That's like blaming the White House for Enron. :roll:

Thats' not true at all. The governments of France, Russia, and Germany were closely involved with the oil companies Hussein was buying off.

Besides, all governments are corrupt. It's a fact of life.

 

[MSgt]

Buildiong a wall....no.

Placing troops.....they should be informed. It is common international practice to notify enemy nations of a training exercise for obvious reasons. Mexico knows that it hasn't anything to worry about regarding military strike from the U.S., but common courtesy should be given that troops are mounting at their border for peaceful intentions.

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Thats' not true at all. The governments of France, Russia, and Germany were closely involved with the oil companies Hussein was buying off.

Besides, all governments are corrupt. It's a fact of life.

Prove it. Prove that the French, German and Russia governments made billions of dollars from the Oil for Food Scandal. Not corporations. Not corrupt politicians. The government itself.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Buildiong a wall....no.

Placing troops.....they should be informed. It is common international practice to notify enemy nations of a training exercise for obvious reasons. Mexico knows that it hasn't anything to worry about regarding military strike from the U.S., but common courtesy should be given that troops are mounting at their border for peaceful intentions.

"common courtesy" dictates that the Mexican government doesn't encourage it's citizens to invade ours. Since they don't have the decency for that, let 'em guess what that batallion of marines is doing along the Rio Grande. Its not like we both don't know who'd win in an open fight.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Prove it. Prove that the French, German and Russia governments made billions of dollars from the Oil for Food Scandal. Not corporations. Not corrupt politicians. The government itself.

Not sure about France and Germany, but Russia's biggest oil companies are nationalized I believe.

 

[MSgt]

"common courtesy" dictates that the Mexican government doesn't encourage it's citizens to invade ours. Since they don't have the decency for that, let 'em guess what that batallion of marines is doing along the Rio Grande. Its not like we both don't know who'd win in an open fight.

Well of course, that's true. But even during the Cold War (and to this day if I'm not mistaken) our ships crossed the oceans in "gater squares." To explain, the MEU's (Marine Expiditionary Units that involved four different types of ships to an ARG (Amphibious Readiness Group)) would travel in circles per grid square so as not to alarm our enemies. They did the same for us. It was a show that aggression is not the intent.

When we train on borders in foreign lands, the other country is frequently made aware.


*Side note, we rushed towards the Iraqi border for three weeks prior to kick off trying to provoke them. The last amassing on the border resulted in an Iraqi mortar attack on Dark Side's (3/4) position on the Kuwaiti side...."Kick off."

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Not sure about France and Germany, but Russia's biggest oil companies are nationalized I believe.

Gazprom is. Russia's also a huge exporter, not importer.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Gazprom is. Russia's also a huge exporter, not importer.

They don't import for personal usage but their companies buy foriegn oil to sell to other countries on the open market.

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

They don't import for personal usage but their companies buy foriegn oil to sell to other countries on the open market.

Well and that's fine. Prove that through Gazprom and Oil for Food, the Russian government exploited billions of dollars.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Should a country consult with nieghboring countries when building a fence,wall or

Well and that's fine. Prove that through Gazprom and Oil for Food, the Russian government exploited billions of dollars.

O.K. I will:

How did the oil voucher scam work?
Under the Oil-for-Food program, the United Nations was supposed to monitor and approve all of Iraq’s oil sales. All profits went into special escrow accounts that the United Nations controlled. Because the purpose of the program was to help feed and provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people, Iraq was not permitted to buy military equipment or so-called dual-use items—items that could potentially be used in banned weapons programs—with its oil proceeds. But Iraq was given wide latitude to determine to whom it sold its oil, and was also permitted to select the vendors from which the United Nations would purchase goods with Iraqi oil profits. Saddam Hussein skimmed billions from the program by controlling these decisions.

How did Saddam Hussein choose buyers of Iraqi oil?
Iraq could sign final oil contracts only with a set number of approved “lifting” companies—major oil companies that could transport the oil. But, officially unreported to the United Nations, Saddam Hussein developed a complex internal system that moved the oil through middlemen before it got to the final buyer. The initial oil sale, the Duelfer report said, was generally to a company or individual whom Saddam wanted to influence or favor. Senior Iraqi leaders, such as former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, and Iraqi ambassadors could nominate an individual or company to receive secret “oil vouchers”—guarantees from the regime that the holder of the voucher could buy a certain amount of oil at a set price. Iraq priced this oil below market value, so that the holder of the voucher could make a significant profit when he sold it on to another middleman or international oil company. Saddam Hussein personally approved all names on the voucher recipient lists, the Duelfer report states.

How much could a voucher holder earn?
Depending on the price of oil, voucher holders could earn from ten cents to thirty-five cents per barrel beyond the regular market profit, the report says.




Who received the vouchers?

The Duelfer report contains a list of more than 1,300 oil vouchers that Saddam Hussein gave to more than a hundred corporations, foreign officials, individuals, and political parties around the world. This information came from lists found at Iraq’s state oil company and interviews with captured regime officials.

• Thirty percent of the oil vouchers were issued to beneficiaries in Russia, including individual officials in the president’s office, the Russian
  Foreign Ministry, the Russian Communist Party, members of the Russian
  parliament, and the oil firms Lukoil, Gazprom, Zarubezhneft, Sibneft, Rosneft, and Tatneft.
• Fifteen percent of the beneficiaries were French, including a former
  interior minister, the Iraqi-French Friendship Society, and the oil company
  Total.

Which individuals were named in the report as voucher recipients?

Among them:

• Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader, and companies associated with his party were allocated 53 million barrels.
• Alexander Voloshin, chief of staff under former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, was allocated 3.9 million barrels of oil from May to December 2002.
• Benon Sevan, the UN chief of the Oil-for-Food Program, received an allocation of 13 million barrels.
• Charles Pasqua, a businessman and former French interior minister, received an allocation of 11 million barrels.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7631/