My comment is more generic in nature, but can apply here as well.
I would be more sympathetic if the whole "justice" system as a whole didn't routinely abuse things like civil asset forfeiture. I'm sorry (not really, just being polite), but when they use words like "effective" I have no doubt they include civil asset forfeiture in there, and I cannot condone that.
Is the northern border really that problematic?
Is the northern border really that problematic?
They are related as civil asset forfeiture is one of the many and varied "tools" used at border crossings as well as anywhere else in the nation. As such, my point about being suspicious of the Border Patrol's underlying motivation in being upset with the Obama administration decision still stands.Civil forfeiture has nothing to do with illegal immigration. I believe you already made two threads on that subject of civil forfeiture that I know of. I did not go into either one of those threads and started talking about abortion, gay marriage or any other unrelated issues.So please do not try to derail threads with unrelated subjects.
Is the northern border really that problematic?
According to our current Homeland Security director it is. She did state that it was more important than the southern border and most terrorist traffic came through the northern border.
They are related as civil asset forfeiture is one of the many and varied "tools" used at border crossings as well as anywhere else in the nation. As such, my point about being suspicious of the Border Patrol's underlying motivation in being upset with the Obama administration decision still stands.
Provide me an unbiased list of biased and unbiased sources from which to choose. :roll:Do you have any unbiased sources to back this claim that border patrol use civil asset forfeitures?
If its just as porous as our southern border then yes it is a problem. If the majority of the 12-20 millions illegals came through our borders then logic would dictate it would be just as easy for any terrorist and other scum to do the same.
Again, I would like to see some verifiable data on this.[/QUOTE
Here are three referencing the speech. I don't find the actual speech, but I have seen it before. I will pursue the original speech later. If I remember correctly, the incident occurred sometime in 2009. The gist of her statement was that the 911 terrorists came in through the northern borders.
The first video is a recent, not totally connected, but concerning her position on the northern border
Napolitano Wants Fence On the Border...Of Canada! - Janet Napolitano - Fox Nation
The Border For Dummies - YouTube
HSS Janet Napolitano: Blame Canada - YouTube
and she was wrong. The 9/11 group entered the US via US airports. Only the 2000 La airport bomber attempt tried to enter the US via CanadaAgain, I would like to see some verifiable data on this.[/QUOTE
Here are three referencing the speech. I don't find the actual speech, but I have seen it before. I will pursue the original speech later. If I remember correctly, the incident occurred sometime in 2009. The gist of her statement was that the 911 terrorists came in through the northern borders.
The first video is a recent, not totally connected, but concerning her position on the northern border
Napolitano Wants Fence On the Border...Of Canada! - Janet Napolitano - Fox Nation
The Border For Dummies - YouTube
HSS Janet Napolitano: Blame Canada - YouTube
Do you at least have any slightly unbiased news sites to back up your claim?Provide me an unbiased list of biased and unbiased sources from which to choose. :roll:
I have no problem with our northern border being unsecured-- as far as I'm concerned, that border shouldn't exist.
I was mocking your "unbiased" qualification. You were setting me up for failure, as I could have provided the best source possible and you still would have dismissed it as biased. I have no desire or intention to get caught up in that kind of disingenuous crap no-win situation. Sorry to ruin your fun.Do you at least have any slightly unbiased news sites to back up your claim?
So you have nothing even semi-credible to back your claim up?I was mocking your "unbiased" qualification. You were setting me up for failure, as I could have provided the best source possible and you still would have dismissed it as biased. I have no desire or intention to get caught up in that kind of disingenuous crap no-win situation. Sorry to ruin your fun.
So are one that supports a "one world govt."?
Why do you feel borders shouldn't exist?
and she was wrong. The 9/11 group entered the US via US airports. Only the 2000 La airport bomber attempt tried to enter the US via Canada
She was wrong. The third link is Janet doing the back flip. Whoever asked how she got and keeps her job wins the best question of the year award.
If only I had a dollar for every time some pro-illegal tried to make some idiotic retarded comparison of a border fence to the Berlin wall I would be rich.Does anyone have the feeling that all this anti-terrorism fence building at the US-Canada border is a little like the Soviet Union's anti-capitalism fence building was at its borders? First they tell you that it is in your protection, then they turn it inside out and trap you into it. Since the US-Canada fence cuts through town parks and private gardens, it certainly stops people, but only the average people, not the terrorists with well crafted evasion plans. I think it resembles the Berlin Wall now and this time we are the DDR folks. Which country will be the America that frees us? (Maybe China, what's your take?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?