Illegal alien crisis: MS-13 recruiting youngsters at U.S. shelters
This must be a super ripe recruiting ground for all of the BG's. Not to mention pedophiles that must be flocking to the area.
Immigration fiasco will be a headache for a long time to come.
- Thread starter gfrlaser
- Start date
Illegal alien crisis: MS-13 recruiting youngsters at U.S. shelters
This must be a super ripe recruiting ground for all of the BG's. Not to mention pedophiles that must be flocking to the area.
We want border security, but don't like the way border patrol question people randomly. We want to secure our border, but we don't want to build a wall. We want to stop illegal immigration, but we are reluctant to send them back once we catch them.
Illegal immigration has been going on since the day after we acquired the territory as a "prize" for winning the war.
Illegal immigration has been going on since the day after we acquired the territory as a "prize" for winning the war.
vernsimpson
New member
Here is a story where the WH claims the border is more secure than ever. If the border is secure then I would hate to see what they call an unsecured border! Typical BS from the WH!
White House stands by claim that border security is stronger than ever | WashingtonExaminer.com
White House stands by claim that border security is stronger than ever | WashingtonExaminer.com
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Wrong. "We" (as in those of us who want the law and border defended) want the random questioning to take place at the border where people are actually crossing the border, not 40, 50, 80 or as far as 100 miles North of the border. And it's for damn sure *we* don't want random questioning of people who haven't crossed any borders in blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.
Speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for me, or anyone I know whose opinion on that subject I likewise know.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? You and Obama maybe? Gee, ya think he might be just a tad bit "reluctant" to send them back after he enticed them to come by bypassing Congress and unilaterally implementing the "Dream Act" (more like Nightmare Act)???
"We" my rosy red hiney. With no "reluctance" or hesitation, I say, "Send 'em home."
To the victors go the spoils, dontcha know. 'Course, let's just ignore that the current human tsunami aren't even Mexican nationals. Mexico is complicit with Obama as they turn a blind eye to the tsunami rolling North from Central American countries. Maybe putting the kabash on the Keystone Pipeline earned Barry & Co. that blind eye from Mexico? The US still buys boatloads of oil from Mexico, while we marginalize and demonize entrepreneurs trying to extract our own resources for our own self-interested purposes.
Yeah, but let's make it out to be the big, bad USA that "stole" Mexico from Mexico! Good grief.
Maybe borrowing another $4 billion from the Chi-Coms to house and care for the newest arrivals will help stem the human tsunami, ya think?
Or how about let's call "illegal immigration" what it really is: modern slavery. At least that's a reasonable assessment in Murrieta, CA as of yesterday's Link Removed.
Over $6K a month for ready-made and no-paid cooks, babysitters, housekeepers, landscapers and "whatevers" ain't bad "work" if ya can get it, eh?
Kenyans have been involved in the slave-trade since waaaaayy before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but way to try to shift the blame for the current crisis to anywhere but squarely on Obama's shoulders! Jeesh.
Blues
Wrong. "We" (as in those of us who want the law and border defended) want the random questioning to take place at the border where people are actually crossing the border, not 40, 50, 80 or as far as 100 miles North of the border. And it's for damn sure *we* don't want random questioning of people who haven't crossed any borders in blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.
Speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for me, or anyone I know whose opinion on that subject I likewise know.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? You and Obama maybe? Gee, ya think he might be just a tad bit "reluctant" to send them back after he enticed them to come by bypassing Congress and unilaterally implementing the "Dream Act" (more like Nightmare Act)???
"We" my rosy red hiney. With no "reluctance" or hesitation, I say, "Send 'em home."
To the victors go the spoils, dontcha know. 'Course, let's just ignore that the current human tsunami aren't even Mexican nationals. Mexico is complicit with Obama as they turn a blind eye to the tsunami rolling North from Central American countries. Maybe putting the kabash on the Keystone Pipeline earned Barry & Co. that blind eye from Mexico? The US still buys boatloads of oil from Mexico, while we marginalize and demonize entrepreneurs trying to extract our own resources for our own self-interested purposes.
Yeah, but let's make it out to be the big, bad USA that "stole" Mexico from Mexico! Good grief.
Maybe borrowing another $4 billion from the Chi-Coms to house and care for the newest arrivals will help stem the human tsunami, ya think?
Or how about let's call "illegal immigration" what it really is: modern slavery. At least that's a reasonable assessment in Murrieta, CA as of yesterday's Link Removed.
Over $6K a month for ready-made and no-paid cooks, babysitters, housekeepers, landscapers and "whatevers" ain't bad "work" if ya can get it, eh?
Kenyans have been involved in the slave-trade since waaaaayy before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, but way to try to shift the blame for the current crisis to anywhere but squarely on Obama's shoulders! Jeesh.
Blues
Hmm.... I would really appreciate if you bothered to find out who "we" are before blasting me. That would be a good start.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Maybe you could just be honest about who you are without dragging "us" into your fantasies about what's going on at the border? Now that would've been a "good start," but since you already got the fantasies started, maybe you'd like to just start over and just speak for yourself?
Still, regardless of whether or not I got your use of the word "we" right, I gave an awful lot of material for you to comment on all nicely linked and quoted to make my points. It wasn't just a "bad start," it was a very informative post for anyone really wanting to discuss the subject(s) seriously. Care to start over on that score too?
Blues
Stengun
New member
Howdy Aurelius,
To Blues, the "We" is anyone that doesn't live with their Mom with a "Command Post" in their basement.
His big issue with the illegals is the fact that they compete with him in the pizza delivery business.
Paul
To Blues, the "We" is anyone that doesn't live with their Mom with a "Command Post" in their basement.
His big issue with the illegals is the fact that they compete with him in the pizza delivery business.
Paul
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Like I said to you just shy of a year ago, PSP, my only issue is with you:
The assumptions just keep coming!
If you want to believe I live in a basement, go right ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Not sure how it is relevant, but feel free to do so.
I don't deliver pizza, and I don't own a pizza business. But if it prevents the world from crashing around you, please go on believing what you believe in.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You don't know just how happy you made ol' Stench with that post. He was directing his insults at me, but he'll take whatever he can get.
Congrats Paul! You scored a Double! He'll be needing a wad of Kleenex to clean off his screen now.
Blues
I can be very honest with you, but might want to keep an open mind about things before getting irate about something that doesn't need to be.
I AM ok with having to stop at a check point and answer about my citizenship. Yes, I am a US citizen, and proud to say it. I'm not a human smuggler, and I'm not a drug runner. Nothing to hide. Courts ruled it was reasonable given the short amount of time you are stopped, and it's hardly an intrusion. Feel free to argue with the border agents, and turn something that would last 5 seconds into 20 minutes. Heck, people lose more time in traffic everyday in Los Angeles! If you actually build a wall, you might not need to conduct these checkpoints inland. A lot of people are against this, but what else can you do given such an open border? The brief stop gives an agent a short window to find a probable cause. You lose more privacy going through an airport security check or going through a security check when entering federal buildings.
I AM for building the wall, but a lot of people are against it.
I AM for sending people back once caught, but a lot of people are against it.
I might no agree with you, but it don't go around calling names and making assumptions about you. I certainly hope this is how you plan to further your agenda when encounter someone who disagree with you.
You don't know just how happy you made ol' Stench with that post. He was directing his insults at me, but he'll take whatever he can get.
Congrats Paul! You scored a Double! He'll be needing a wad of Kleenex to clean off his screen now.
Blues
If I offended him, I'm sorry. I can't read sarcasm very well on the internet.
vernsimpson
New member
This ILLEGAL entering at the border is bringing in diseases. We could have an epidemic in this country very soon. The media and many others are being stopped from seeing what all is going on there. We also could letting in terrorists into America too. This is going to end very badly!
Border Patrol Agent Hospitalized with Pneumonia Caught from an Illegal Immigrant, Expected to Have Lifelong Complications | National Review Online
Border Patrol Agent Hospitalized with Pneumonia Caught from an Illegal Immigrant, Expected to Have Lifelong Complications | National Review Online
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Strongly-worded posts are not synonymous with "irate." I am opinionated, I am deeply-convicted, I am unabashedly a conservative constitutional originalist because the Constitution protects us all better than any court, border check-point or lazy, uninspired, usurping bureaucrat ever could. It does not serve my, or my country's, interests to keep an "open mind" about those deeply-held, well-researched, and reasonably well-articulated positions. So thanks, but no thanks, when it comes to my rights, I am decidedly not "open minded" about having them usurped by a fully corrupted and usurped federal government.
I can't imagine what the words "proud to say" you're a US citizen might mean in light of you being OK with having your rights denied at the hands of a lawless government then. I will never get this. Never. That's not "good citizenship," that's submission to tyrants, pure and simple.
And if saying that translates into taking for granted that I have anything to hide, think again. Having something to hide is not the point. The 4th Amendment was intended to protect us from having to answer to an intrusive government that is limited only by its own imaginings of what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of infringement.
That's not for you or the courts to decide. We, The People settled that 225 years ago! Would you like another link to ignore? It's called "The Constitution." Perhaps Google can help you find it.
I'm very happy living and staying (for the most part) in a non-border-check-point state, but again, that's hardly the point. DUI check points are no less ubiquitous here, and no less a violation of my rights. It's a fishing expedition, just exactly what our Framers intended to prohibit with the 4th Amendment. 5 seconds, 20 minutes, 200 years, it doesn't matter, I have been and will continue to stand on my constitutional rights no matter where, when, how or under whatever out-house rationales tyrants and their Stasi-like enforcers try to cajole me into submission with is forced upon me.
Born and raised in LA County (Redondo Beach to be precise), and again, that is not the point. You're comparing the time it takes to complete a non-government-mandated task with having your rights trampled by a lawless government that is prohibited by the supreme law of the land from doing it. Apples and apples please, or we'll be going nowhere fast.
I tried to stand as a wall against the invasion from the South once in 2005 and twice in 2006 with the Minuteman Project. I fed and provided water and prayers with every single person we encountered coming North (which was well in excess of 1,000 between the three trips) and helped get them to Border Patrol agents, which was all we were allowed to do. For our troubles, we have been variously described as racists, extremists, zealots, gun-nuts, seditionists by the very government whose job we were trying to help get done. The wall is, and always has been, an appeasement sent by government to quell activists such as the Minuteman Project from worrying our pretty little heads about. What else can you do indeed. We also tried to build a fence:
And we sang and prayed for strength to resist the rejections and insults that we suffered from both our fellow countrymen and our own government that we tried to give aid to:
You say, "If you actually build a wall..." Well, I actually tried. You live pretty close comparatively-speaking to Three Points and Palominas, AZ where we were in '06. Were you there? Did you support our efforts either vocally, actively or financially?
Been swingin' hammers and twistin' wrenches all my life. When someone says "If you actually build a wall..." I set out to freakin' build it. Some of my border-brethren got arrested, all got insulted, and the Minuteman Project, just like the Tea Party that followed it, fell from the weight of its own country's apathy. I sincerely hope none of it came from you.
Oh, please, give us a break already. The Constitution removes and prohibits every conceivable window in time for government to set out on a fishing expedition.
Just wondering, do you own any Red Coats? I'll bet you'd look (and feel) as sharp as a tack in one!
Except that, with very few real exceptions, we don't have to fly or go to any federal buildings. Most of the usurpations that people think of as "having" to accept, are nothing more than voluntary submission to usurped authority that our forebears specifically prohibited by government.
If you're for something, then do it! I could not care any less what people are against if I know what I stand for. Either be the wall, build the wall, contribute to those who can, will and do, reject the politicians who won't, or at least talk here about solutions no matter what anyone or a even any majority of someones think about it!
Sorry, but "I'm OK with having my rights trampled" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in how you'll react to the above. I anticipate a big shrug of the shoulders, whether actual or symbolic. The "animated contest of freedom" is in my DNA. The "I'm OK with..." statement seems to me more like "the tranquility of servitude."
Agreement for agreement's sake is highly overrated. If we agree, I'll give you a "Like" or briefly comment on our agreement. Depending on the importance and/or significance to the further erosion of constitutional liberties though, if we disagree, it will be a vehement disagreement. Take it or leave it, or better yet, read my posts and support for them through the links I regularly provide, and counter them with intelligent and thoughtful argument that demonstrates that my fears or concerns about the loss of liberties is unwarranted. But don't tell me "it's only 5 seconds of loss of liberty" and expect me to treat that as having addressed my fears or concerns. That validates them!
Blues
whodat2710
New member
I have fixed your post to reflect fact rather than fiction. A thing regarding the "questioning" part, and regarding Barry wanting money to fund legal representation for the illegals: The rights afforded by our Constitution should only be afforded to LEGAL CITIZENS.
whodat2710
New member
Immigration reform should consist of evaluating the present system, clearing out some red tape and firing some of the self important flunkies that think they need to be a part of the process, then evaluating those small changes. It should NOT be a major overhaul that is thousands of pages that nobody reads, that worked so well for healthcare...
-
When the administration forbid the border patrol from enforcing the laws, they expected this. They wanted this to push their agenda.
-
When the administration forbid the border patrol from enforcing the laws, they expected this. They wanted this to push their agenda.
Strongly-worded posts are not synonymous with "irate." I am opinionated, I am deeply-convicted, I am unabashedly a conservative constitutional originalist because the Constitution protects us all better than any court, border check-point or lazy, uninspired, usurping bureaucrat ever could. It does not serve my, or my country's, interests to keep an "open mind" about those deeply-held, well-researched, and reasonably well-articulated positions. So thanks, but no thanks, when it comes to my rights, I am decidedly not "open minded" about having them usurped by a fully corrupted and usurped federal government.
I can't imagine what the words "proud to say" you're a US citizen might mean in light of you being OK with having your rights denied at the hands of a lawless government then. I will never get this. Never. That's not "good citizenship," that's submission to tyrants, pure and simple.
And if saying that translates into taking for granted that I have anything to hide, think again. Having something to hide is not the point. The 4th Amendment was intended to protect us from having to answer to an intrusive government that is limited only by its own imaginings of what constitutes a "reasonable" amount of infringement.
That's not for you or the courts to decide. We, The People settled that 225 years ago! Would you like another link to ignore? It's called "The Constitution." Perhaps Google can help you find it.
I'm very happy living and staying (for the most part) in a non-border-check-point state, but again, that's hardly the point. DUI check points are no less ubiquitous here, and no less a violation of my rights. It's a fishing expedition, just exactly what our Framers intended to prohibit with the 4th Amendment. 5 seconds, 20 minutes, 200 years, it doesn't matter, I have been and will continue to stand on my constitutional rights no matter where, when, how or under whatever out-house rationales tyrants and their Stasi-like enforcers try to cajole me into submission with is forced upon me.
Born and raised in LA County (Redondo Beach to be precise), and again, that is not the point. You're comparing the time it takes to complete a non-government-mandated task with having your rights trampled by a lawless government that is prohibited by the supreme law of the land from doing it. Apples and apples please, or we'll be going nowhere fast.
I tried to stand as a wall against the invasion from the South once in 2005 and twice in 2006 with the Minuteman Project. I fed and provided water and prayers with every single person we encountered coming North (which was well in excess of 1,000 between the three trips) and helped get them to Border Patrol agents, which was all we were allowed to do. For our troubles, we have been variously described as racists, extremists, zealots, gun-nuts, seditionists by the very government whose job we were trying to help get done. The wall is, and always has been, an appeasement sent by government to quell activists such as the Minuteman Project from worrying our pretty little heads about. What else can you do indeed. We also tried to build a fence:
And we sang and prayed for strength to resist the rejections and insults that we suffered from both our fellow countrymen and our own government that we tried to give aid to:
You say, "If you actually build a wall..." Well, I actually tried. You live pretty close comparatively-speaking to Three Points and Palominas, AZ where we were in '06. Were you there? Did you support our efforts either vocally, actively or financially?
Been swingin' hammers and twistin' wrenches all my life. When someone says "If you actually build a wall..." I set out to freakin' build it. Some of my border-brethren got arrested, all got insulted, and the Minuteman Project, just like the Tea Party that followed it, fell from the weight of its own country's apathy. I sincerely hope none of it came from you.
Oh, please, give us a break already. The Constitution removes and prohibits every conceivable window in time for government to set out on a fishing expedition.
Just wondering, do you own any Red Coats? I'll bet you'd look (and feel) as sharp as a tack in one!
Except that, with very few real exceptions, we don't have to fly or go to any federal buildings. Most of the usurpations that people think of as "having" to accept, are nothing more than voluntary submission to usurped authority that our forebears specifically prohibited by government.
If you're for something, then do it! I could not care any less what people are against if I know what I stand for. Either be the wall, build the wall, contribute to those who can, will and do, reject the politicians who won't, or at least talk here about solutions no matter what anyone or a even any majority of someones think about it!
Sorry, but "I'm OK with having my rights trampled" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in how you'll react to the above. I anticipate a big shrug of the shoulders, whether actual or symbolic. The "animated contest of freedom" is in my DNA. The "I'm OK with..." statement seems to me more like "the tranquility of servitude."
Agreement for agreement's sake is highly overrated. If we agree, I'll give you a "Like" or briefly comment on our agreement. Depending on the importance and/or significance to the further erosion of constitutional liberties though, if we disagree, it will be a vehement disagreement. Take it or leave it, or better yet, read my posts and support for them through the links I regularly provide, and counter them with intelligent and thoughtful argument that demonstrates that my fears or concerns about the loss of liberties is unwarranted. But don't tell me "it's only 5 seconds of loss of liberty" and expect me to treat that as having addressed my fears or concerns. That validates them!
Blues
Just a few comments
As a constitutional purist, you then recognize the powers granted to the courts by the constitution in Article III.
With that said, the Supreme Court is the only court that can resolve matters regarding the constitution. The 4th amendment granted government agents power to search and seize if done in a reasonable manner, and the Supreme Court had determined that cursory seizures such as the ones set up at fixed points, within a reasonable distance from the border as reasonable. It's the law of the land, respect it.
The same applied to DUI check points. The Supreme Court applied the same logic here with respect to DUI check points, and determined if done correctly and reasonable it is not unconstitutional. Some states do not allow it altogether, and some states do. In states that allow it, there are disclosure requirements to the public on when and where the stops would be conducted. You may not agree with the outcome, but it's the law of the land. Respect it.
The 4th amendment does not ban all search and seizure by the government. In fact, it allows it, as long as it is done reasonably. The Supreme Court determined DUI check points and border patrol check points are constitutional. Not sure what infringement you were referring to. Reasonable Search and seizures are both intrusions specifically allowed by the constitution. I can make the same argument that you really don't have to drive through the check point because you know where it is, and driving is not a right so you can do away with driving then you wouldn't be subjected to these check points.....?
I'm glad you tried to build a wall. Good for you. I applaud you for it. It was largely symbolic, but it conveyed a point. But the truth is many don't want a wall build, including those in congress on both sides, and that is holding us back.
whodat2710
New member
I stole this, but it hit's the nail on the head. Again, the administration tries to divert the sheeples attention from the true problem.
Link Removed
Puzzle for you all: Imagine you are a 3 year old to 8 year old child. You are on your own without adults. You are asked to walk from Houston, Texas to Minneapolis, Minnesota on your own with no food or belongings to sustain you. Could you do it? How long would it take you as a 6 year old? That is the minimum distance these "poor, helpless" little ones have supposedly walked to America, again, on their own. They didn't get lost. And they survived the journey without help.
-
Now, on the map above, you must start somewhere in the green area. Let's make it easy and start where green meets orange, so that you have the least mileage. Blue, of course, is water. Your task is to figure a route from the green area to the purple area without going through the blue areas. The black line is the distance from the nearest town to Mexico's southern border that touches the green area to Laredo, Texas, one of the CLOSEST purple towns. 1220 miles across desert and mountains with no equipment or food or help.
-
If orange had stopped these innocents where orange touches green, problem would not have occurred. However, what six year old do you know who could walk 1220 miles (minimum), probably more like 1500 miles on their own without dying? How many days would it take for a 6 year old to walk 1220 miles without help, directions, food, sun protection, etc.? That dog just don't hunt. I don't think the truth is being given to us, folks. Someone created and assisted this, and the media should be figuring out who it is.
Link Removed
Puzzle for you all: Imagine you are a 3 year old to 8 year old child. You are on your own without adults. You are asked to walk from Houston, Texas to Minneapolis, Minnesota on your own with no food or belongings to sustain you. Could you do it? How long would it take you as a 6 year old? That is the minimum distance these "poor, helpless" little ones have supposedly walked to America, again, on their own. They didn't get lost. And they survived the journey without help.
-
Now, on the map above, you must start somewhere in the green area. Let's make it easy and start where green meets orange, so that you have the least mileage. Blue, of course, is water. Your task is to figure a route from the green area to the purple area without going through the blue areas. The black line is the distance from the nearest town to Mexico's southern border that touches the green area to Laredo, Texas, one of the CLOSEST purple towns. 1220 miles across desert and mountains with no equipment or food or help.
-
If orange had stopped these innocents where orange touches green, problem would not have occurred. However, what six year old do you know who could walk 1220 miles (minimum), probably more like 1500 miles on their own without dying? How many days would it take for a 6 year old to walk 1220 miles without help, directions, food, sun protection, etc.? That dog just don't hunt. I don't think the truth is being given to us, folks. Someone created and assisted this, and the media should be figuring out who it is.
whodat2710
New member
And then there's this, above and beyond the job ads for escorts:
Link Removed
Link Removed
vernsimpson
New member
IF the MSM were really a "news" organization, we would not have obummer and no libs in any office! But the MSM just reprints or airs WHATEVER the lib-o-rats want them to say! The ONLY time they even act like a "news" organization is when they go after the TEA Party, Conservatives or anyone who are on the lib-o-rats hit list! Then they will leave no stone unturned until they find SOMETHING they can blow out of proportion and if they can't then they will just lie!
Good post and EVERYONE should realize this!
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.