← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · heritagelost
Thread ID: 3517 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2002-11-14
2002-11-14 21:43 | User Profile
[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20021114/ap_on_go_co/homeland_security_21]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...and_security_21[/url]
What is first on the list of things to do when protecting America????
Create 170,000 more welfare jobs for third world immigrants and other "unemployable" elements of our population. All with whitey's tax money.
2002-11-14 21:52 | User Profile
Don't kid yourself, there are gonna be plenty of risk-averse trough-feeders of every race and color pigging out on this expansion of government.
In addition to the stereotypical black Democrat woman in government jobs, unemployed white middle-class techies (at least the ones who don't mind being dependent on government) are clamoring for gubmint positions because the tech economy is in the dumps and they've got mortgages to pay and families to feed. (Where do you think all the database administrators for Poindexter's Big Brother system will come from?)
The contractors that feed off the statist apparatus are also cheering for this.
This isn't about Homeland Security. It's about Keynesian pump-priming for corporate techies and GOP crony capitalism. To me, it's just statism contracted out to the private sector, ie fascism.
2002-11-14 23:30 | User Profile
Recently I heard of an incident where one of these rent-a-mud security screeners detained and search Joe Foss, top Marine ace of WWII, Medal of Honor, Brigadier General of the South Dakota Air National Guard, Governor of South Dakota and President of the National Rifle Association. The infirm old gentleman was wearing his Medal of Honor, which one of these muds thought was a throwing star. This is a portent of the kind of security we are about to get.
Somehow, I don't feel more secure regardless of how much or little power the government workers' unions have. We need first rate military units on the borders and the zeal of A. Mitchell Palmer applied to rounding up the dangerous elements and deporting them. A History Channel documentary revealed that the Seventh Cavalry was assigned to patrolling the border from the First World War until they were permanently dismounted and sent overseas in the Second World War. That should be precedent enough.
2002-11-14 23:50 | User Profile
Personally, I don't see what would be so logistically difficult about stringing triple-strand concertina and digging ditches along the border with roving patrols and fortified positions at key crossings. Hell, we've done alot more than that to protect the South Koreans from North Korea for half a century, you'd think our own borders would have more priority.
If there was an appreciable risk of being shot trying to enter the country illegally, the crossing would come to a screeching halt. What is so out of left field about doing this? Countries throughout Europe and Asia have armed borders to varying degrees and nobody complains about them.
2002-11-15 01:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Nov 14 2002, 18:50 Hell, we've done alot more than that to protect the South Koreans from North Korea for half a century, you'd think our own borders would have more priority.
Excellent point.
2002-11-16 00:07 | User Profile
Hello all. First post here, but I wanted to put in my 2 cents as border security and immigration is one of my hot buttons.
Anyway, does anyone recall some months back there were news stories about Izzy-rail building a 20-foot-high concrete wall in the West Bank to "keep out suicide bombers?" (personally I think they're just finally making the Palestinian ghetto official). I was interested since the cost was listed as $2 million per mile. Translated to our 1800-mile southern border with Mexico, you've got a price tag of $3.6 billion, which is really a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. After all, how much do we spend every month rearranging rocks in Afghanistan? A 20-foot-high wall would probably dissuade all but the most determined invaders and those that weren't could be shot as they came over the top. :angry: The fact that this relatively inexpensive, but vital step towards improving our security has not been even considered publically, much less taken, simply shows me that all the bleating about "homeland security" is simply window dressing.
2002-11-16 00:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Nov 15 2002, 18:07 to our 1800-mile southern border with Mexico, you've got a price tag of $3.6 billion, which is really a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. A 20-foot-high wall
The bottom line is, America doesn't WANT the wall. That's the whole point. Immigration is happening for a reason, both Left & Right are complicit.
If you wanted to end immigration, you'd cut off all means of welfare for them. No education/health/food/shelter for any of them. This would cut 90% of immigration, but as you see it is never considered.
-J
2002-11-16 00:30 | User Profile
If you wanted to end immigration, you'd cut off all means of welfare for them. No education/health/food/shelter for any of them. This would cut 90% of immigration, but as you see it is never considered.
Don't forget the medical costs for illegals that are bankrupting border towns...
2002-11-16 00:30 | User Profile
Oh, you're absolutely right, Jay.
The left is drunk on the "free" votes invaders provide them, while the right, or at least the big business end, is high on the "cheap" labor aliens provide. Of course, the cost to American society is neither "free" nor "cheap." The fact that illegal aliens can not only get welfare, but are not stoned (in the Biblical, not the flower child, sense) in the streets, simply shows how far this country has sunk. Am I being too intolerant? It must be something in the water.
I do disagree on one point, I think America would want such a wall, but our fearless leaders do not. Stopping illegal immigration always polls well, but when was the last time you got to vote on it? The closest thing to it was Prop187, and that was invalidated immediately by judicial fiat. So much for the "will of the people" and all. It's been said before, but it bears repeating: if voting changed anything, it would be illegal.
2002-11-16 02:45 | User Profile
**Anyway, does anyone recall some months back there were news stories about Izzy-rail building a 20-foot-high concrete wall in the West Bank to "keep out suicide bombers?" (personally I think they're just finally making the Palestinian ghetto official). I was interested since the cost was listed as $2 million per mile. Translated to our 1800-mile southern border with Mexico, you've got a price tag of $3.6 billion, which is really a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. **
Isn't the cost of a stealth bomber around $2 billion? I'd say sacrificing a couple of stealth bombers is certainly worth securing our southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
It's a no-brainer once you consider the cost savings in reduced crime. Not to mention a reduction in welfare payments, educational benefits and medical costs. Plus the INS wouldn't have to be chasing down as many illegals already on this side of the border.