Hey White House, maybe its time to focus on Mexico violence?

[BgMc31]

Zab, as usual you assume to much. No I'm not for illegals rights, trust me, I've lived in the areas DIRECTLY affected by illegal immigration (El Paso, Tx, Albuquerque, NM, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Scottsdale, Az), during most of my adult life. What I am for is a REAL solution to the problem. As I stated before its against the powers of the military to act as a law enforcement arm of our government. The only way that can be done is if the President orders marshal law. We aren't being invaded by a 'hostile' force. Whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake or not is besides the point. So, with that said, that eliminates your so-called 'solution'.

The pure logistics of gathering up 20million are nearly impossible. You run into all kinds of civil rights issues, habeus corpus issues, the list goes on and on. Plus that's an expense no one, especially the tax payers, are willing to pay for.

Let's get real about this Zab and you aren't being real. And please proof read your posts before posting. Because you don't, you posts are hard to read and come across almost incoherent and the ravings of an irrational, angry, person.

When it comes to what I posted in response to Clemont51. His posts (included some in the past) are completely bigoted and without merit. His post have shown that he wishes for an all-white America. He thinks the mixing of cultures has been a detriment to our society and not a benefit. So, using reasonable deduction, what do you believe his solution is? Remove all that isn't white, anglo-saxon, and protestant. Correct?

[zabster151]

Zab, as usual you assume to much. No I'm not for illegals rights, trust me, I've lived in the areas DIRECTLY affected by illegal immigration (El Paso, Tx, Albuquerque, NM, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Scottsdale, Az), during most of my adult life. What I am for is a REAL solution to the problem. As I stated before its against the powers of the military to act as a law enforcement arm of our government. The only way that can be done is if the President orders marshal law. We aren't being invaded by a 'hostile' force. Whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake or not is besides the point. So, with that said, that eliminates your so-called 'solution'. we are being invaded by mexico
it not un reasonable to bring troops to protect are boarders

The pure logistics of gathering up 20million are nearly impossible.WE HAVE TO START SOME WARE OR THIS WILL NEVER END You run into all kinds of civil rights issues,civil they have none habeus corpus issues, the list goes on and on. Plus that's an expense no one, especially the tax payers, are willing to pay for.

Let's get real about this Zab and you aren't being real. And please proof read your posts before posting. Because you don't, you posts are hard to read and come across almost incoherent and the ravings of an irrational, angry, person.

When it comes to what I posted in response to Clemont51. His posts (included some in the past) are completely bigoted and without merit. His post have shown that he wishes for an all-white America. He thinks the mixing of cultures has been a detriment to our society and not a benefit. So, using reasonable deduction, what do you believe his solution is? Remove all that isn't white, anglo-saxon, and protestant. Correct?

i don't agree with one race

[BgMc31]

I've posted the definition of an invasion. A mass immigration isn't tantamount to an invasion. I have no problem putting the national guard on the borders to protect our borders, that's within states rights. But using the military or the states militia as a law enforcement arm is against the powers of the military.

Yes we have to start somewhere, but not with what you are proposing. Trust me, there are many, many, more illegals here (from not only Mexico, and Latin American countries, but from all over the world), that aren't here to commit heinous crimes, they are just searching for a better way of life. So, I'm for a pathway to citizenship. I'm for cracking down on these companies that hire illegals. And I'm all for strengthening our borders. If we allow a pathway to citizenship, these people actually come out of hiding. These people can be documented. We can then do our, actual, due diligence, weed out and deport the ones with criminal records or linked to gangs and organized crime, but allow those who are productive to stay here legally. If we did those things and cut the bureaucratic red tape, we could be do these things effectively and much cheaper than what you are proposing.

But let's be honest here, the vast majority of the push back against Latin American immigrants is the changing face of America. If we automatically allow 20million hispanics to become citizens, it vastly changes the political landscape in this country. And white people, like Clement, are fearful of that. That is why there this campaign of fear mongering that simply don't jive with statistics.

[Phosphor]

I've posted the definition of an invasion. A mass immigration isn't tantamount to an invasion. I have no problem putting the national guard on the borders to protect our borders, that's within states rights. But using the military or the states militia as a law enforcement arm is against the powers of the military.

Yes we have to start somewhere, but not with what you are proposing. Trust me, there are many, many, more illegals here (from not only Mexico, and Latin American countries, but from all over the world), that aren't here to commit heinous crimes, they are just searching for a better way of life. So, I'm for a pathway to citizenship. I'm for cracking down on these companies that hire illegals. And I'm all for strengthening our borders. If we allow a pathway to citizenship, these people actually come out of hiding. These people can be documented. We can then do our, actual, due diligence, weed out and deport the ones with criminal records or linked to gangs and organized crime, but allow those who are productive to stay here legally. If we did those things and cut the bureaucratic red tape, we could be do these things effectively and much cheaper than what you are proposing.

But let's be honest here, the vast majority of the push back against Latin American immigrants is the changing face of America. If we automatically allow 20million hispanics to become citizens, it vastly changes the political landscape in this country. And white people, like Clement, are fearful of that. That is why there this campaign of fear mongering that simply don't jive with statistics.

Try looking at immigration laws of nearly every other country out there. They are extremely strict in every aspect regarding immigration, legal and illiegal. Look at Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration - and they take it very seriously. Our borders have been a joke for decades and now the effects are becoming fully realized by local and state governments along with its citizens.

It is not our nations best interest to provide jobs (or anything else they leach off the our system) - it is the job of their OWN country. There has always been a path to citizenship to this country and they choose not to take that path because it's easy to do. In doing so, they shit on our laws. They shit on the people that actually did it the right way. Just because there is a high infux of people wanting citizenship does not mean we open up the lanes of traffic just because there is a demand. The process is costly and lengthy on each person for very specific reasons.

You said lets be honest? Only honest with what you believe, that is all. This has nothing to do with anything political in it's essence. Maybe for a politician, sure. But they broke the law and burden our system. Other countries take this very seriously, but we shouldn't? We should accept them just simply if they are found to not be dangerous and they simply want to live? Get real, we are not the worlds caretakers when anyone wants something. We already have enough issues with our own citizens wanting the goodies. Who are you to presume, just because I am white, are fearful of the political landscape. There are plenty of white people that think like you as well. There is right and wrong from my perspective. Simple as that.

I can imagine from your writing that you would like everyone just to get along and everyone have no fears of want. Based on feelings, sure, everyone would like that. That is the land of unicorns and rainbows. The situation requires analytical thinking based on factual data on the situation. Cold hard facts devoid of emotion. We have enough bleeding in our economy from feel-good, emotional programs that waste tax payers dollars.

[BgMc31]

Try looking at immigration laws of nearly every other country out there. They are extremely strict in every aspect regarding immigration, legal and illiegal. Look at Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration - and they take it very seriously. Our borders have been a joke for decades and now the effects are becoming fully realized by local and state governments along with its citizens.

It is not our nations best interest to provide jobs (or anything else they leach off the our system) - it is the job of their OWN country. There has always been a path to citizenship to this country and they choose not to take that path because it's easy to do. In doing so, they shit on our laws. They shit on the people that actually did it the right way. Just because there is a high infux of people wanting citizenship does not mean we open up the lanes of traffic just because there is a demand. The process is costly and lengthy on each person for very specific reasons.

You said lets be honest? Only honest with what you believe, that is all. This has nothing to do with anything political in it's essence. Maybe for a politician, sure. But they broke the law and burden our system. Other countries take this very seriously, but we shouldn't? We should accept them just simply if they are found to not be dangerous and they simply want to live? Get real, we are not the worlds caretakers when anyone wants something. We already have enough issues with our own citizens wanting the goodies. Who are you to presume, just because I am white, are fearful of the political landscape. There are plenty of white people that think like you as well. There is right and wrong from my perspective. Simple as that.

I can imagine from your writing that you would like everyone just to get along and everyone have no fears of want. Based on feelings, sure, everyone would like that. That is the land of unicorns and rainbows. The situation requires analytical thinking based on factual data on the situation. Cold hard facts devoid of emotion. We have enough bleeding in our economy from feel-good, emotional programs that waste tax payers dollars.

You've got my perspective totally wrong. I don't believe in world of make believe of unicorns and rainbows. Quite the contrary. What I'm saying is the logistics of rounding up, supposedly, 20million people. Using the military sets a bad precedent. It's against the law the govern the power of the military. I can't stand the fact the we are the world's police and are looked upon to take care of the worlds ills. My posts are about immigration are strictly from a logistical point of view. The expense of such an endeavor would be astronomical. And yes, I'm speaking from cold hard facts. So I suggest you get real with yourself.

As far as being white, look at the who the pushback is coming from. Maybe I should say the vast majority of the irrational pushback comes from the Republican side of the aisle (which happens to be white). Why? Because with the addition of 20 million minorities that's a major boost for the other side of the aisle. COLD HARD FACT, DIVULGE OF EMOTION!!!

[songdog]

WOW this was some heavy SH_T man.

[swllce]

Who is profiting from all the assault rifles and guns being sold to the drug gangs?
Plenty of Arizona gunshows,with blood money to be made.
We only go after the drug smugglers though ,can't mess with the constitution,wouldn't want to ruffle the feathers of the NRA.

[zabster151]

this is were america will be
if i explane you all wont get it, so watch
rich banks and poor people

[BgMc31]

Irrational? Yes. Coming up with illogical solutions for this problem equals irrational. Nobody is debating that they broke the law. If you read my response, I'm talking about coming up with real world solutions to this problem. Democrats have always been on the side of immigration control, remember it was Ronnie Reagan who instituted the open door policy that has lead to this problem. Don't allow your emotion to cloud your judgement, trust when I say that we want the same thing. We just have a different approach. You might want to check your own facts, 20million deadbeats? You're wrong on this assumption. And as far as voting base is concerned, this is YOUR opinion. You may want to look deeper. Politicians on both side of the aisle care more about elections than the direction of this country, so they divide the masses and this is one of those topics.

[Phosphor]

I was too young for when Reagan made those decisions for me to care about politics at the time. When I started to care, I thought the decision was a mistake. For you to bring him up makes me think that since he was a conservative republican, it further cements your argument. I am not sure where you see my judgement is clouded in emotion, looks more like you trying to turn the tables than anything. Yes, 20 million deadbeats if you want to read it literally. How are they employed by being an illegal? They either get paid under the table or they have a stolen identity through bogus soc. numbers. The 1/3 of mexicos economy is through legal and illegal (guess the majority) 'undocumented workers' sending back checks to their families to mexico. I do not blame them wanting to help their families, but that alone is a huge loss in money that should be cycled back into our own country. I never offered a 'solution' in my posts. I find it disingenuous that since you disagree with one posters solution, you blanket the whole surge in outrage in illegal immagration as irrational. I have done my homework well enough to know more than the average person already on the subject and for you to suggest otherwise amuses me. There is no way we are going to convince one another of our own perspectives, so I will just agree to disagree with you on the subject.

[BgMc31]

Agreed (to disagree). Good debate, though. Kudos to you for keeping it (relatively, lol) civil!! LOL!!!

[Phosphor]

Agreed (to disagree). Good debate, though. Kudos to you for keeping it (relatively, lol) civil!! LOL!!!

Yes, I told that to my wife discussing it with her yesterday about our conversations. It can get heated, sure. Even though we disagree on some pointed issues, it didn't turn into the usual vitriolic internet bashing. Hats off to you.

[swllce]

I did not have time to read this whole tread.Just to put in my 2 cents.
We are arming the los zetas militants who are murdering peapole with ak 47 assault rifles .
There is no limit on how many assault rifles can be purchased in one day in the state of Arizona.Therfore there is no limit on how large their army can grow.The drug cartelles trying to control the town of Juarres have more cash than alqaida.The power of the NRA is standing i the way of stopping the guns flowing into Mexico.Call me a liberal ,I just call it common sense.The right to bear arms should not include assault rifles by the dozen

[Phosphor]

I did not have time to read this whole tread.Just to put in my 2 cents.
We are arming the los zetas militants who are murdering peapole with ak 47 assault rifles .
There is no limit on how many assault rifles can be purchased in one day in the state of Arizona.Therfore there is no limit on how large their army can grow.The drug cartelles trying to control the town of Juarres have more cash than alqaida.The power of the NRA is standing i the way of stopping the guns flowing into Mexico.Call me a liberal ,I just call it common sense.The right to bear arms should not include assault rifles by the dozen

My right to bear arms should not be perverted or abolished, especially from drug cartels. There are laws in place that should be keeping them from purchasing anything firearms related. Either you are incorrect or the laws are not being enforced that are in place now. The NRA upholds the constitution for the right to bear arms for it's American citizens, not for cartels. If we go to your end conclusion (and laws are actually enforced properly), the only people that will have these types of firearms are the cartels. Close the loopholes and enforce laws that are already in place, not make new ones. The more legislators are busy, the less rights we have. Is there any links you can provide that information your claiming? I am not familier with Arizona laws, but surely they do not allow anyone but citizens from purchasing fireams?

Meanwhile, out border agents are forced to use paintball guns and beanbag guns to defend themselves. There is your 'final solution' at work. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...7d70b8a31.html Our government has our guys protecting our borders like this? Glad to see those extra dollars Obama has put into border securty is being put to good use.

[BgMc31]

My right to bear arms should not be perverted or abolished, especially from drug cartels. There are laws in place that should be keeping them from purchasing anything firearms related. Either you are incorrect or the laws are not being enforced that are in place now. The NRA upholds the constitution for the right to bear arms for it's American citizens, not for cartels. If we go to your end conclusion (and laws are actually enforced properly), the only people that will have these types of firearms are the cartels. Close the loopholes and enforce laws that are already in place, not make new ones. The more legislators are busy, the less rights we have. Is there any links you can provide that information your claiming? I am not familier with Arizona laws, but surely they do not allow anyone but citizens from purchasing fireams?

Meanwhile, out border agents are forced to use paintball guns and beanbag guns to defend themselves. There is your 'final solution' at work. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...7d70b8a31.html Our government has our guys protecting our borders like this? Glad to see those extra dollars Obama has put into border securty is being put to good use.

Wow, something we actually agree on!!!!

[swllce]

The ban on purchasing assault rifles in Arizona expired in 2004.

My right to bear arms should not be perverted or abolished, especially from drug cartels. There are laws in place that should be keeping them from purchasing anything firearms related. Either you are incorrect or the laws are not being enforced that are in place now. The NRA upholds the constitution for the right to bear arms for it's American citizens, not for cartels. If we go to your end conclusion (and laws are actually enforced properly), the only people that will have these types of firearms are the cartels. Close the loopholes and enforce laws that are already in place, not make new ones. The more legislators are busy, the less rights we have. Is there any links you can provide that information your claiming? I am not familier with Arizona laws, but surely they do not allow anyone but citizens from purchasing fireams?

Meanwhile, out border agents are forced to use paintball guns and beanbag guns to defend themselves. There is your 'final solution' at work. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...7d70b8a31.html Our government has our guys protecting our borders like this? Glad to see those extra dollars Obama has put into border securty is being put to good use.

[Phosphor]

Oh, thats what you meant. For some reason, I find the whole argument distasteful since I wholly disagree with the federal government playing nanny on exactly what guns I can and cannot purchase. Whether they be shotguns, hunting rifles, assault guns, handguns, etc. they are all deadly. Besides the scary 'assault' word, I could hold my own quite nicely with my 45mag hunting rifle against some cartel douche spraying an AK. Since I did not know about this particular issue, I dug deeper to see if your claims linking the expired ban to mexican drug cartels held any water. What you will find in this article sheds light on the situation and shines the spotlight, not on the expired ban, but on a Justice Department-approved plan by ATF to disrupt a drug cartel:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...fforts-border/

Read the article in it's entirety. This is criminal gun-trafficking and also ties with the ATF - circumventing our laws that lawbiding American citizens follow. Whatever extra laws that they can imagine and cram down our throats, we will follow them and the criminals will not. Because they are: CRIMINALS. No, I didn't go to fox, I did some simple google searches and found other related articles as well that backs the story. This was posted yesterday on exactly what your trying to lead us to believe. I find your link to blaming the expired gun ban/NRA and arming the zetas to be wildly incorrect, unless you would like to send us some links to prove your point and disproving my link somehow. Otherwise, nice try.

[lovbyts]

There is more the ATF. Read this, it's called Fast and Furious guns.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...2003***1.shtml

For those who dont want to read, short story is the ATF supplied the guns more or less that are a large part of the war going on in Mexico.

It's not just a rumor, one of the head boarder patrol agents and several of his co workers have been complaining for a long time about the tactic and stepped forward to the public when one of his friends was killed with one of the guns the ATF let then have.

[Phosphor]

I tried the link and it went to CBS, but not found. I did a simple search on CBS for ATF and got these:

http://www.cbsnews.com/1770-5_162-0....type=cbsSearch

Some of these are quite the eye opener. The titled "AK47s vs. bean bags in border drug wars" blows my mind as well. How far up does this decision go? Whoever it is, they need to be dismissed immediately. This is not a hindsight is 20/20 point of view either. If they could not put forth the effort to follow this decision and see this kind of fallout (even if it was a posibility), then who knows what other poor decisions they could make that would endanger our agents and citizens. With one agency feeding them weapons and another government agency arming our border security with beanbags, you couldn't pay me enough to ever want to be border patrol. If I had to guess, there are people in those positions as security avoiding illegals if at all possible for fear of either getting killed or getting arrested by our government for excessive force and followup lawsuits.

The state of our borders is more of a joke than ever before with these latest discoveries from various news sources. To add even more to it, after two of our federal agents were ambushed south of the border (one killed, one severely wounded), Obama said yesterday that he will not let any of them arm themselves - but still require them to conduct operations there. I must live in some alternate universe where the voice of reason and logic is banned.

[lovbyts]

Strange, yeah if you Google ATF fast and furious weapons it takes you right to the CBS report but the link doesnt.

Yes someone screwed up big time and trying to cover their butt. It was on the news yesterday morning.

[Public Enemy]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd she quit...

Mexican police chief applies for asylum in U.S.

The 20-year-old mother and criminology student who made headlines last year when she volunteered to serve as police chief in a violent northern Mexican town has applied for political asylum in the United States and is awaiting a hearing on her request, Mexican officials said.

Marisol Valles, who lasted just four months in her post, is waiting to appear before an immigration judge in Dallas, Texas, Chihuahua state Human Rights Commission official Gustavo De la Rosa Hickerson told Efe.

Valles, who became famous last October when she accepted the job of police chief in Praxedis G. Guerrero, a border town about 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Ciudad Juarez, was fired on Monday for abandoning her post.

The young woman was fired after she failed to return to her post following a leave request granted on March 2, municipal officials said.

Valles fled Mexico because she "received a threat and that justified that she withdrew to the United States along with her family," Chihuahua state Attorney General Jorge Gonzalez Nicolas told a press conference last week.

The young woman, who studied criminology, volunteered to take the police chief's job after the town government could find no one else willing to lead the force in the wake of the killings of several officers by drug cartel gunmen.

Valles is in Dallas and working with counsel on her asylum application, a Texas immigration lawyer told Efe on Tuesday by telephone.

"If you go to the international bridges, they'll arrest you, but if you go to one of the offices in Dallas, where Marisol is, the process is a legal process and not a police one or persecution," the attorney said on condition of anonymity.

Praxedis G. Guerrero is in the Juarez Valley, near Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's murder capital.

"Here, everyone is afraid," Marisol Valles said last October when she took charge of the 19-member police force in Praxedis, vowing to "replace that fear with security."

Drug cartels are trying to drive people out of communities in the Juarez Valley to facilitate their smuggling activities, analysts say.

Ciudad Juarez, just across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, has suffered some 8,000 gangland killings since the beginning of 2008.

The carnage is blamed on a battle between drug cartels to control the prime smuggling route into the United States.

[BgMc31]

No Clement, I just don't subscribe to your bigotted ideology. I have advanced degrees in sociology so I'm pretty far from high school civics. Here's what you fail to understand and even consider, you cannot administer an IQ test based on Americans standards of knowledge to those who haven't been fully exposed or given equal access to.

But if you want to believe that white, Europeans are at the top of the food chain in terms of intelligence in order to overcompensate for your own shortcomings, than that's fine. But save that rhetoric for the white supremacists sites. If you have some VALID proof to your theories (peered reviewed sources) then post them and I'll be happy to read them.

[thegodfather]

Jeez....so many opinions that are just based on...................shit...and a general lack of knowledge about the Constitution, the government, current affairs, research, and statistics regarding the problems being discussed.

First off, turning this discussion into some sort of platform to celebrate the success's of Raegan is pointless. The President does weild a great degree of power in our country, and more so as of the current and past 2-3 administrations, due to the power grab by the Executive. But it's important to realise that it is not ONLY the President of the US who effects most of the change in our country. It is also Congressmen and Senators, and Supreme Court judges (via judicial activism).

Second, what actually happens INSIDE Mexico, I could give two shits about. It is only when those crimes start to spill over into the United States that they become the problem of the American government. What does the OP propose that we do to combat killings in towns within Mexico? We have absolutely no authority inside of a sovereign state, and can do little to help them. Their government from the top to the bottom is rife with corruption, and they are bordering on a 'failed state'. This means, there are regions of their country which are essentially lawless, and they cannot enforce the laws of their lands.

Rather then write you a dissertation, I'll simply make a numbered list of ways in which we can combat crime, illegal immigration, and other problems related to the events taking place in Mexico that effect our country.

1. End the 'wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq, which cost our country roughly $130 billion dollars per year, and has put the country trillions of dollars in debt. It is inaccurate to say that we do not have the funds to secure our southern border (and inacceptable) when we waste billions of dollars per year fighting a war of aggression, and engaging in nation building. We invaded Iraq without a declaration of war (ONLY Congress can declare war), and we did so based on at best what would be considered exaggerated information, it is time for us to leave, the future of the Iraqi government is none of our business, and it does not in anyway effect our national security (the only Constitutional reason that we are permitted to declare war). We invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy Al-Qaeda and kill/capture Osama Bin Laden. We have failed miserably to do the latter, and doing the former is a futile effort. The people fighting us in Afghanistan now, are the Taliban, who simply want us out of their country. It is not our place to tell them what kind of government they should have, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say we should spread 'democracy' and 'freedom' by force. Recalling all of those troops from both regions, would give us the money and manpower to secure our border.

2. Recall all of our troops, and close down the army bases that we operate in 130 out of 190 countries around the world. Once again, nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for us to have military bases in foreign countries. This is akin to a modern day imperialism, and it does nothing to help the national security of the 50 states to have 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea, or to have several thousand troops stationed in Japan. The Constitution says that we should have a strong national DEFENSE. Our troops can do a much better job of DEFENDING our country from threats, at home. In addition, our country cannot afford to maintain such a strong worldwide presence anymore. We can free up billions of dollars per year to be spent at home, by ending our imperialism.

3. Use the funds from points 1.&2. to construct a strong border fence. Increase the budget and manpower of the Customs&Border Patrol to the necessary levels. Employ the National Guard and the Coast Guard (to patrol the waterways where Americans have been killed by Mexican drug runners) to further secure the border if necessary.

4. Use funds from 1.&2. to begin rounding up and deporting every illegal immigrant in the country. Set up a program by which, when illegal immigrants are arrested for motor vehicle crimes and such, they are not let go and given a court date as is the present system (because there is no formal system for deporting illegals, discovered to be illegals, in most states). The problem is not that we lack the laws to control illegal immigration, the problem is that we lack the ability to ENFORCE those laws, or do not have a clearly defined system to do so. Once an illegal immigrant is discovered, there is no question that deportation proceedings should be started immediately. NO AMNESTY should EVER be considered under ANY circumstances. It is counterintuitive to REWARD a person for BREAKING THE LAW. A person who enters our country ILLEGALLY is a CRIMINAL. They do not have the right to be there, it is identical to breaking into someones house. It is important though, that we establish and implement a strong plan to protect and enforce our border, otherwise massive deportation is futile.

5. Allowing unfettered illegal immigration does not benefit our country economically. You will hear arguments back and forth, and usually they are centered along party lines. One thing I find particularly funny, is that the "45 million uninsured Americans" included 20 million illegal immigrants in that number. It is absurd to think that criminals who broke into our country deserve a single public service provided by our country. Illegal immigration has REAL impacts economically on communities. Many municipalities in and near border towns are being BANKRUPTED, their schools, clinics, and other public services are being bankrupted. Illegal immigrants take from the town, while contributing no taxes. This is clearly unsustainable, as the town tries to support a surplus of people who are not paying taxes, while burdening the ones who do. According to one study, illegal immigration will cost each and every American tax payer $87,000 over their lifetime in taxes to support the various social welfare programs and healthcare that these illegals take advantage of.


Thats it for now...I dont have the time to address some of the inaccuracies stated in the thread, nor the patience.

[Public Enemy]

Great post godfather. But expecting America to fully turn back to what the constitution speaks of is impossible today. The America you describe in your post is what America is suppose to look like in a world that is not fighting for natural resources, imperial control, etc. The United States is committed to keeping the title of "The World Policeman" even if it means leaving its own backyard in ruins. Truth is that America is more concerned how the tyrant Saudi Royal family will manage and how the corrupt governments of Afghanistan and Iraq will bring security to their countries, rather than focusing on its own security.