How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Tough on Terror?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Tough on Terror?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


0 posted 03-02-2006 12:17 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Ok, so we got the UAE business deal regarding the ports and everyone is agog with turning it into a National Security fiasco.  So I have to wonder what all those who are shouting about National Security at are ports are doing, willing to do, thinking of doing about our other borders.  Namely the ones to the north and south, not just east and west.  What has Pelosi and Boxer done to secure their Californian border with Mexico?  How about Clinton and Rangle for New York ports controlled by China?  If memory serves, it was her husband who allowed that one.

And then I see footage from Arizona of illegal immigrants crossing onto private property and the aftermath.  Slaughtered animals and livestock, vandalism, litter, attacks on home and property owners.  Yet if a home or property owner tries to protect their property, family and livestock, they stand the very real possibility of being sued by Mexico, the ACLU, or Hispanic lobby groups and losing their property, livestock, and livelihood.  It happened in Texas after a rancher found illegals on his property, gave them food and water, then got sued by them for abuses they inflicted on themselves.  In Arizona, a rancher came across illegals on his property and detained them at gunpoint until Border Patrol could collect them.  Guess it doesn't matter that they were on his land with posted 'No Trespassing' signs, that they outnumbered him 10-1, or that firearms are a necessity in rural Arizona, quite apart from armed drug/people smugglers.  Another Arizonan, confined to a wheelchair, had rocks thrown at him by illegals after they harassed his family and vandalized his property.  He fired a shot in the air to scare them off, got sued by the Mexican government and won.  But his legal fees cost him his property.  And then there's the Pro Immigration lobbies decrying the violence done to 'undocumented workers' while conveniently ignoring the violence done by 'undocumented workers' to Americans, wanting tougher laws on Americans but no laws for non-Americans while giving them all American rights.

It's almost amusing.  If you support legal immigration, national sovereignty, property rights, the Bill of Rights, and family protection, you're Anti Immigration.  However, if you support completely open borders, full American rights, freedoms, and liberties for 'undocumented' workers, think that Americans should never defend their families, property or livelihood, and believe that once one sets foot on American soil they are an American citizen, then you get called Pro Immigration.  I'm all for legal immigration, and think the immigration process should be streamlined.  I also think the national language of the United States should be mandatory and that the Army and Air National Guard should be deployed along our borders.  They aren't under the same strictures as Active or Reserve components under the Posse Comitatus Act, and can be borrowed by Governors from other states.

And yes, I will continue to refer to those who enter this country illegally as illegal immigrants, not 'undocumented workers'.  I do wonder if those 'Pro Immigration' folks who utilize 'undocumented workers' also place drug smugglers, people smugglers, and arms traffickers under the same umbrella.  Maybe they refer to the Mexicans who keep entering Texas in Mexican military vehicles, wearing Mexican military uniforms, weilding Mexican military weapons, guarding Mexicans smuggling drugs into America as Temporary Americans.  Honorary Americans?  Undocumented Workers?  They claimed to believe they were still in Mexico chasing illegal militants from America.  50 miles into Texas having crossed the Rio Grande River?  Maybe their understanding of Mexico's geography and cartography stemmed from pre-1836 texts.

So lets review.  Many folks in government are against the port deal with that UAE company claiming National Security, but turn a blind eye and open hand to those crossing our national border illegally.  If you protect and/or defend yourself, your family, your property, your business, or your livelihood, you will lose everything.  If you want enforcement of the immigration laws already on the books, you're Anti Immigration.

It does make me wonder though.  If Mexico is as great as President Fox makes it out to be, then why in blue blazes are tens of thousands leaving his country monthly?  If it's quite OK for Mexico to have their military forces patrolling their borders, why can't ours?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 03-02-2006 12:54 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I'm very confused, bro.

Are you actually protesting and acknowledging inadaquencies of our residing Commander-In-Chief?

If you are? I am both impressed and worried.

After a full term in office, (rounded off in second term) it's kinda of casual to blame the current problems on an administration that is soooooooo six years ago.

So really, do tell?

Who are you pissed at?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


2 posted 03-02-2006 03:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


I don’t think anything short of someone bringing a
nuke in over the Rio Grande and setting it off
in San Francisco is going to overwhelm the
obstructionism regarding this issue.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


3 posted 03-02-2006 03:23 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I also think the national language of the United States should be mandatory ...

Me, too. I'm trying to learn Bodewadmi, the native language of the Potwawatomi here in Michigan, especially since there is a very real fear among local tribes that it will become extinct within the next fifty years. At my age, though, it's not easy learning a new language, and I have to admit I worry whether I should invest so much time.

After all, with my luck, I expect our national language will end up being Sioux.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


4 posted 03-02-2006 03:42 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

It's okay Ron.

I have watched "Dancing With Wolves" like, um,  ug-ha mi hi me ta ma ta, (this means, roughly, 72, which means in Islam, as we woud say "thousands" which would mean innumerable. No kidding. So when they say, 72 virgins, they mean, inumerable purveyances of purity.

I am so fluent in Sioux.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


5 posted 03-02-2006 04:13 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

ROTFL - This thread started out with a bang, then a boom, and gosh...any comment I could make would be pretty dull, I think.  You guys crack me up.  

You've got a good point, Alicat, for sure...I'm in total agreement.  Think the deal is the minority vote?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 03-02-2006 02:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Believe me, Ron, our national language IS sue!
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


7 posted 03-02-2006 02:36 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Believe it or not Michael, I knew that was coming, just didn't know when.
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


8 posted 03-02-2006 04:58 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

This comment is intended to highlight one example of just how badly (and how quickly) circumstances could turn when a US port is controlled by any foreign government:

Who remembers the attempted transfer by the Clinton Administration of the US Naval base at Long Beach, California to Chinese government control for exclusive use as a container terminal for import/export and as a free port for trans shipment?  This plan collapsed in great part due to an attempt by the players to smuggle machine guns into the US.

The players (excluding US politicians and US political parties):

China Ocean Shipping Company, or COSCO ( not the Columbus Specialty Company), is officially part of the Chinese navy and has the responsibility of state sanctioned export smuggling.

CITIC, the China International Trust and Investment Corp

NORINCO China North Industries Corporation is China’s primary manufacturer of small arms and ammunition

Poly Technologies, Ltd., a subsidiary of CITIC, is the primary commercial arm of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) General Staff Department's Equipment Sub-Department

The action:

Poly Tech, COSCO and NORINCO conspired in 1996 to smuggle via the COSCO ship “Empress Phoenix” 2,000 AK-47 assault weapons (the fully automatic version) into the United States through the port in Oakland for sale to street gangs.  In addition to the guns seized, the Chinese principals had offered to sell a variety of other weapons from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles.  The representatives of these Chinese government owned companies somehow managed to flee the country just prior to arrest.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


9 posted 03-02-2006 07:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


Why didn’t they just ship into Mexico
and then have the arms carried North?

icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


10 posted 03-03-2006 10:33 AM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

Huan Yi - The shipment of weapons were turned up in a "sting" operation.  COSCO was trying it as a test of their new approach to selling NORINCO products in the US.  Obviously, it did not work, COSCO's long range plans, once they took over the Long Beach Naval Yard, included a freight barge line from Mexico to Long Beach in which they intended to ship both declared items and contraband.  The amounts of weapons and drugs that were intended to be smuggled went way beyond the practical for old fashioned border smuggling.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


11 posted 04-10-2006 05:11 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I've been watching and hearing about all those pro-illegal protests and marches and a thought occurred to me.  Now this may take some clarification and understanding, as I'm not totally sure myself, but is there a Statute of Limitations on Federal laws?

If someone refused to pay their income taxes between 1980 and 1985, but paid their taxes before and after, are they still liable and responsible for breaking federal treasury law even 20 years later?  Yes.

If someone enters this country illegally 20 years ago, are they still responsible for breaking federal immigration law?

That's why I'm curious as to whether or not there is a Statute of Limitations on Federal laws.  If the answer is 'Yes, depending on the law', then each individual case must be weighed against federal law if said law applies.  If the answer is 'No statute of limitations on federal law', then what's all the immigration debate about?  If a committer of hate crimes can be arrested and tried 40 years after the fact, why not other breakers of federal law?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Tough on Terror? Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors