Minuteman Project A Success

“This has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called Minuteman people,” Christiana Halsey, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection Bureau said.

“Along with trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, Halsey said, the ongoing aim of the initiative is to reduce smuggling and other criminal border activity and to cut the number of migrant deaths.”

These statements from our newly formed, and very expensive, Homeland Security Department just about says it all.

First it is highly political. Who but a dishonest politician would make a false statement like the first above, to cover their own incompetence.

Second, notice the ‘goal’ of our Homeland Security Department is to ‘cut the number of migrant deaths’, not ‘cut the number of aliens crossing our borders illegal’.

I would just hate to have the job of these Border Patrol Agents, knowing I have been given a dangerous job that is impossible to do with NO SUPPORT from the people that hired me.

LaShawn,
I included you in today’s MMP post on my little ol’ livejournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/lornkanaga/33781.html

I concur, Digger, but it’s a lot better than “zero.”

If the only goal was to prevent deaths then setting water bottles every 50 yards or so would be a lot cheaper.

The real problem here is that smuggling illegals into the US is a business, a business with money and guns. Homeland Security is trying to avoid having the Minuteman (with/without guns) run into the immigration entrepreneurs (with guns) as this could be bloody.

Unfortunately, lost in all this safety is the goal of immigration control.

Lorn: I have even harsher things to say about this issue, but I can’t. Bush has never cared about illegal immigration because he’s from a border state where people need to hire them for seasonal work and/or to help their profits. Cheap labor is important, no matter what country you’re talking about.

We’re supposedly one of the most civilized nations on earth, but the powers that be have consistently created a substandard culture. It’s not just a matter of money–there has to be an attitude that this country will not tolerate any of this any longer. It’s not just illegal immigration–there have been slaves, indentured servants, and convicts dumped here, too.

Canada, which a lot of people complain about as being liberal, has a point system. If they’re so liberal, why isn’t their population exploding every year? Actually, the entire Commonwealth has tougher standards–in Australia, they aren’t too keen on illegal immigrants, and tend to “hold” them in certain areas until they are deemed as true refugees. And then there’s Singapore and Japan, but they’re in Asia, so maybe they don’t “matter.”

The government complains that they don’ know where the ‘illegals’ are, but in the next breadth they claim there are about 11 million of them. How can they know how many there are if they don’t know where they are ?

As far as Canada goes MJ, how can you compare them to the US, all one needs to do is to look at the GNP and it is instantly clear that it is easier to get a job in Conus than it is in Canada.

Also even if they wanted to go to Canada now they have a 2500 mile walk to the next border, impractical.

I read somewhere where the Governor of Arizona, (??) decided to disaregard the law about illegals in a proposition that the people voted for, since he knows best, The whole problem is politicians be they Republican or Democrat in some aspects there is not a dimes worth of difference and it is the dime they are after.

mj–thanks for the clarification.

Quite frankly, I agree. We need to make the penalties for hiring illegals heavier, we need to make the penalties for the “slavers” (ie, those who import illegals for domestic/whatever tasks, pay them pittance, and threaten them if they try to leave) exceedingly harsh, and we need to fix our immigration laws so that those who want to come here to work, CAN–if they want to stay then they can apply for permanent residence/citizenship; if they want to work and go home then they can do that as well.

Those who knowingly hire illegals are a major part of this problem. The “slavers” need to do hard prison time–d**n-it, slavery was outlawed here more than a hundred years ago and now these cheap b****ds are trying to “disguise” it by paying their “servants” a pittance.

I want immigration in this country–I want the best and the brightest and the hardest workers all over the world clammoring to get in–but I want it done right. This country’s greatest strengthes come from the blending of differing cultures; we keep the best and toss the worst of other cultures, as we should. But we stay strong through competition–with each other and with the rest of the world. Success comes with hard work, and that’s what makes this country great.

[sorry--turning rant mode off now]

Again, mj, thanks for the clarification.

I think Lornkanaga has the point. There may be issues important to Bush’s wealthy backers/bankrollers that just don’t resonate with the average voter. In turn a politician will try to downplay certain issues that could catch the ear of the average voter but prove awkward to discuss because Bush could not reconcile the conflicting stances of the average voter with that of his bankrollers. And immigration is one of these issues. I agree that an effort is needed to make Bush realize that the issue will not go away. If he turns a deaf ear then pressuring Senators and Congressmen seems to be the way to go. I am always surprised that this Administration continues to try to convince us that immigration policy has no significant impact on national security.

Robin–also, here’s a little something in the Arizona Capitol Times that shows pre- and post-start figures, but just through Apr 3: http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&aamp;ArticleID=1948

It lists apprehensions for the first three days of April at nearly 400.

All these politicians and the President included are going to be looking really bad if there is another attack via the Mexican Border,..Then maybe they will stop looking with their, hands out, and start looking with their eyes.

The President of Mexico is no help he does everything but tell them to go and how to do it then turns around and tells us , they will sue if any of his people get hurt,

… Now that is chutz-pah.

Be reminded that “illegal immigration” is not the primary issue here…national security is. Also remember that 200 of the Border Patrol agents came from Texas and California, leaving those areas more vulnerable. The other 300 are recruits in training and have not yet been deployed. Don’t get distracted by discussions of low wages, illegal employers, bad Mexican government, etc. We have to stay focused on one issue only…we are at risk from terrorists crossing the border. 1 Million illegals are apprehended every year while it is estimated that 2 million get through. We are in much more danger from terrorist attacks than we are from illegal workers. Bush needs to put the Guard at the border NOW! By definition they are to GUARD the NATION!

“and we need to fix our immigration laws so that those who want to come here to work, CAN – if they want to stay then they can apply for permanent residence/citizenship;”

This is the root of the problem here. These people come over illegally to attempt to better their lives, and the lives of their families, but honestly, the Gov’t makes it damn near impossible for ANYONE to get permission to work here, nevermind stay here permanently. Speaking from experience, something needs to give with INS’ restrictions and SLOW processing.

About Canada: yeah, their economy relative to ours isn’t great, but compared to 90% of the world, it’s great. About nat’l security: I fear that one day terrorists, legal or not, are going to pay some wasted homeless guy to walk into a large building with a bomb under his coat to blow the place up. I also think we’ve been in danger of murderous gangs for a very long time–composed of legal and illegal immigrants and Americans.

“Why doesn’t the US border patrol hire some illegal aliens to guard the border? They would probably do as well as the border patrol.” Ratso Hilarious!

Please excuse the lengthy post, but some things can’t be said in five lines.

Excellent posts, all. However, I encourage you to read William Safire’s classic “Freedom” if you want some context on the times we live in. It’s easy to lambast Pres Bush for failing to control the southern border, and the natural tendency of outraged citizens these days is to look for the worst possible motives behind that failure. However, we do ourselves, and Pres Bush, a disservice by not looking at the larger picture. It’s true Pres Bush is from a border state–that simple fact alone sensitizes him to the situation. I also like to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to motives for his actions.

Bill Safire provides an interesting perspective on Lincoln’s motives during the first couple of years of the Civil War. Lincoln recognized that until he had built a consensus for certain actions (e.g., Emancipation), he could not do everything he wished, or that the more vocal Abolitionists and war boosters supported. As Safire describes it, “…he had to lead public opinion, but he couldn’t be too far in front of it…” Lincoln realized, as I think Pres Bush realizes, that leading a large, complex country is more about keeping your major goals in the forefront and avoiding issues that detract from attaining your goals. Pres Bush’s primary goal is to defeat terrorist states overseas—not create them here in the Western Hemisphere.

FACT: the “government of Mexico” is mostly fiction. The “government” of Mexico is not Vicente Fox and his troop of clowns…the real government consists of drug kingpins, crime bosses, and influence-buying business patrones (the spelling is correct) who preserve the fiction of a central government so there’s a more or less credible mask for their activities. The “government” of Mexico has very little real power. The real government (the thugs) preserves this fiction so they can continue their illegal activities in the background…this need for a semblance of legitimacy is the only restraint on the thugs who’re the real power in Mexico. Pres Bush knows this…and Vicente Fox knows that Pres Bush knows this. Pres Bush also knows that if the US really locks down the border (which could easily be done) then Mexico will explode, the semblance of a legitimate government will be destroyed, and Mexico will become a rogue nation. In other words, we’ll have created a failed state, ripe for terrorist activity, on our southern flank. How do you say “Somalia and Mogadishu” in Spanish?

So, Pres Bush’s choices with respect to border enforcement are “Poor” and “Awful.” He has opted for Poor: a porous border with increased efforts by the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies to identify and head off terrorist incidents, rather than police the border as effectively as we (and he) might wish. He realizes 99.9% of the people sneaking across the border are no danger…they’re simply desperate people trying to live decent lives. He’s decided to focus on running the dangerous ones to ground if/when they enter the country. It’s a lousy way to do business, but the alternative is to enrage millions of desperate people, create a fertile ground for terrorist recruiting, and create a rogue nation next door. Do you really want to risk large-scale terrorist raids in the border states by Mexican terrorists, armed with weaponry from the Mexican Army, or see the Mexican Navy used to run drugs into the US? Do you realize that a Mexico subverted by criminals and terrorists would quickly start trying to topple Central American and South American governments? Do you want to see the US military invade Mexico in order to establish a buffer zone between us and them? Can you imagine the effect this would have on domestic US politics?

Bad as it seems, the present status quo is better. A better option is a guest worker program that allows Latin American workers to cross the border after registering, providing a DNA sample, and undergoing a health screening. In fact, such a program would be a major blow against the Mexican crime bosses, since they’re the ones who make all the money off helping people sneak over the border. Furthermore, registering them and allowing them to work here in the US will enable us to tax them, know where they are, and decrease the risk of terrorists crossing (because anyone trying to cross without registering is automatically up to no good). Finally, a legitimate guest worker program encourages them to remain Mexican citizens, rather than becoming underground US residents (i.e., they can go home for visits without having to worry about getting back across the border).

HEKTOR

Today’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a short blurb about the announcement by Homeland Security that its $237 million sensor/listening system has serious design flaws. So even if the BP was doing their due diligence, they can’t even do a respectable job.

This problem will solve itself in one of two ways:
1) Electorates get angry enough to threaten the eviction of their elected officials unless policy is enforced/changed. Novel Enlightenment/Revolution/Constitution idea: Politicians govern by the consent of the govern, get it?
2) A disaster forces politicians to take direct action. This is the more likely scenario since most of our politicians are reactionaries (to borrow from Politburo Diktat) instead of leaders.

I figure I won’t be around for either, since the current fad here in Texas is to shoot high school coaches.

Hektor makes a good point about what could happen south of the border if it were sealed. But what is the more important priority? Immediate security (as immediate as the government can make it) or placating the neighbors for potentially future security. I err on the side of immediate security. Latin American countries have long hated us and they will continue irregardless of our policies (re: Osama chants at Mexico-U.S. World Cup qualifier). Our best bet for security if in fact these future/former illegals become terrorists is to keep them out. Period. However, this is altogether unlikely since there are too many economic pressures from all sides at play.

Chris–we could straighten out our illegal immigrant problem with proper immigration reform; that’s the only semi-sorta ligitimate reason for not closing the border. A guest worker program, properly administered, could not only satisfy corporate America but could add quite a few jobs as well. I see companies forming that would screen prospective workers, then help companies “import” their workers for the jobs needed.

Great hearing from you Stan!

No, I’m not being distracted–and I agree with you the issue is national security. The point I’m making is that the calls to “seal the border”, while self-gratifying, will eventually give us a much worse national security problem. If the Mexican government collapses and a gangster government replaces it, we’ll have to deal with an overtly hostile nation to our south. It’ll make common cause with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Castro’s Cuba, and will subvert other nations already fighting drug lords. The question really becomes “Which course better supports national security in the long run?” I think that acknowledging the fact that the US will always be a tremendous attraction for poor, destitute people south of the border, and that they’ll continue to try to enter regardless of how tightly the border’s sealed, is the place to start. You can call out the National Guard if you wish, but guess what happens the first time a desperate teenager, or a young mother carrying an infant, gets shot…that’s the end of the Guard’s participation, or the end of the state government that sent them. Also, understand that the National Guard is comprised of state residents who have “day jobs.” Calling them up translates into a significant economic impact, both upon them and their communities. They can be called up for short-term emergencies, but a governor who calls them up to defend the state’s borders had better be willing to keep them on station indefinitely, and he/she will have to fight increasingly negative public opinion all the way. Besides, defending international borders isn’t a STATE responsibility–it’s a federal responsibility. We’re already tapped out on active duty military personnel and have mobilized over 40% of our reserves (which includes the Guard) simply so we can rotate units out of Iraq and Afghanistan. A governor can only call up his/her own Guard units, not another state’s. If his/her Guard already has units overseas, then there’s that many fewer available for the state to send to the border. [Incidentally, a state's National Guard is comprised of Air, Naval, and Army units, of which the Army components are the most needed in this instance...these are also the units most heavily mobilized for service overseas]

Furthermore, we’re not dealing with just Mexican immigrants; it’s immigrants from every nation south of the Rio Grande. And, I didn’t say 99.9% have “good intentions”–I said they’re no danger. My use of 99.9% is probably in error, but I don’t think by much. The problem is, right now we have millions of illegals swarming across the border because that’s the only way they can get in. A 5+ year waiting list for a green card doesn’t appeal to starving people. On the other hand, making it easy for them to enter legally (I didn’t say give them amnesty or automatic citizenship) makes it easier for us to keep track of them. Quite simply, if former illegals no longer have to pay thousands of dollars to Coyotes (the human smugglers) to get them across the border, when they can apply for a guest worker pass and enter for free, which do you think they’ll opt for? That’s what I meant when I said the only ones who’ll still attempt to enter illegally are the ones we want to catch. There’ll be no public outcry if we seal the border in order to catch THEM…as long as the harmless ones have the opportunity to come.

I also said they’d be less likely to stay. Most Latin Americans feel about their countries of origin the way we feel about ours. There may be many things wrong in their countries of origin, but it’s still home. Most of them will come here to work, but they’ll send money home, and will go home on vacations, holidays, etc. The money they send home will go a lot further there than here…they’re aware of that. With respect to “peasants doing what they’ve always done” it’s worthwhile remembering that in 1916 the US sent a punitive expedition under Gen Pershing into Mexico because a peasant bandit named Pancho Villa was raiding across the border, attacking US towns. Mexico was at the time fighting a bloody civil war…do we really want to help that happen again?

I’ll save a discussion about Lincoln’s motives, the degree to which he was/wasn’t attached to Emancipation, etc., for a later conversation. What I believe is more important are his words to his Secretary of State, John Seward (the guy who bought Alaska for two cents an acre). During the Civil War Britain was not-so-covertly supporting the Confederate cause (the Confederate raider CSS Alabama was built and launched in Britain). Seward was goading Lincoln to take a more muscular stance with the British, to go to war with them if need be. Lincoln’s response was: “One war at a time, John.” These words have meaning today, when it comes to the porous southern border. I think Lincoln would tell us today to beat the terrorists we’re fighting now, before we stir up more terrorism in our own backyard.

Great talking with you, Stan. Look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers//HEKTOR

Spot on Hektor. There are so many linkages, to simply say that Bush alone is to blame is nonsense.

Sealing the borders tight is futile and at what price?

Quick figures:
US – Mex Border, approx 1300 Miles, or 7,022,400 feet, round it to 1,500 miles to account for terrain. According to http://www.hooverfence.com/download/dindex.htm:
Retail price for a 12 ft HD Chainlink Fence with Barbed Wire would cost approx $56,080,748, plus installation of $737,990,336 (if we use Ratso’s suggestion, we can save mucho Dineros for labor) Total suggested price is $794,071,084.00 Tack on another billion or two to add an intelligent fiberoptics mesh for intrusion detection.

But since it would be a major govt contract with competitive bidding/discounting, we can keep the overall estimate at around 3/4 trillion dollars, give or take a few billions.

Is securing our Mexican border worth 1/10 of our GNP after figuring in the existing border control infrastructure? Before you say yes, factor in the additional hits to your pocket book from the raised cost of living and the inevitable wave of business bankruptcies. So much for Bush’s bankrolling buddies.

And for a concrete wall, a la the Berlin Wall, the price would go up some more.

Just a thot.

Stan: Maybe I missed it, but what do you do in Cambodia?

Considering we have over a 7 Trillion dollar creditcard debt(that is $100,000 for every legal man, woman and child in the US, mostly owed to China), a Berlin Wall in reverse(we are not trying to keep people from leaving) would be a small investment compared to the debilitating debt burden non-tax paying illegal migrants are costing tax paying legal citizens/immigrants of the US.

Our out-of-control debt threatens our national security, and the stability of the rest of the world, by constricting our options when nations holding our debt act against our interest.

The most immediate example is China. They are building their military, performing exercises near Taiwan, and making military threats toward a democratic country we have committed to protect. They are now in the enviable position of being able to compromise our response by threatening to call for payment on all the US Gov’t notes(debt) they now hold and we cannot pay. The financial term for this is bankruptcy.

I am asking our elected representitatives to do their job and deal with this illegal immigration boil. Another 80 Billion dollars of debt is being asked for by the President to support the freedom of Iraq. This request is being held up by the House until Border Security/INS law modifications they ask for, and the President promised to revisit if they let the National Security Directory bill pass some time ago. Please email or call your House and Senate representitatives in Congress to support the holdup of more debt until we have real Homeland Security.

He knows his constituents want something done, but he’s a politician, and politicians (of ANY ilk) have backers/bankrollers

Any politician who cares more about his bankrollers than his constituents is, by definition, corrupt. So are you saying Bush is corrupt?

If conservative politicians really believed anything they said concerning illegal immigration, there would be laws with criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens.

flaime–if you want to talk about corruption, talk about how much money Clinton earned for the DNC during his 8 years in the White House. A night in the Lincoln Bedroom? Hefty donation. A ride on Air Force One? Another hefty donation.

Stan…I think you were answering MJ’s question. I’ve been privileged to read a very good rundown of your Cambodian mission you provided last month. A very moving description, and a very noble enterprise.

Respectfully//HEKTOR

Andy: As distasteful as it is to disagree with you, I must. The issue here is whether or not the United States is a nation or not. That is, a nation, any nation, has the right to protect and preserve itself, and in that is the right to protect our frontiers. The United States is a real nation (actually, it is a union of 50 sovereign states, the concept of which has been attenuated almost to nothingness, but never mind) America is for Americans. The United states either is a nation with a distinct people or is a post-modern non-nation.

Sounds racist? It isn’t. Americans consist of the White majority but also native Blacks and Hispanics and others. But a healthy society ought to be concerned with preserving and protecting its own, and, judged by our leadership (and not necessarily just political leadership), that appears to be slipping away.

So, beyond the question of these people bringing in their corruption, the depressed wages, the strain on the infrastructute (ask any Californian medical worker), and the crime; we must, MUST consider the cultural question.

Andy: I am humbled. Your comments have given me cause to re-evaluate my position; something I do not do very often. Perhaps military intervention isn’t the proper way to go, but the spirit of what I have written will have to stand. Also, I would like to make the following remarks regarding what you have written:

* I believe the phrase you are seeking is “Posse Comitatus”

* What is going on now hardly merits the definition of “internal disputes” because the people in question arrive from a foreign source. (your solution might be more worthy, re: the federal DMZ along the border)

But nonetheless, you are right on target. Also, your recall of the Constitution is uncanny!

Mark, PS. I concur with the spirit of your stand. Something has to be done, but how?

talk about how much money Clinton earned for the DNC during his 8 years in the White House.

Yes? But he was corrupt too. Then again, I don’t think lawyers should be chosen to make laws.

Andy,
Interesting concept…it seems that the state legislature (ex. Arizona) would need to initiate and approve said purchase of land for forts, etc. Or could Congress propose it themselves and AZ legislature approve? How do you read it?

Suzie–excellent arguments.

stan–you’re quite right; I need to do that as well.

PS. The foolproof, failsafe ID system will be to put a mark on your forehead or hand.

That won’t be necessary. I do believe that this society is already in a severe state of lockdown as it is. Nor do we need to deport every last one of them. Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” was sucessful because, in addition to those captured and sent back, it sent a clear message that a mass incursion will not be tolerated by the U.S. The message we are sending now is tacit approval, an overall winking at the problem and a cozying up to President Fox and his schemes.

As far as what we are to do, I think what we are doing has value in itself. It begins here at the grassroot level with informed citizens, and especially those who have joined the Minutemen in their quest. Much better, it would seem, than trying to contact our elected representatives [though we ought to do that as well, give 'em heck]. They are, in the main, bought and sold by the forces who wish a post-national New World Order and the end of sovereignty and borders. One shining exception is Tom Tancredo — how I wish I was in his district, I am about two miles further North in the district of Bush Bootlicker Bob Beauprez, Bah! Rep. Tancredo has even spoke at the minutemen’s opening day in Tombstone, Ariz.

Mark, all I can say is that I think the tide is turning against the pro-undocumented base.

Barring Federal intervention, what States can do is rollback all of the giveaways and what have you that encourage illegals to take advantage of our system. Rollback the right to free schooling, healthcare, translation/bi-lingualism. You want to work? Learn English and USE it. Public officials shouldn’t even give you the time of day en Espanol if you’re illegal.

And no, the judicial branch does not have the last word, contrary to what the MSM/DNC would have us believe. They can be countermanded and if need be impeached by the legislative branch.

You know, there was a reason why originally the Senate was supposed to be chosen by the legislature of the home State — ACCOUNTABILITY!!! The Senate is not a place to maintain a career. They’re to come in and represent their State’s interest and not give a rat about some namby-pamby global test.

Stan, it may be semantics to you, but I think there is a different dynamic at work whether a Senator is sent by public voters or sent by legislative branch. Sort of the dynamic vis a vis over the Bolton confirmation. Imagine if we the voters got to directly elect someone to the UN.

I’m not arguing about protecting the opportunities of folk from south of the border. I’m arguing that if there’s no relief on their pressures that they will explode and the damage could be greater than the damage by a terrorist bomb.

Afterall, we already have 10 – 20 million illegals within our midst that could make anything inflicted by a bunch of misogynist ragheads look like a minor incident. Not that I “fear” illegal immigrants, because I truly believe a majority only want a better chance. But like a cornered animal will attack a much larger foe, 10 million people who feel like they’re running for their lives will act irrationally and unpredictably.

Which is a greater loss? A couple million in DC/NYC from a terroist attack or millions down south? That’s my “Kantian” point that perhaps better that some die at the hands of evil doers in spite of my efforts to prevent it, but I wouldn’t want to be party to a policy that is equally deadly to those whose only crime is to be born “American” in spirit but stuck in another land, just so we can maintain our sense of status quo.

Before you wig out and accuse me of being anti-American, let me say that I’ve always believed that we should spend our blood and treasure to defeat tyranny. Manifest destiny? Perhaps. But I happen to believe that when we say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, the truths aren’t unique to America.

Throwing money at some organization (UN) and hope the problem goes away somehow or that if we tolerate/prop up a “friendly” dictator, things will maintain some sort of status quo (read real-politic) is a crock.

I mean defeat tyranny, like we’re doing in Iraq and should have done in ‘91. like we should have stood up to Hitler early on saving 10s of millions at the cost of a couple million. Or like Hungary, or like Czechslovakia, or like Poland, or like Rawanda, or like Sudan, or like Cambodia, or like any other place that tyranny dares rear its head. Like whack-a-mole.

But I’d wager you this, had we had the moral backbone then, we wouldn’t have seen half of what we’re seeing now.

Stan–thanks for the explanation–sounds like a VERY tough undertaking. I thought my question wasn’t posted, which is why I just read your answer.

Andy,
I need to think your ideas through a little more but it’s really good work for you to have put something specific together.

Stan,

I have written, called and got directly in my government officials face, they do not care about this issue, because they are benefiting from this crime.

The only people who want these illegal immigrants here, are the illegal immigrants, themselves, their families and the traitors reaping the financial and political windfall of this crime.

I have done the work of calling, writing, like the Minutemen, we are going to have to get physical about it.

All they have to do, to rid our great country, of these invaders, deputize Americans, believe me, we will get the job done.

When I say physical, I do not mean violent. I mean, get off our sofas, and act.

Tell me. If we are going to continue to have immigration, who do we allow in?

Only those of hispanic descent? Sounds racist to me.

You want action? Know of any illegal day workers, hanging around on the corners of your streets, to steal jobs from Americans?

Well, unemployed Americans, should be right there at those same sights, demanding, their treasonist countrymen, hire them.

Action, action, action, we must stop the talk.

Why is it hundreds of illegal Mexicans, can unite to flood the stairways of our courthouses and demand their rights, when they are suppose to be so hard working.

Most Americans, do not have that kind of time, because they really are hard at work.

It is our job to remove these illegal immigrants. We have every right to protect our country.

But we must be of one mind, and one accord.

I am increasingly, becoming ashamed, to call myself an American.

We use to be tough, now we have become a bunch of pansies, allowing everyone to walk all over us.

We are allowing another country to take us over, and all they have to do is walk across our border.

Thank you,

Suzie, in Ohio

Have a great day.

Obviously, the military is not waiting around on the politicians to make a decision before making plans to secure the border.

Preventing Armageddon I: Enhancing America’s Border & Port Security After 9/11
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/nov/zellenNOV04.asp