or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Kyl vs the White House
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kyl vs the White House

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
So, we may now know why the president has not sent the national guard to Arizona.

Seems that he told John Kyl, senator from that state that if he sends them, there will be no reason for him to back Obamas immigration reform.

Playing politics again. That is Obamas forte. I just hope there isn't a nasty incident down there with the illegals, while he sits in the oval office making these "deals".

Too bad the Nixon taping system wasn't in operation during this conversation. Yes, it is only Kyls word against Obamas. But the scale tips to Kyl due to the fact that the guard still isn't in Arizona.
post #2 of 30
If the National Guard were to be sent to the border, what are they supposed to do? Sounds like just another politician playing politics to me.
post #3 of 30
Thread Starter 
The more the merrier! Put them in spots along the border where they are needed. I am sure there are areas where the invaders are more prevalent.

Arizona can't do it all....they need more law officers.
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
The more the merrier! Put them in spots along the border where they are needed. I am sure there are areas where the invaders are more prevalent.

Arizona can't do it all....they need more law officers.
Needed for what?
post #5 of 30
I think people would be much more in favor of Immigration Refrom if the Feds would secure the border first. I think that is what most people are in favor of.

post #6 of 30
Let's begin by someone explaining their definition of "secure the border"?

It sounds to me that there are people that don't want immigration reform, at all, but instead of admitting it, they demand something impossible in return and beforehand, like "secure borders".

Stalin had closed borders...but not secure ones.
post #7 of 30
Secure, as in, NO thousands of tons of drugs packed over, secure, as in, no human trafficking, secure, as in, no kidnappings.

Secure as in, the people living in the border states can feel relaxed enough to go on vacation without returning to a vandalized house. Secure enough that ranchers living near the border don't have to find dead bodies on their land on a regular basis.

Secure as in, ranchers living near the border don't have to constantly clean up human feces and trash by the ton on their land.

I could go on and on but what is the use? You don't seem to feel THESE American's have any rights.
post #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Secure, as in, NO thousands of tons of drugs packed over, secure, as in, no human trafficking, secure, as in, no kidnappings.

Secure as in, the people living in the border states can feel relaxed enough to go on vacation without returning to a vandalized house. Secure enough that ranchers living near the border don't have to find dead bodies on their land on a regular basis.

Secure as in, ranchers living near the border don't have to constantly clean up human feces and trash by the ton on their land.

I could go on and on but what is the use? You don't seem to feel THESE American's have any rights.
Ok, we know what you want, now;

How?
post #9 of 30
Secure the border means to put enough officers and barricades to stop people from walking across or back and forth other than at the manned official checkpoints of entry. One border patrol agent to cover 5 linear miles of unfenced terrain is definitely NOT ENOUGH! Why is it that every other civilized country can keep its borders secure except the USA?
post #10 of 30
Now back to the title of this thread, Kyl vs. the White House. When it comes to Kyl or Obama, who do you think is lying?

To me, its a no brainer. One has broken countless campaign promises which proves him a liar, and the other has a sterling reputation among his colleagues. Bet Obama cheats on his golf score too.
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Secure the border means to put enough officers and barricades to stop people from walking across or back and forth other than at the manned official checkpoints of entry. One border patrol agent to cover 5 linear miles of unfenced terrain is definitely NOT ENOUGH! Why is it that every other civilized country can keep its borders secure except the USA?
Other countries don't. There aren't any secure borders. There are closed borders, but none are secure.

Let's say we put enough men on an the southern border to be within arms reach of each other, for it's rough 2000 mile length. That's a bit over 2 million men. Then, you'd need at least 2 rotations, because they have to eat and sleep sometime, so with the odd numbers you're nearing 5 million. If one or two illegals rush through and they have to chase them, and it leaves an opening, how many others will come through while the decoys are being chased. Being a decoy could be quite profitable. This isn't even taking into account that the line could be bypassed by sea in anything from a stolen cruiser to an inner tube.

Will these borders guards have the yellow/red/black security lines like classified aircraft stationed overseas, where they're allowed to shoot to kill if the black line is crossed? Or are they just supposed to yell halt and order them to "go back or else?" Or, are they supposed to arrest them and take them for processing, leaving a hole in the line OR requiring even more troops to keep the line intact?

I want to know what the people who want secure borders expect the troops to do to secure it. Catch them? Kill them? Use harsh language and obscene gestures? And, the really big one...where do they want these troops to come from. The US is fighting two active operations, ticking off at least 2 allies which might become former allies, and shaking the "us" fist at at least one other. The bulk of our military is in combat, training and gearing up for combat, or standing down from combat.

Where are these huge numbers of troops going to come from?
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Now back to the title of this thread, Kyl vs. the White House. When it comes to Kyl or Obama, who do you think is lying?

To me, its a no brainer. One has broken countless campaign promises which proves him a liar, and the other has a sterling reputation among his colleagues. Bet Obama cheats on his golf score too.
But we're still on the title of the thread. Kyl wants a secure border. So, how does he want it done? If he's insisting on it, he must have a plan for doing it.
post #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Other countries don't. There aren't any secure borders. There are closed borders, but none are secure.

Let's say we put enough men on an the southern border to be within arms reach of each other, for it's rough 2000 mile length. That's a bit over 2 million men. Then, you'd need at least 2 rotations, because they have to eat and sleep sometime, so with the odd numbers you're nearing 5 million. If one or two illegals rush through and they have to chase them, and it leaves an opening, how many others will come through while the decoys are being chased. Being a decoy could be quite profitable. This isn't even taking into account that the line could be bypassed by sea in anything from a stolen cruiser to an inner tube.

Will these borders guards have the yellow/red/black security lines like classified aircraft stationed overseas, where they're allowed to shoot to kill if the black line is crossed? Or are they just supposed to yell halt and order them to "go back or else?" Or, are they supposed to arrest them and take them for processing, leaving a hole in the line OR requiring even more troops to keep the line intact?

I want to know what the people who want secure borders expect the troops to do to secure it. Catch them? Kill them? Use harsh language and obscene gestures? And, the really big one...where do they want these troops to come from. The US is fighting two active operations, ticking off at least 2 allies which might become former allies, and shaking the "us" fist at at least one other. The bulk of our military is in combat, training and gearing up for combat, or standing down from combat.

Where are these huge numbers of troops going to come from?
I want a minimum of 5,000 National Guard troops/Border Patrol Agents - hire and train more! Obama seems to have an endless supply of money to spend of wasteful projects, so he can spare a little for this one. I want a secure fence with motion detectors that would sound an alarm and turn on lights when someone attempts to scale it. I want heat sensitive night cameras. Tear gas, pepper spray, and yes, shoot to kill when needed. I want a tamper proof national ID card. I want the federal government to crack down on document mills that produce phony ID cards for the illegals. I want our federal government to act like it cares about our legal residents who are suffering because we can't control the illegal traffic across our borders.
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ok, we know what you want, now;

How?
The El Paso sector did it. They put border agents in positions where every agent could see the agent on either side of him, and could see the entire border in front of him. Totally shut down illegal crossings.

I don't know if they're still doing that, since I haven't been out there in a while.
post #15 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I want a minimum of 5,000 National Guard troops/Border Patrol Agents - hire and train more! Obama seems to have an endless supply of money to spend of wasteful projects, so he can spare a little for this one. I want a secure fence with motion detectors that would sound an alarm and turn on lights when someone attempts to scale it. I want heat sensitive night cameras. Tear gas, pepper spray, and yes, shoot to kill when needed. I want a tamper proof national ID card. I want the federal government to crack down on document mills that produce phony ID cards for the illegals. I want our federal government to act like it cares about our legal residents who are suffering because we can't control the illegal traffic across our borders.
5,000 troops, working only 2 shifts instead of 3, would only cover (not necessarily secure) about 30 miles of a 2000 mile border. Sounding alarms and turning on lights on a fence will do little good if it takes any time at all to get there, so you're back to having troops or guards in the immediate area. As for cameras...there are border cameras getting their pictures now; it doesn't seem to be of much help.

And they will need rules of engagement. What will constitute "when needed"? When do they shoot, and when do they pursue? Do they have line troops AND incursion troops? And who will be in charge of this whole thing. The Military, ICE, the Border Patrol, US Customs, or each state?

A tamper-proof national ID card might help on the employment front, but it still won't make any difference on the street. US Citizens aren't required to carry ID, and anyone they stop can simply claim to be a citizen.
post #16 of 30
Mike, I'm not going to argue with you about logistics. Suffice it to say I don't agree with you and I believe it can be done (securing the border). The issue is that the people in power who can make it happen, won't. The politicians (Bush as well as Obama) see this issue as a no-win, because they think they will lose votes if they make it a part of their platform. I believe the opposite is true. Americans are getting sick and tired of the EXPENSE that illegals bring, and I believe that a tough on the border policy candidate would be elected. Yes, the border can be secured with a combination of high tech and people.

For cripes sake, let Mexico take care of their own employment issues, and quit sending them over here. And if we are allowed to secure the border, we just might keep out a few terrorists and drug dealers too.
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Mike, I'm not going to argue with you about logistics. Suffice it to say I don't agree with you and I believe it can be done (securing the border). The issue is that the people in power who can make it happen, won't. The politicians (Bush as well as Obama) see this issue as a no-win, because they think they will lose votes if they make it a part of their platform. I believe the opposite is true. Americans are getting sick and tired of the EXPENSE that illegals bring, and I believe that a tough on the border policy candidate would be elected. Yes, the border can be secured with a combination of high tech and people.

For cripes sake, let Mexico take care of their own employment issues, and quit sending them over here. And if we are allowed to secure the border, we just might keep out a few terrorists and drug dealers too.
But the logistics IS why it can't be done. Not arguing about the logistics is to disregard the reality of it. A "secure border" is a pipe dream.

Look at how enormous the Soviet Border Troops contingent was...and they couldn't do it. Look at the Berlin wall, the Maginot Line, the Siegfried line, the "Great Wall"...they all did their job to some extent, with varying degrees of success; but not one of them "secured" the border they were built to protect.
post #18 of 30
Kyl & McCain are on Greta on Fox right now.
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
The El Paso sector did it. They put border agents in positions where every agent could see the agent on either side of him, and could see the entire border in front of him. Totally shut down illegal crossings.

I don't know if they're still doing that, since I haven't been out there in a while.
I notice Skippy didn't comment on this post.

Yes, it can be done, no politicians want to do it because of votes and culpability IMO.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I notice Skippy didn't comment on this post.

Yes, it can be done, no politicians want to do it because of votes and culpability IMO.
Why comment on it? They made a line at El Paso, and...? Did overall illegal immigration decrease, or did they simply walk around it?

If they made a line from sea to shining sea, they'd find a way through it, or use the sea to get around it.

If this will work all the way from Cuba, a little jaunt around a Berlin border fence would be a piece of cake.
post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But the logistics IS why it can't be done. Not arguing about the logistics is to disregard the reality of it. A "secure border" is a pipe dream.

Look at how enormous the Soviet Border Troops contingent was...and they couldn't do it. Look at the Berlin wall, the Maginot Line, the Siegfried line, the "Great Wall"...they all did their job to some extent, with varying degrees of success; but not one of them "secured" the border they were built to protect.
You know what? A whole lot of people, presumably smarter and more "in the know" than either of us disagree with your assessment! It CAN be done, if only it was a priority of the current administration.
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
You know what? A whole lot of people, presumably smarter and more "in the know" than either of us disagree with your assessment! It CAN be done, if only it was a priority of the current administration.
Really? Who are they? Politicians, pundits, commentators? BOTH sides know it can't be done, and both are refusing to admit it. One says security, then reform. The other says reform, then security...when both of them know they're not going to secure the border. To secure it with manpower will take millions of people and therefore, cost billions of dollars. And any technology man is capable of building, man is capable of beating. That's just how it is. The Berlin wall had sensors that would both fire pre-targeted automatic weapons AND detonate a nearby mine, and people still got through.
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Really? Who are they? Politicians, pundits, commentators? BOTH sides know it can't be done, and both are refusing to admit it. One says security, then reform. The other says reform, then security...when both of them know they're not going to secure the border. To secure it with manpower will take millions of people and therefore, cost billions of dollars. And any technology man is capable of building, man is capable of beating. That's just how it is. The Berlin wall had sensors that would both fire pre-targeted automatic weapons AND detonate a nearby mine, and people still got through.
How many? Hundreds? Thousands a day? BS.

If we could put a man on the moon in 1969, we can solve the border crisis. Bank on it. Obama and company just doesn't want to do it. It's not politically expedient in his eyes.
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
How many? Hundreds? Thousands a day? BS.

If we could put a man on the moon in 1969, we can solve the border crisis. Bank on it. Obama and company just doesn't want to do it. It's not politically expedient in his eyes.
If we could secure borders, there wouldn't be insurgents moving between Iraq and Turkey, or Pakistan and Afghanistan...and this was yesterday morning.
post #25 of 30
I would like to start by declaring an all out war on the drug cartels that have all out set up shop on American soil. Yes, that means shoot to kill. On sight. Don't want to be associated with them? Don't cross that magical line in the sand that is the border. Not until this is under control. Sure, fine, we've been "working" with the Mexican government/guard but that hasn't done anything to stop the drugs or the violence.

I want to stop the stories like this:

Mexican Drug Cartel Warns Police Officers in Arizona Border Town to 'Look the Other Way'

Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona

U.S. Parkland Bordering Mexico, Shut Since 2006, Remains Off-Limits As Violence Escalates

Federal Regs on Environment May Be Hindering Border Security, Lawmakers Say

Police in Ariz. Border Town Threatened by Smugglers After 2 Off-Duty Officers Thwart Drug Load

Drug Cartel Activities Threaten Texas Water Supplies, Lawmakers Say



Oh yeah...and that's just from Monday, June 21 and Tuesday, June 22. And it isn't the end of the news day today yet.

At this point the illegal immigration, that is a big problem, comes second. We can work with the laws that are already on the books Federally (if they would just step up and enforce them) and pass stricter laws on the companies/individuals who hire them (and enforce them too!!) that will "humanely" deal with the problem.

Or start a TNR program for them. That might work too.

(Yes that was said tongue in cheek!!!! Honest!!!)
post #26 of 30
valanhb for President!!!
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But the logistics IS why it can't be done. Not arguing about the logistics is to disregard the reality of it. A "secure border" is a pipe dream.

Look at how enormous the Soviet Border Troops contingent was...and they couldn't do it. Look at the Berlin wall, the Maginot Line, the Siegfried line, the "Great Wall"...they all did their job to some extent, with varying degrees of success; but not one of them "secured" the border they were built to protect.
If we could secure the border to the extent that the Berlin Wall "strongly discouraged" going from East to West Berlin that would be a HUGE step.
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
If we could secure the border to the extent that the Berlin Wall "strongly discouraged" going from East to West Berlin that would be a HUGE step.
Exactly!

Mike is saying that since we can't secure the border 100%, we shouldn't bother at all. That is ridiculous. The more obstacles we put up, the more criminals we keep out. Seems pretty simple to me.

There is no guarantee that a bank won't be robbed. But that is no reason to remove all the security cameras, safes, locks, and security guards - just because these security measures might not be enough to thwart all robbery attempts.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Exactly!

Mike is saying that since we can't secure the border 100%, we shouldn't bother at all. That is ridiculous. The more obstacles we put up, the more criminals we keep out. Seems pretty simple to me.

There is no guarantee that a bank won't be robbed. But that is no reason to remove all the security cameras, safes, locks, and security guards - just because these security measures might not be enough to thwart all robbery attempts.
That is precisely why I asked for the definition of a "secure border" before saying anything. And the definition given, that no one else has contested, is "Zero this, zero that, zero the other".

If you want to move the goal posts, that's fine.
post #30 of 30
Heidi, I think the TNR idea a pretty dang good one myself.

Add this one to your list. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22...a-border-town/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Kyl vs the White House