Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by glocke12, Feb 21, 2009.
Now this is unbelievable.
So- are you for or against this?
sucks to live in florida or northeast huh lol
Personally, I'm with the ACLU on this one.
Same here, but the guy in the video in that article reminds me of the stereotypical crazy person that lines their house with tin-foil to prevent the government and aliens from listening in on their conversations.
"Your papers, please."
I note in passing that the ACLU has just now discovered the Border Patrol. Checkpoints away from the border with Mexico have been in operation since at least 1972 that I personally know of.
At any rate, what is the alternative? Play "Allee, allee in-free" if one gets past the borderline? We know as hard fact beyond any doubt that seriously bad people are coming into the U.S. in an illegal manner. MS-13 types, for sure. Zetas, for another. The law says, "No druggies," regardless of my/our views about those laws. It seems reasonable to believe that if entry here were easier, we could well have Jihadists essay entry when bent on evil.
So what is the alternative? Threats exist; what do you suggest should be done?
Im against it.
Desertrat, are you sure this is not something more recent thats been enacted?
Some would comment that the US has been a constitution free zone in its entirety for some time now.....
glocke12, the BP has been made part of the Homeland Security stuff, so that's a chage; expanded authority. But the main change as such is an increase in the number of personnel and the number of checkpoints.
It helps to look at state highway maps. For instance, there's an old railroad right of way from Columbus, NM, to El Paso, TX, which runs right along the border's 3-strand barbwire fence. I've driven it. Nothing for miles and miles but miles and miles of nothing. The only way to control illegal entry is to patrol it; good luck on that. I imagine now that there are ground sensors and suchlike. But the actual catching generall occurs at choke points for travel, which are along our highways. West of Las Cruces, NM, e.g, for crooks headed toward Arizona or California. East of El Paso near Sierra Blanca. North of El Paso toward White Sands.
Same on east in Texas. Choke points on Hwys 67, 118 and 385 going north from the border. East and west of Del Rio. I've gone through all of them.
Most U.S. folks don't realize that walking twenty or thirty miles to evade some border check is just no big deal. Easy enough to walk from that railroad right of way to a prearranged pickup point on I-10.
Used to be, there were regular "walkers" who'd come from deep in Mexico and walk from the border to San Antonio. We used to see them on a deer-lease ranch north of Uvalde, Texas. Nowadays, it's more "coyotes" with vehicles.
IOW, times change, methods change, and enforcement changes--but the basic system is pretty much the same as it always has been. Even before the Homeland Security began, a BP guy could ask anybody, anywhere, about their citizenship.
glocke12 seems to have a penchant for posting a link and not really giving a hint to his feelings, which is fair enough if it is obvious, but it would aid debate if he would give his argument for/against things like this.
Not that I don't already know where glocke12 stands on these matters, but it'd aid debate
I wasnt really looking for a debate. I posted something I thought would be interesting to this group that has not been posted yet on this forum.
Im not really sure what to make of this statement:
But if the phrase "this is unbelieveable" does not give you an idea of where i stand on this, my response to Lee later in this thread should clarify things.
'Rat, Ive lived in the west, so can understand the problems the BP faces, but still, this seems to be open to much abuse.
I take it as you're very predictable.
Anyway, the main point remains that you've not really added anything to this section with this thread. Why not share your view as you saw it as interesting.
oh good grief. So did you predict that I would say I am against this? I guess that means you probably think Im lying when I say that I am against this?
As I said before, I really wasnt looking for a debate on this, but in any case I found it interesting because I have not heard of this before, and came across it while searching for something else and it surprised me that something like this has stayed under the radar of even the more left leaning news organizations.
My problem is with the verbiage "constitution free", to me that suggests that in these designated zones the constitution does not apply. I'm sure the ACLU is being specific on just the border patrols but you start throwing around "constitution free" and that could lead to a greater problem....
This thread was closed as it was clear that the " Be willing to engage in fact-based debate" rule comes in to play.
Many posts have been removed.
If someone feels they want to discuss this further feel free to PM me and I'll see what I can do.