Pelosi pandering to illegals

[Kulindahr]

Given what you write here just answer one question if there were no oil in Iraq or the persian gulf area would we want bases badly enough there to invade a country.

If you answer no then dress it up any way you like but you do think it was about oil.

BTW by the same reasoning Bush's father would not have invaded Panama had the canal not been there. Countries go to war for reasons less ethereal than many seem to think.

The reason for invading was geopolitical. The fact that there is oil there is what makes the region geopolitically important, but that doesn't make the invasion about oil. It's similar to the old line about rape: rape is an act of sex, but rape isn't about the sex -- it's about power. The invasion of Iraq is in a place full of oil, but the invasion wasn't about the oil -- it was about power.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh yeah, we got so much oil from Iraq. Good one, that. LOL

Yes, they are our problem, and the problem can be solved by sending them back from whence they came.

No it won't, because unless the problem is solved in their home country, then they may come back(if not killed by the Coyotes or w/e for not being able to pay) with others.

Glafna's right. Sending them back doesn't solve anything, it just gets those particular illegals out of our hair. That would become an ongoing game, with illegals betting they could earn enough before they got caught to meet their goals, and the INS betting they could catch and deport illegals fast enough to discourage others.

This is in essence a mass migration, a population shift northward toward better living conditions. It happened in the past when the Mexico basin got dry and the southwest was better; this time the conditions are man-made, is all.

If you want deportation to have a significant impact, you have to seal the border.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, yes, if that is what you meant in your post.

As much as I hate to say it, it will give the US troops that they badly need, so they can stop ordering Stoploss(correct term??) on their troops coming back.(as far as I know, it's still going on)

Yes, that's what I meant. It wouldn't save them from the fine, because they still broke the law, but it would give a path to legality.

 

[HenryReardon]

If you want deportation to have a significant impact, you have to seal the border.

Of course you do. Seal it tight. Use the National Guard. Authorize them to shoot.
The flood will reduce to a trickle very quickly.

 

[Spensed]

^ Blood lust.

You could eliminate going over the speed limit in the same way.

 

[Glafna]

Of course you do. Seal it tight. Use the National Guard. Authorize them to shoot.
The flood will reduce to a trickle very quickly.

And then exactly how will the US look to the world then, hmmm???

I thought we covered this, shooting UNARMED and INNOCENT civilians is bad. Yes, there MIGHT be actual gang-bangers and criminals among them, but the majority just want a better life.

As if you give a fuck.

 

[Glafna]

Yes, that's what I meant. It wouldn't save them from the fine, because they still broke the law, but it would give a path to legality.

I meant the troops coming from Iraq being stoplossed, so they are forced to go on another term of duty, as opposed to being able to stay home. The fine is also a good idea, especially the 10 year payment plan. Possibly less of a fine if they can provide information on the whereabouts of the more bloodthirsty and despicable Coyotes.

 

[HenryReardon]

And then exactly how will the US look to the world then, hmmm???

I thought we covered this, shooting UNARMED and INNOCENT civilians is bad. Yes, there MIGHT be actual gang-bangers and criminals among them, but the majority just want a better life.

Who, besides the bedwetting liberals, cares what the rest of the world thinks.

Whether they want a better life is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the fact that they break our law when they break into our country.

A load of buckshot in the butt would be a powerful deterrent.

I realize that's a difficult concept to grasp, but it's not exactly rocket science, either.

 

[HenryReardon]

And then exactly how will the US look to the world then, hmmm???

.

Like a country that takes its borders seriously.

Any politician from the President on down who fails to secure our borders has violated his oath of office. Bush certainly did and Obama seems to be following the same path.

 

[Kulindahr]

I thought we covered this, shooting UNARMED and INNOCENT civilians is bad. Yes, there MIGHT be actual gang-bangers and criminals among them, but the majority just want a better life.

We also covered the fact that if they're illegally entering another country, they're not "innocent".

I meant the troops coming from Iraq being stoplossed, so they are forced to go on another term of duty, as opposed to being able to stay home. The fine is also a good idea, especially the 10 year payment plan. Possibly less of a fine if they can provide information on the whereabouts of the more bloodthirsty and despicable Coyotes.

Well, yes, they could help with the stoploss situation. I'd personally start with the National Guard folks... you know my idea that there should be a law that the NG stays here except in a formally declared war, as in Congress voting to say, "We declare a state of war exists between the U.S. and X".

The 'coyotes' -- those are the ones who should be shot on sight!

But not killed outright -- leave them crippled, so they can meet some real coyotes....

 

[HenryReardon]

But not killed outright -- leave them crippled, so they can meet some real coyotes....

Why is it, do you think, that so many people are so disinterested not to mention, unconcerned, with the fact that the US is being invaded and colonized by foreign nationals?

Of course, one of the respondents is not from the US, so his interest is, therefor, suspect.

 

[Spensed]

Why is it, do you think, that so many people are so disinterested not to mention, unconcerned, with the fact that the US is being invaded and colonized by foreign nationals?

Because it isn't.

Illegal immigrants are a problem, but, if they all left tomorrow, it wouldn't have a material positive impact on most people's lives.

Nor would it change the fact that the legal Latino population is fast growing.

 

[Spensed]

If only Rome hadn't been "invaded and colonized" by its disenfranchised slaves.

The lack of a material beneficial impact from dealing with a problem might suggest it's not as big a priority of a problem as folk are making it out to be.

In the overall scheme of things, the impact of these illegal immigrants doesn't make that significant a difference to the indigenous and/or perfectly legal evolution and diversification of American society.