« Ned Lamont vs Joe Lieberman | Main | Wingnuts Against Women »


May 15, 2006

Our SOUTHERN Border (wink wink)

-- by Dave Johnson

How come our NORTHERN border isn't a problem to the Republicans?

AP Wire | 05/15/2006 | Text of Bush's speech on immigration,

At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in.

... up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border.

...we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans...

...nd I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end "catch and release" at the southern border once and for all.

Republicans and people people with brown skin...

Posted by Dave Johnson at May 15, 2006 5:37 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1876


Comments

Last I checked, we don't have millions of illegal aliens crossing from Canada each year.

We do have a serious vulnerability with Canada being quite tolerant of terrorist organizations and the possibility that they would infiltrate via that border. That needs to be taken care of.

Note also that the Minuteman Project did do some patrols on the Canadian border.

Other than simply calling people names, do you have any arguments?

Posted by: BigMediaBlog [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 15, 2006 6:00 PM

It was too controversial to put troops into New Orleans, and there has been some resistance to putting troops at the polling places, why not put troops on the border?

Besides that, Mexicans will carry the biometric ID that Americans don't.

Posted by: grannyinsanity [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 15, 2006 10:51 PM

I don't know that it was too controversial to put troops in New Orleans.But a good share of the troops that would have been deployed at that time were not home and their equipment was gone too.National Guard troops are very often deployed on their home ground..ie, their own state,unless they and their equipment are already thousands of miles away.Then that would mean they are not there to deploy locally.Not in their own state, where they maybe should be, cuz they are not regular army you know.They are the National guard.You have a forest fire you call them.You have a flood, you call them, the state goes out on strike you call them.Less they arn't there, then you can't call them.I'm thinking that Canada isn't having the border problem that Mexico is and our illigal alians are not coming in through Canada.Well, who knows,maybe a few.But I do think Canada stops the cars,I know Minnesota stops the cars.No doubt somebody will figure out how to sneak through anyway.But we are not talking thousands of people that should not be here coming in through Canada.I do not believe that at all.They certainly have a better grip on their border then Mexico does.My point is do we want to make the Nationl guard into regular army or what? Are they are new alternative to the draft? If so, I truly believe we are going to be cutting our own throats as states cuz we could be in the same shape that our gulf states were when Katrina hit.Troops and equipment...not at home.

Posted by: knras [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 16, 2006 8:50 PM

Well when I stop to think about it, most of us have threatened to go to Canada.Maybe they should be concerned.

Posted by: knras [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 16, 2006 9:15 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page