Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

On The Border

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “On The Border”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Benjamin Wallace says:

    Max and Doc, both of you have some good points. I knew when I wrote the article that it is a hot button topic that many feel very deeply about that does not get out in the air enough. One thing that I would stress to both of you is that thanks to us being part of this great nation we have the freedom to believe different than our fellow citizens. We all have the freedom to be right, or wrong. We can be radical right or radical left or anywhere in between. Just because another person does not agree with you 100% does not make them wrong and you right or vise versa. Like I stated in the article, some people want to seal the border tight and some that want to leave it wide open and those that are somewhere in the middle.
    Max,like our great nation, CDN does not require that the writers agree 100% (at least from what I can see) Yes most of us do share many core beliefs but see other things differently. I personaly love a good debate but would like to caution everyone to remain civil and remember that all of us will disagree on at least one topic, so remember the golden rule in these debates.

    • Max says:

      Mr Wallace,

      I appreciate your weighing in here. While I admire CDN’s tolerance level, there comes a point where tolerance cannot shield irrational calls for violence. Anyone who openly expresses that “shooting to kill” illegals crossing the border is good for America, falls well outside the tolerance boundary. I don’t know doc, chances are no one on this forum has met him. He might be rational, and he might not be. But if he goes over the edge, and decides on his own to implement his radical views, then every word he has ever written online here will be super-scrutinized. Is CDN prepared to endure that?

      This isn’t a free speech issue. If anyone openly calls for this type of bloodshed, they need their head examined. Doc’s views (expressly his shoot to kill statement) does not represent conservatism, nor the views of any conservative I know, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and the slew full of decent representatives that want real solutions on the border.

      I do not know what CDN’s standards are, especially if doc’s expressed extremism isn’t addressed and stopped. Therefore, with full respect given to this forum, I am requesting doc be suspended for a period of time. We cannot tolerate, nor should we gloss over, extremists beliefs amounting to “murder on our borders” from within conservative ranks.

      I am pleading with CDN to examine my request on its merits. This isn’t a simple disagreement or dispute issue between two people. This is much more serious, and demands self-policing corrective action. Whether that is in the form of a suspension, or in the form of an apology, with explanation or clarification, that is CDN’s call.

      We would expect no less from the mainstream media, including foxnews.

      Sincerely, Max

    • Max says:

      Wallace, I cannot believe you would defend another author on this site who has just openly called for the shooting of illegal immigrants crossing the border. And why Rich has ignored this thread isn’t very comforting.

      Stop defending INSANITY and maybe we can focus on taking back this nation at the ballot box.

      William Scoggin
      LCDR (retired)
      United States Navy

      • Benjamin Wallace says:

        ??????????? Defeding? Could you point out where? I merely tried to make the point that we all have many different views and oppinions. If you consider that defending someone then you must also admit that at the same time I defended you. You state that this is not about freedom of speech. How can it not be? You are insisting that someone else be silenced because of what you consider extremist views. Have you ever considered that others may find your oppinion extremist? Would you like for someone to demand suspension of your ablity to have your voice heard?
        Max I would like to thank for one thing. You prove my point about how differences of oppinion is what will keep conservatives from taking back our county. We spend more time bickering and complaining about each other than we do taking action against the liberals.

        • Max says:

          Wallace, Please stop the nonsense. Your refusal to flat out reject his extreme act of violence is the same as condoning it. Opinions calling for violent actions are criminal, not only that, are inconsistent with conservative values. You seem to believe that any opinion is a valid one, including statements like, “Real security would also include empowering the US Border Patrol to “shoot to kill.”

          That is EXTREME.

          “Have you ever considered that others may find your oppinion extremist?” No. And I challenge you to find anything I have stated calling for the killing of any group.

          “Would you like for someone to demand suspension of your ablity to have your voice heard?” If my opinions supported the killing of any group or person, I would expect no less.

          • Benjamin Wallace says:

            Max, the supreme court ruled that a man that called for the assasination of Obama was practicing his right to free speech. If that is not good enough for you then I do not know what to say. On the point of border patrol and shoot to kill orders. I do not support the killing of every single person crossing the border illegaly. I do however think the eradication of people crossing the border trafficing drugs and weapons does constitute shoot to kill orders. Americans have been killed on this side of the border by these thugs and the only way to solve the problem is to track them down and arrange for their expedited meeting with God Almighty. For those that are crossing illegaly that are trying to gain employment in legal fields they need to be arrested and deported.
            As of right now we still have our right of free speech. For me to say that someone does not have that right given to us by God and our first ammendment would make me a tyrant. I do not agree with liberals but still believe that they have the right to state thier oppinions.
            CDN has allowed you to share your oppinion, you now want CDN to revoke that same privilage for someone else. Quit trying to force your beliefs on someone else. We respect your right to your oppinion. Respect others rights to the same.

        • Max says:

          SCOTUS made no such ruling.

          The 9th district court of appeals did. In a 2-1 decision, the majority opinion wrote, “These statements are particularly repugnant because they directly encourage violence,” “We nevertheless hold that neither of them constitutes an offense within the meaning of the threat statute under which Bagdasarian was convicted.”

          While I give you full credit for gathering the facts to support your argument, it is discouraging to see this type of debate occurring within conservative ranks. I come from a different generation, or breed, in which the very subject of our debate (shoot to kill) doesn’t qualify as rational discussion. It reminds me of the vile nature seen in liberals in how they describe conservatives… “I want you to get in their face,” “Punish your enemies,” “They have acted like terrorists,” “They are racists,” “They want to destroy America”…. etc. and it pains me greatly to see conservatives stoop down to their vile level.

          When one side repels vile attacks with diplomacy, peace results. But when both sides give in to the same low-life tactics, and mindless calls for violence, then senseless violence results, and I am afraid if we don’t raise the bar to where it once was, bloodshed isn’t that far away.

          As conservatives, we can, we should do better. Thanks for your involvement and discussion on this matter.

          • Anonymous says:

            Thanks for the correction Max. Discussion is what it takes to resolve issues but unfortunatly sometimes violence is required to gain peace. I do not like resorting to violence but sometimes you have to resort to it to get the job done. Teddy Roosevelt said “walk softly and carry a big stick”. When the nice way does not resolve the problem sometimes breaking out the “big stick” is required.

          • So you do not feel that violence is ever necessary in resolving issues? If I remember correctly, Max, you said you were retired military. Are you telling me that in your entire career you never had to resort to violence (ie, being a part of war, etc.), or, if not actively, that you would never have protected yourself and the country you represent with a weapon?

            Personally, I’ve never been in the military. However, I am a mom of 5- two of which are very beautiful little girls. Let me assure you, if someone came into my house uninvited, I would use WHATEVER FORCE NECESSARY to protect my children! Yes, I’m a gun-totin’ Bible clingin’ lady, so if it required I shoot the intruder, YOU BET I WOULD!

            I believe it was WillofLA that pointed out our immigration laws are not being enforced. Very good point.

            These people are coming into our country- UNINVITED- intending harm on our citizens.

            How many ranchers on the border have been murdered?

            I PERSONALLY know a family who’s brother and nephew were kidnapped by illegals. The family paid the ransom that was demanded, and thankfully, the brother and nephew were returned to the family still alive. That is one of the rare cases of that actually happening.

            Not too long ago, a 15-year-old was killed on the border. He had already been deported once before, and was known as a smuggler. Here is the story link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/mexican-teen-killed-border-known-juvenile-smuggler-source-says/

            Now, of course the Mexican government and the family and all kinds of other people condemned the killing.

            Logic says you play dangerous games, you very well may have dangerous- or even deadly- consequences.

            There comes a point where enough is enough. If the government doesn’t take care of things, the violence will only increase. Our border agents and citizens on the border are paying with their lives. Something has to be done. Period.

          • Max says:

            Allenah,
            The application of deadly force should never be loosely thrown into the wind to see who might jump up and cling to it as a cause.
            Let me summarize the original argument between doc and I. He supports a Border Patrol with “Shoot to Kill” orders. When I pulled that string further in asking him “Shoot to kill illegal immigrants trying to escape an impossible situation?,” he justified his position with, (Yes, it’s ok, in order to maintain) “our sovereign right as an independent nation to prevent our invasion by the population of an out-of-control NARCO-STATE.”

            His focus isn’t on firing against armed drug dealers. His focus is on stopping illegal crossings with “shoot to kill” authority. And he has a following here? I can’t believe this.

            Fortunately, we live in a country with a second amendment, and there is nothing stopping law abiding citizens from arming themselves to defend and protect their lives and their property. If I lived along the border, you can best be sure I would be armed for that purpose. There is a huge difference between that, and say a Border Patrol that has, what amounts to, rules of engagement that are “shoot to kill.” That isn’t my America, and the fact some here think that would be ok, is stupefying.

            You end your comment by saying “something needs to be done.” Yes, something does need to be done. But it isn’t shoot to kill those who are illegally crossing to improve their life. That is the action of a police state. Is this what we have become, on the right? Not all illegals who cross are of ill-intent, and there is a huge difference between them and the “NARCO-STATE” they are trying to escape. Tell me, would you be any different if you were in their shoes? You don’t know the answer to that. No one does.

            If you want to wage war against armed drug dealers, hey I support that. But that isn’t the argument here. Until America wakes up and realizes that the inflow of illegals is being caused by economic repression, and fear of being targeted by drug lords, we will never grasp the magnitude of our own humanity, nor embrace the circumstances behind which out forefathers escaped from when they came to this country (when immigration law was virtually non-existent.)

            The border is a huge challenge. So instead of tossing around mindless bloodshed as the way forward, lets propose real solutions. I mean look… wouldn’t it be much better to re-direct hateful energy into a positive force? I think so, and a positive way forward here is to create an “Economic Zone” along the southern border. Close those factories in China, and open them in our southern border states along the border. And control the daily flow of Mexican nationals entering to work, and leaving to go home. Part of that solution would require the bloodlust some are seeking by eradicating drug lords once and for with a strong military presence on the border under effective Rules of Engagement.

            In any case, mindless calls for extreme measures should never replace sound reasoning and full understanding of the situation at hand.

          • Max, I’m not sure exactly where you live, but I do live in a border state, and in the Southern portion of the state.

            I live in San Antonio, so while we are not directly on the border, remember, I said I PERSONALLY know someone who’s had their immediate family kidnapped by illegals.

            Just a few years ago I went on a mission trip with our church where we actually drove across the border, and went into another town some 30 miles or so into Mexico to work at an orphange. While danger was a slight issue- it is anytime you are- well, anytime you do just about anything these days, I honestly was not on edge when I was there. I walked around the town with the teenagers I was leading, we bought THE BEST I’VE EVER HAD gorditas at a road side vendor, went to the restaurants there, and had no problem at all. That was approximately 6 years ago. Obviously, a LOT has changed since then.

            Unfortunately, GW Bush did not solve the border problem, and Obama MOST CERTAINLY is not solving it, and in fact, is only inflaming the situation even more.

            I am not of the mind that we mindlessly shoot whoever dares cross the border, but by the same token, if our laws were enforced, I do not honestly believe we would have the problem we have. Illegals would know that they would be deported.

            Being that I do live in a border state, just a couple of hours from the border itself, we see the effects of an immigration problem completely out of control.

            Mr. Wallace has written another article on immigration- I am sure you’ve seen it, but the link is here: http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/08/back-to-the-border/

            Now, as to yours and docs ongoing issue/diagreement/argument/debate ….. obviously I’ve stated that I do not believe “shoot to kill on site anyone who crosses the border”, and I do not see anywhere where Mr. Wallace has stated that, so to say doc “has a following” on the belief is incorrect. Now, if there have been others in previous discussions, then obviously I can’t speak to that. However, I believe the issue that’s at the heart of the matter is that everyone has the right to their own opinion. We do still live in a country where free speech is allowed- at least for now. And just speaking for myself here, the day those rights become extinct is the moment I become a criminal. As my bio quote says, “They may take my life but they’ll NEVER take MY FREEDOM!” I may die in the process, but God blessed me beyond belief with the freedoms this country affords- which has been bought and paid for by the sacrifice of time, blood, sweat, tears and lives of many men and women who believe in those freedoms just as I do. I may die in the process, but I most certainly WILL NOT give up my freedoms- for immigration or anything otherwise.

            We’ve become so soft on crime of any kind… oh, that is, unless you are a law-abiding citizen, and it’s become increasingly harsher on LAW ABIDING CHRISTIANS.

          • Max says:

            As I suspected. Your war isn’t against illegals. Hell, Illegals have been a huge problem for a long time. Even our own “hero” Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to millions of them.

            Your war is wrongfully against our president for essentially doing what Reagan accomplished, albeit in a sloppy manner.

            This example is where conservatives get it wrong most of the time. You will either hand pick the reasons why Reagan was right (if you know of any), or you will criticize Reagan by saying something like “I didn’t agree with Reagan on everything he did.” Well let me tell you what, I did support Reagan when he granted amnesty, and I sure as hell support Obama for FOCUSING scarce resources on the FELONIOUS criminal element crossing our borders.

            “Ideology to a fault is faulted ideology.” That quote is mine.

          • Illegal is illegal is illegal… plain and simple. No matter how you slice it, no matter who is president, no matter who’s ideology it is, IF A PERSON IS NOT HERE LEGALLY THEY ARE ILLEGAL! Period.

          • Max says:

            Don’t dismiss the varying degrees of illegal activities. Crossing illegally in to America is a misdemeanor. In some jurisdictions so is Jaywalking. So you are not being practical with a blanket statement like that. Next time you jaywalk, I hope it’s a misdemeanor where you live, and I pray they throw the book at you for breaking the law, meanwhile misdirecting resources by not cracking down on residential burglaries and what not.

          • I’m in no way dismissing the varying degrees of illegal activities. When I was speeding, I got a speeding ticket. I was breaking the law. While I was not happy that I got a ticket… I was WRONG! I used this as a teaching tool to teach my kids… if you do not obey the law, you are going to have consequences.
            Just as I have said in a previous comment…. if and when the “laws of this land” change, and God forbid my liberties and freedoms are taken away, I WILL break the law. And I am FULLY READY to take the consequences.
            If I cross illegally into another country, I have to understand that I am going to have consequences. Plain and simple. The illegals that are here, DEPORT THEM! THAT IS THE LAW! The Federal Government is BREAKING THE LAW by not enforcing the laws!
            Again, I NEVER advocated shooting on site, so don’t go down that road with me. That’s between you and doc.
            Again…. if I jaywalk, and I get a ticket, I better be prepared to pay the ticket. Is it ridiculous? Yes, when there are major issues we are dealing with as a nation, but hey, if I am bold enough to break the law, I better be ready to accept the consequences. I’m not better than anyone else.
            Again… ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL! No matter the person, no matter the president, no matter the ideology.

          • Max says:

            And there in lies the problem. Do you see it? You are breaking the law every day, whether you realize it or not. Driving 26 mph in a posted 25 mph zone is breaking the law. Because our legal codes are miles thick, there are ordinances, regulations, laws, that are broken millions of times in every corner of America, each and every day. And, of all the misdemeanors on that list, you want to focus on illegal aliens like a laser beam. Like Barney Fife conducting surveillance on street corners to issue jaywalking tickets.

            What the Obama administration is doing here is correct. You dodged the Reagan amnesty altogether. After he signed immigration reform into law, which included amnesty for 3 million illegals, Reagan said, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

            That is the act of a compassionate land. One that upholds the true meaning of the Statue of Liberty, and one that lives up to that “shining city on the hill” that attracts any who can, to come. Don’t blame a porous border, or the innate will within all people to seek out a better life.

            Enjoyed the exchange. Max out.

          • You talk about me missing your points… the opposite is also true. You refuse to see any point but your own.

            I did not dodge the Reagan comment, that’s an entirely different situation completely. You took the conversation in a completely different topic altogether from the point I was addressing. Free Speech.

            Yes, we ARE a shining city on a hill. But since you refuse to see any point but your own… I’ll leave it as you said….

            Allenah out.

  2. Max says:

    doc, you make it very hard to engage in RATIONAL discussion. When you say… “Maintaining our sovereign right as an independent nation to prevent our invasion by the population of an out-of-control NARCO-STATE” while citing “Shoot to kill” immigrants crossing illegally as a “sovereign right” you are quite simply NUTS.

    The fact that CDN allows you to be an author, one that possesses such radical views, it isn’t only tragic, but it has caused me to re-evaluate my time spent here.

    So here is the deal. If CDN boots you for your extremists views, I’ll click the “like” button and hang around. But if they allow you to remain… I’ve got better things to do than to deflect extremism laced under the conservative cause. CDN seriously needs to consider what audience they are trying to attract.

  3. doctorhugo says:

    I missed commenting upon the second part of your earlier post. My oversight. You opined therein thusly:

    “While I fully agree with “There are a very few things that most Americans want any immigrant to do when they arrive. Enter our country legally, Respect our laws, Respect our flag, Learn our common language, Pay taxes like the rest of us, Do not try to make us like the country you left, If you expect to stay then become a legal citizen.”

    I take exception to our boneheaded policies of building fences to keep people out, when in truth, the high flow of drugs into this country poses such a grave national security risk, that militarization is needed to protect our most vital asset: Our children. So we should militarize our border to meet the drug lords face to face, and work with Mexico’s government to surgically eradicate drug lords from the Mexican countryside.

    As for “illegals” who only want a job, then cut the red tape by encouraging a work permit program that will allow them to legally work in the United States under the control of an immigration officer responsible for keeping tabs on them. If they violate the permit rules, they will be charged with a misdemeanor, and placed in detention until Mexico sends a truck to pick them up and take them back. And for every illegal caught crossing into America, Mexico will be fine $10,000 for each offense. That should help correct the problem on their side of the border.”

    This kind of illogical thinking is why I accused you of being a liberal on that other topic thread. You call building fences boneheaded policy, but at the same time YOU call for miltarizing the border that is being violated. When I suggested a “shoot to kill” policy you reacted as if I was a throwback to Genghis Khan. My question to YOU is how do you MILITARIZE the border WITHOUT giving the military the right to shoot to kill? [sarcasm]Would you accept a shoot to WOUND policy instead, if it absolved the shooter fom liability if he/she killed instead of wounded a target accidentally?[/sarcasm] HUH! And your plan would call for a work permit program with violators of such a program arrested and held for transportation back to Mexico BY MEXICO??? Don’t hold your breath waiting for the arrival of that first bus Max! And a fine assessed against the state of Mexico of $10,000 per offense. The same Mexico that is in collusion with this American President to subvert a border state’s right to it’s sovereign right to protect itself against INVASION when the Ameican federal government fails to meet it’s constitutional authority and DOES NOT…YOU EXPECT WILL PAY SUCH FINES. Your suggestions are incredulous in the mere conception and could only work in Alice’s Wonderland.

  4. doctorhugo says:

    I missed commenting upon the second prt o your earlier post. My oversight. You opined therein thusly:
    “While I fully agree with “There are a very few things that most Americans want any immigrant to do when they arrive. Enter our country legally, Respect our laws, Respect our flag, Learn our common language, Pay taxes like the rest of us, Do not try to make us like the country you left, If you expect to stay then become a legal citizen.”

    I take exception to our boneheaded policies of building fences to keep people out, when in truth, the high flow of drugs into this country poses such a grave national security risk, that militarization is needed to protect our most vital asset: Our children. So we should militarize our border to meet the drug lords face to face, and work with Mexico’s government to surgically eradicate drug lords from the Mexican countryside.

    As for “illegals” who only want a job, then cut the red tape by encouraging a work permit program that will allow them to legally work in the United States under the control of an immigration officer responsible for keeping tabs on them. If they violate the permit rules, they will be charged with a misdemeanor, and placed in detention until Mexico sends a truck to pick them up and take them back. And for every illegal caught crossing into America, Mexico will be fine $10,000 for each offense. That should help correct the problem on their side of the border.”

    This kind of illogical thinking is why I accused you of being a liberal on that other topic thread. You call building fences boneheaded policy, but at the same time YOU call for miltarizing the border that is being violated. When I suggested a “shoot to kill” policy you reacted as if I was a throwback to Genghis Khan. My question to YOU is how do you MILITARIZE the border WITHOUT giving the military the right to shoot to kill? [sarcasm]Would you accept a shoot to WOUND policy instead, if it absolved the shooter fom liability if he/she killed instead of wounded a target accidentally?[/sarcasm] HUH! And your plan would call for a work permit program with violators of such a program arrested and held for transportation back to Mexico BY MEXICO??? Don’t hold your breath waiting for the arrival of that first bus Max! And a fine assessed against the state of Mexico of $10,000 per offense. The same Mexico that is in collusion with this American President to subvert a border state’s right to it’s sovereign right to protect itself against INVASION when the Ameican federal government fails top meet it’s constitutional authority and DOES NOT…YOU EXPECT WILL PAY SUCH FINES. Your suggestions are incredulous in the mere conception and could only work in Alice’s Wonderland.

  5. WillofLa says:

    Our immigration laws are being ignored. Reagan’s amnesty law was left with many parts unfilled by the Democrats who controled Congress during Reagan’s first term. The law required the Congress to “seal the borders” by hiring thousands of border agents, building a fence that could not be easily crossed, and the deportation of illegals who came in after the law was passed. They didn’t care enough about our countries sovereignty then, what did they think would happen if they did nothing the law compelled them to do for another twenty years? Did they think that leaving the borders open would cause those crossing the border and those being caught could balance out after awhile? I don’t know what they were thinking because at that time the Democrats weren’t worried about Negro’s leaving the Party so much so that the Democrats would need to start looking for new victims they could easily turn into votes. Ohhh, but twenty years later we have whole communities the police won’t even go into it’s so dangerous. We have huge sections of states that have been taken over by drug gangs and the governor’s of those states are afraid to send in the military which they are authorized to do in order to throw the gangs out, because of fear of Mexican’s rioting about what they would see as nothing but racist action towards only the Mexican’s who they see as “innocent” attacked by the governor of that state. So the governor’s don’t want to try to deal with the riots, the liberal controlled press attacking the governor’s, and legal Mexican’s protesting against what they see as a White governor attacking “their” people. We see large numbers of Mexican’s who are legal citizen’s already protesting the immigration enforcement that Arizona is taking in order to stem the invasion of Mexican’s bringing dope into the country. We must have order in our country or we are going to see these Mexican’s taking over large parts of the Southwestern United States, like they have said they are going to do in order to recapture those parts of the US as belonging to Mexico. And the President of Mexico encouraging his people to continue to invade the US, while Obama is supporting him in trying to accuse our legal gun dealers of supplying Mexico’s dope dealers with guns, as just an excuse to keep the borders open for some idiotic reason that only a liberal could understand. To me, it’s just disobedience of our Constitutional laws that Obama himself is disobeying. This alone is empeachable offences that I believe our Congress is not pursueing is because Obama is Black. Then we’d have both Blacks and Mexican’s rioting in the US that would eventually cause a Civil War!!

  6. Max says:

    Everyone is an immigrant, with exception given to indigenous tribes in Africa. Yet we tend to classify immigration as if it just began 235 years ago, with the advent of U.S. Law governing it. In the beginning, it highly favored european countries as a land of new opportunity, and they poured through Ellis Island by the boatload.

    Before we had national borders, north America and most of south America were divided into territories, owned by France, Spain, and England. As America expanded west, our national borders included native peoples, who were pretty much granted automatic citizenship. It wasn’t until America became a very wealthy country, sharing a very large border with a very poor country, that illegal immigration became an issue. As long as the economic disparity is so great, this problem will always exist. And truth be told, if my country treated me like Mexico does its citizens, I would want to leave it too.

    While I fully agree with “There are a very few things that most Americans want any immigrant to do when they arrive. Enter our country legally, Respect our laws, Respect our flag, Learn our common language, Pay taxes like the rest of us, Do not try to make us like the country you left, If you expect to stay then become a legal citizen.”

    I take exception to our boneheaded policies of building fences to keep people out, when in truth, the high flow of drugs into this country poses such a grave national security risk, that militarization is needed to protect our most vital asset: Our children. So we should militarize our border to meet the drug lords face to face, and work with Mexico’s government to surgically eradicate drug lords from the Mexican countryside.

    As for “illegals” who only want a job, then cut the red tape by encouraging a work permit program that will allow them to legally work in the United States under the control of an immigration officer responsible for keeping tabs on them. If they violate the permit rules, they will be charged with a misdemeanor, and placed in detention until Mexico sends a truck to pick them up and take them back. And for every illegal caught crossing into America, Mexico will be fine $10,000 for each offense. That should help correct the problem on their side of the border.

    • doctorhugo says:

      Why not a 3 year moratorium on all immigration across our southern borders while we install real security, such as drone overflights? Real security would also include empowering the US Border Patrol to “shoot to kill”. Are you ready for that Max? Without such any security is but a hollow threat.

      During this time our Congress could modify existing “legal’ immigration quotas to accomodate a reasonable increase that anticipates work opportunities that meet our needs. Nobody ever mentions increasing legal quotas. Wonder why? My guess is that it would be a bi-partisan supported agenda and thus no one major party would be able to seduce those potential new voters to their party. It’s really all about recruiting demonRATic voters. The Compassionate Conservative supported Open Borders and Shamnesty thinking he’d recruit new Republican voters. Silly boy he!

      • Max says:

        doc, Shoot to kill illegal immigrants trying to escape an impossible situation? That is an unbelievable statement, and certainly doesn’t support real security objectives.

        We need a common sense work visa program. Maybe if we shut down, i don’t know… say 10,000 factories in CHINA (that would still leave them with 90,000 or so) and built U.S. FACTORIES along our side of the U.S. border… we would create an ECONOMIC ZONE that would triple current tax revenues without raising taxes.

        Instead of EMPLOYING 1 BILLION CHINESE… lets bring those jobs home.

        • doctorhugo says:

          You say> “doc, Shoot to kill illegal immigrants trying to escape an impossible situation?”
          I say> Maintaining our sovereign right as an independent nation to prevent our invasion by the population of an out-of-control NARCO-STATE.

          Before we consider your suggestion of interfering somehow in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation, China, by somehow forcing her to shut down HER factories we ought to consider the root cause of all this.

          Our political parties, BOTH of them buying into the “globalization” agenda and the selling out of our industrial manufacturing base as a nation as if it were menial common manual labor unfit for American workers tomperform anymore. BOTH parties got a full head of stem up sellng out America to becoming a hollow “service-oriented economy” that produces little of ACTUAL SUBSTANCE. This same nation with an educational system corrupted by the progressive liberal agenda continued turning out a vast number of UNskilled workers each and every year into a job market UNable to provide for UNskilled labor or assembly line/manufacturing task-by-rote type labor. The Clintonista demonRATic reign begat this in high gear and the Compassionate Conservative reign of Republican Little Georgie-boy Bush continued it unabated to today. We bught into the phulosophythat in a growing international marketplace there was no place for manufacturing and/or industrial businesses in a technologically advanced nation and such could be ‘farmed out’ to third world nations. How shortsightedly foolish. At the time I opposed it and stood with he whom I called the Reluctant Candidate Ross Perot, the lone voice on the national scene advocating against globalization and on behalf of an American spirit of patriotic, sovereign pride.

          The southern border problem is rooted in one thing now and it’s the fact that America, with each succeeding generation of more liberal attitude is the biggest drug consumer nation. So it should come as no surprise that a neighboring nation with a history of weak and unstabile government should become compromised as a narco-state. Narco-states only provide narco-jobs! If the narco trade hadn’t taken control, Mexico WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, could have become a friendly industrial power…almost like an international sub-contractor for us, because we could have helped to show them how to train a workforce with marketable skills in manufacturing industries. Jointly owned subsidiaries of America-owned, home-based corporations, where independent companies (without any government help) could plan on retraining their own employees to more highly skilled tasks as more menial and laborious production tasks were transferred to their US-Mexico subsidiaries. Efficient capitalism only requires minimal regulatory law enforced without exemption and for government to get out of the way beyond that.

          As in all things I prefer to step back and view from the wider perspective to get at the truth. WE have too much power invested in the federal government which translates to too much power in federal politicians and since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely WE are heading down the road of our own demise. WE’d best start listening to the Jeffersons of the past and get back to reducing the size of federal government and vesting power in the state and local municipalities more…, with the knowledge that the government closest to the citizen governs the best. They gave us the trump card of freedom, our individual vote. WE’d best get about using it wisely.