Sunday, May 14, 2006

Using the National Guard as an auxiliary arm to the Border Patrol

To support Border Patrol operations in the the southern states bordering Mexico, President Bush will call on the National Guard to deploy as many as 10,000 guardsmen. The White House intends to use the National Guard in a support capacity and only as long as it takes for the Border Patrol to boost its ranks.
Even though there is nothing sinister in the use of the National Guard as a police force, one has only to think of any other countries out there which use their military to police their citizens. While those countries may have such use for their military it must be noted that it only takes one act of violence for the military to use its heavy hand. What is disturbing is the fact that the National Guard will be under federal control and not under that of the respective border states.
Consider the use of Federal forces during the Restoration, which used a heavy hand to subdue the then Confederate states. This is definitely something the state of Texas especially has a long memory of. For that reason alone Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, to remove and prohibit federal troops from acting as national police force.
Nevertheless times have changed and the Posse Comitatus Act has been obsolete ever since the war on drugs began when Navy, Air Force, Special Ops, and Coast Guard units were and still are used in the fight against drug traficking.
But the implications are clear. If we begin to use the military to supplement our national and state law enforcment in fighting illegal immigration, which by the way can be dealt with in a more subtle way through legislation, where will militry involvement stop?

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Illegal Immigration, the National Guard, and Border Security

Illegal immigration puts a lot of stress on the border states' economies and especiallay their respective social services. It is also understandable why so many of the ranchers are crying foul and whose properties are being trespassed on by illegal immigrants crossing the border, so much so that vigilante groups have sprung up. What I find disturbing in many levels is the use of the National Guard in policing the border, a function better left to the Border Patrol, however overburdened they may be. What is needed is the cooperation of the Mexican law enforcement. They are the ones who ought to be held accountable for any lack of security on their side. But I guess they can turn a blind eye to this problem just as they do that of the narcotics trade. How difficult is it to hold Mexico and its government accountable for the misery of its citizens? Hell, do we need an excuse to invade Mexico or what? Albeit the dry humor in my last sentence, one should understand the near impossible job of completely closing the border with Mexico.

For instance, take the Minutemen, these vigilantes who feel they must take matters into their own hands. I just saw a report on CNN in which some of these organized minutemen were erecting barbed wire fences in the border areas lacking any fences at all. Way to go - good job guys - that is such a great idea! By the way, how is that flimsy fence going to keep out illegal immigrants from crossing over? Ever heard of this invention called pliers (sic)? Besides if you build a bigger, better fence, they'll break in over it, through it, or under it. Good luck posting those vigilante guards every mile of the border.

Through further reflection, the use of soldiers, Guard or Active, to patrol our borders can be counterproductive. Border Patrol officers lack the heavy firepower which the Army/Guard has. So since they have it they are more liable to use it. See where I'm going with this? So if they use it, and it turns out bad, how can we hold them acocuntable for something we allowed them to do? But even so, active military numbers available for border patrol deployment are low - they are serving in Iraq or Afganistan, or wherever this nation needs them, except for being deployed in US soil (posse comitatus prevents that very same thing). But the Guard is not prohibited in operating on US soil by the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 as long they are under no direct control of the Federal Government. Yet even that presents a challenge because the funding for this deployment would fall on the border states, further complicating the matter.

The best thing to do -and this may sound a little unfair- is to remove any and all incentives for all immigrants. By that I mean denying work to any illegal immigrants, nationality notwithstanding, scaling down any social services except medical care where appropriate, increasing the fines on employers who hire illegals, etc., etc. Unless we as a nation are of the same mind, a solution to illegal immigration can be found. But I still believe that immigration is a good thing, and we should not penalize legal immigrants to benefit illegal ones. Even by considering the notion of amnesty for illegal immigrants we are doing a disservice to ourselves and to those who abided by the laws and policies of this country. Besides even if amnesty would ever be entertained how will we discern who is eligible for amnesty of not. Out of roughly 11 million illegals in this country all would claim they have the moral fortitude and lenght of stay here to desereve amnesty.

In closing, if you can vote, this is your chance to make your opinion heard. If you can't vote, influence someone who can...

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Have I Found Jesus Yet?

More and more I become annoyed by people who keep asking me if I have found Jesus yet, as if he has been lost. Are their lives so boring and base that the only way they can spice things up is by advertising that boredom to people who might actually answer that stupid question in the and show any interest? I want to know who told them that they have to go out and annoy the hell out of people? Oh, excuse me, lest I forget, I must mention the righteous intent of those who attempt to save me by asking that idiotic question. Righteous intent, or is it idiotic fear of damnation resulting from brainwashing due to an empty life and a low IQ? Who the hell would stop living life to its full potential by accepting the faith of evangelists? The problem is they are not the only one who resort to shameful - and yes, sinful - tactics. Let me tell you my story:

On a hot Texas day in Fort Worth I was approached by a man who asked me if I had found Jesus? I told him no. He said that I was going to hell since I did not know Jesus. "Prey thee, my good man," replied I, "how is it that I would be going to Hell when I seek forgiveness for my wrongs, value decency, and generally try to be good? Does that not count for something?" To which he replied that even so I would still be going to Hell. So I told him that I would meet him in Hell just as well for threatening me and striking "fear" in my heart, and that the lost Lord he was evangelising for was a false Lord. With that I bid him adieu and walked away, as he stood dumbfounded for he saw the error of his ways. Therefore I say Live and Let Live.

But another story begs a mention. On another hot Texas day a representative of the First Baptist church approached me. He looked at me with some deep eyes, mouth ear to ear, and said "Can I offer you some FREE water, sir?" Since he emphasized the word FREE, I said "There is no such thing as Free any more, but since you are offering, I'll take that cup. Thank you." So I took the cup, and no sooner did I attempt to raise it to my lips when he asked me "Do you have Jesus in your heart brother?" The jig was up. I returned the cup to him untouched, told him he had committed a sin by using false pretenses to lure me to listen to his message, and therefore his church would be unsuitable to me.

So there is always a catch. Religion is just like any business out there. That one time that you show interest because you may find comfort, it sucks you right in. So good luck to all you fools out there, but you are looking for eternity in the wrong place. If the eternity they advertise to me is a reflection of their action, then I don't want it. I'll go to Hell; at the very least I know what to expect from those folks.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Federal judge orders cross to be removed from city property

A federal judge has ordered the city of San Diego, CA, to remove a cross on top of Mount Soledad which has been standing since 1954. While this case dates back to 1991, it should be noted that although the separation of church and state is indeed a federal issue, one must also consider the historical value this cross carries as the supporters of the cross say that it was built as a historic war memorial. If that is indeed the case then how is it that this judge ordered it removed in 1991 (after a suit brought by Philip Paulson to remove the cross)?

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the removal of the Mount Soledad cross from property owned by the city of San Diego within 90 days - threatening to fine the city $5,000 a day if it fails to comply.
"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property," said U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson.
Thompson first found the presence of the cross on city property unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

Monday, May 01, 2006

Immigration Boycott

In light of today's events, I just can't help but think how was it that the American public did not foresee such a boucott, albeit its mostly absent economic impact to the US markets? Suddenly mainstream America is in a panic over who is going to cut their lawns tomorrow, or who is going to fill those construction jobs, and who is going to farm the fields. Is it possible for these 12 million illegals to lose their jobs and sustain the same level of income they previously enjoyed? The answer is no. This country needs the labor these immigrants provide because it keeps a lot of prices down (i.e. construction, farming, contractors), but all the same, these jobs can be filled by others. For instance, we can create a deficit of illegal aliens from Latin American countries (e.g Mexico) by creating a surplus of Asian Pacific and African aliens. Or, if that sugestion sounds unattainable, let the market work out itself, whereby as labor costs go up, so do prices (thus low demand), but at the very least the costs of maintaining these illegal aliens subsides. I know this may be an oversimplistic viewpoint, but it is an idea - expensive, but workable. There are plenty of other solutions out there, but the fact is that American employers are partly to blame because they have used these illegal aliens as sources of cheap labor therefore they have created a subculture of neo-slavery absent of corporal or mortal threats but substituted with more modern means of persuasion and fear-induction to maintain control.

In the same token one should also consider that these illegal aliens are breaking the law, misdemeanor or not, and they are not justified by mocking American institutions such as the First Amendment (by way of waving the Mexican, and other countries' flags) and changing the lyrics to the national anthem. This is an English speaking country, and they must learn to communicate. No authority in the US will ever forbid them from speaking their own language, but when English is a necessary mode of communication in a public setting, so as not to complicate matters, any other language will not do.

Another drawback to this boycott is the fact that these illegal immigrants are seeking preferential treatment over others who are here or who came before them. Essentially, they are trying to bully a nation into giving them what they want: a legal status. Have they earned it? No, they have not. So what that they have worked the jobs "Americans don't want," as if they have not exacerbated the labor issue themselves by the sheer volume of laborers. Becaus there are so many of them out there, employers do not feel the need to increase wages, de facto creating a higher demand for work for fewer positions. So please, take it easy with this boycott, because you are not special. If you stubbornly insist, why don't you ask the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Russians, the Africans, the Koreans, the myriad of Eastern Europeans, the Philippinos, and the many others who came before you and asked nothing special in return. They are the ones that build the railroads, the farms, the tunnels, the damms, the roads, the skyscrapers, the airports, our infrastructure, our factories and our industries. What then, makes you so special? There are millions of others in the world who happen to be farther from the US and who want to come here, if only they had the means to! So again, what makes you so special? They embraced America, with all its splendor and faults, while you mock it!. They spoke the language of the land, while you try to make yours a second one. They assimilated, but you want to change it to suit you. What are you entitled to?

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around