Congressional call for troops on border
Iowa rep says he will introduce bill in weeks
06/04/05

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, called today for deploying the military to seal the borders against illegal immigration and stiff new financial penalties for employers who hire aliens.

"The destiny of America is going to be shaped a lot by immigration policy," said King, who said he will introduce legislation "in the next several weeks."

King said the measure he's pushing would put in place severe financial penalties for companies hiring illegal workers, ending the companies' ability to take deductions on wages and benefits for those workers.

"That will change the dynamic of this," said King. "That will slow the growth in this job magnet that's driving our illegal immigration."

King spoke during a taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program airing later this weekend.

"Immigration is the big sleeping issue that seems to be the subject that no one wanted to touch in the last presidential campaign, the subject that these presidential candidates don't want to touch, but it's something that Iowans and Americans want to have a national debate on," said King.

His bill, he said, would give "safe harbor" to companies that use Internet-based tracking systems to verify that workers are in the country legally.

"We need healthy immigration," said King. "We should go around the world and recruit the best people we can get. We just simply can't be the relief valve for all the poverty in the world."King said it would be a relatively simple task to seal the border by deploying military units for that task.

"Yes we can control the border, we can put more people on the border," said King. "Deploy our military to the border. That's great terrain to train to go to Iraq. You need to keep an army busy. We have National Guard people down there now, we can just put more there."

Link: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44597

Oh boy, World Nut Daily!

I wish they would put troops down there on the border already!  The Right keeps touting as THE solution to the illegal immigration problem.  Maybe it's time we put it to the test, eh?  See what happens when we REALLY try to implement such a plan.  Maybe those Minutemen geezers will go back and play bingo at the VFW instead of catching heat stroke this summer.

I wonder what some of those big business lobbies who contribute heavily to the GOP will say when the National Guard denies them their cheap, exploitable labor!

I wonder what some of those big business lobbies who contribute heavily to the GOP will say when the National Guard denies them their cheap, exploitable labor!


First off: what's the democrat's solution to the border issue in America?  Nothing.  Just like every thing else.

Stop the exploitation!  Secure the borders!  That works.

First off: what's the democrat's solution to the border issue in America?  Nothing.  Just like every thing else.

Stop the exploitation!  Secure the borders!  That works.

I don't speak for the Dems, incidentally.  And, althought it's an unprecedented use of our armed forces domestically, I don't have a big problem with troops on the border.  Even if we could get corporate America to clean up its act, Mexico would still be dirt poor and corrupt as h*ll.  I don't think anybody really knows what the long term solution is.

I don't have a big problem with troops on the border. 

Now you're talking some sense!  ;)

Now you're talking some sense!  ;)

Well, I don't think there's a happy solution at hand.  I just want to see what happenes if the "close the border" guys finall get their way.

This can't be good.....  ::)

This can't be good.....  ::)

Why not?  Let any of them w*tb#cks make a run for it and our boys'll  blow him straight back to Hermosillo, another useless strawberry-picker reduced to a quivering mass of burst intestines.  That'll teach 'em to flout *our* laws!
:-*

Or we could address the issue of corporate America hiring people from across the border to work at less than minimun wage jobs up here?

Naaaah! That would be getting at the root of the problem.  Better to grandstand the issue by proposing to send the troops to the border.

Or we could address the issue of corporate America hiring people from across the border to work at less than minimun wage jobs up here?


Did you even read the first paragraph?

Did you even read the first paragraph?


Yeah, right.  "Stiff financial penalties?  How about stiff jail time for the CEO's and how about de-corpoatization for their companies.  In other words, how about so penalties that would really hurt?  They can right off financial penalties as a cost of doing business.  Want to stop the problem?  Nuetralize the magnet.

So let me get this straight. 

Our military is streched to the breaking point being bogged down in an endless quagmire in Iraq,while defending the pockets of Kabul we control in Afghanistan, while the rest of the country is being taken over by the Taliban, all while military recuiters are averaging 40% fewer new recruits over this time last year.

And now some simpleton Republican congressman wants to expand the military to safeguard the thousands of miles of our boarders.  All the while, the Republicans claim they do not support a draft.

Did you ever wonder why a congressman in landlocked Iowa would initiate such legislation?  I mean if this is such a crisis, why don't the politicos of the border states bring this up?  Where are you Tom DeLay?

Once again, militarizing the border is bogus political football the Republicans kick around to keep their mad dog, rabid base of suport all worked up, while they have no intention of doing anything to prevent cheap labor from oiling the gears of their corporate America bosses.

So let me get this straight. 

Our military is streched to the breaking point being bogged down in an endless quagmire in Iraq,while defending the pockets of Kabul we control in Afghanistan, while the rest of the country is being taken over by the Taliban, all while military recuiters are averaging 40% fewer new recruits over this time last year.

And now some simpleton Republican congressman wants to expand the military to safeguard the thousands of miles of our boarders.  All the while, the Republicans claim they do not support a draft.

Did you ever wonder why a congressman in landlocked Iowa would initiate such legislation?  I mean if this is such a crisis, why don't the politicos of the border states bring this up?  Where are you Tom DeLay?

Once again, militarizing the border is bogus political football the Republicans kick around to keep their mad dog, rabid base of suport all worked up, while they have no intention of doing anything to prevent cheap labor from oiling the gears of their corporate America bosses.

Not the Army, I mean the National Guard.  Oh, wait a minute, they're all in Iraq!!!  Looks like we gotta re-instate the draft so's we can get troops for foreign imperial ventures and the Mexican border.  Wait, no, Bush said he wouldn't start a draft and Bush is  a Christian man who never tells a lie.  Oh, jeez, who are we gonna get to guard the border?  Hey kid!  Hey you there, wanna make a fast five grand this summer.  All you gotta do is stand there and watch!
:D

Yeah, right.  "Stiff financial penalties?  How about stiff jail time for the CEO's and how


I agree!  I say lock up anyone who knowingly hires an illegal alien.  But I'm not Steve King, so I can't do anything about it.

I mean if this is such a crisis, why don't the politicos of the border states bring this up?

I guess you haven't heard of Arizona republican J.D. Hayworth.

They can't secure a few hundred miles of borders in Iraq, where it might actually do some good (or maybe it'll just prove that the insurgents are actually Iraqi).  They'll secure us from people who want to work in this country instead of collecting food stamps unlike some of the people who live here already?

oh yeah... makes lots of sense.  I can see a mad rush to sign onto this legislation.  Even if they pass it, they'll have no troops to enact it.  Good political maneuvering for votes I suppose.

They can't secure a few hundred miles of borders in Iraq, where it might actually do some good (or maybe it'll just prove that the insurgents are actually Iraqi).  They'll secure us from people who want to work in this country instead of collecting food stamps unlike some of the people who live here already?

oh yeah... makes lots of sense.  I can see a mad rush to sign onto this legislation.  Even if they pass it, they'll have no troops to enact it.  Good political maneuvering for votes I suppose.

That's why I'm calling their bluff!

GWB wrote
I guess you haven't heard of Arizona republican J.D. Hayworth.
I have, and I sure wish I hadn't.
:P
When they made him a redneck, it's a good thing the gave him a redneck's name.  He and that other old boy from AZ, Jeff Flake are royally obnoxious!

So my question is, when are the Republican followers going to realize their party is jerking them around on this issue and has no intention of sealing off the border? or for that matter, on the whole issue of illegal immigration?

C'mon Republican voters, you are being used.  Bush dosen't care about illegal immigration, and he is not listening to you. 

So my question is, when are the Republican followers going to realize their party is jerking them around on this issue and has no intention of sealing off the border? or for that matter, on the whole issue of illegal immigration?

C'mon Republican voters, you are being used.  Bush dosen't care about illegal immigration, and he is not listening to you. 




Well no crap Bush isn't listening to the average republican voter, or even the 80% of Americans who support secure borders (the only 20% are big business types and the illegal aliens themselves.)  I've written before that republicans need to nominate somebody like Tom Tancredo, George Allen, or Newt Gingrich in 2008, otherwise I'll be voting for the constitution party (or maybe even the democrats if they promise secure borders while the republicans don't.)  It shouldn't be an issue with a republicans in control of the US house, the US senate, and the white house.  For God's sake, secure borders are in the republican party platform.

http://www.s3news.com/bush_puppet2.jpg

Well no crap Bush isn't listening to the average republican voter, or even the 80% of Americans who support secure borders (the only 20% are big business types and the illegal aliens themselves.)  I've written before that republicans need to nominate somebody like Tom Tancredo, George Allen, or Newt Gingrich in 2008, otherwise I'll be voting for the constitution party (or maybe even the democrats if they promise secure borders while the republicans don't.)  It shouldn't be an issue with a republicans in control of the US house, the US senate, and the white house.  For God's sake, secure borders are in the republican party platform.

http://www.s3news.com/bush_puppet2.jpg


And because Bush knows you'll never vote Democrat no matter what he does.

And because Bush knows you'll never vote Democrat no matter what he does.


WRONG!  I proved to myself I could vote democrat by doing it in 1992, and I will do it again if needed.

My main issue is borders and America's sovereignty in 2008.  My first goal is to work for getting somebody who supports secure borders like Tancredo/Allen/Gingrich the republican nomination for president.  Failing that, I'll see just where the two main party candidates stand on borders.  If both support secure borders, or just the republican, I'll vote republican.  If only the democrat supports secure borders, I'll vote for him/her despite what his/her stances on other issues are.  If neither major party provides an acceptable choice on the illegal alien crisis, then I will vote for the constitution party candidate.

Enough is enough.

Even if they support abortion, gun control and higher taxes?  You'd still vote simply on the border issue?


That's tough.  If it's gun control, I'll probably not vote for them.  But if it's abortion (which the president can't do anything about) or tax cuts (which will be made permanent) then I'll probably go with anyone (even Hillary R. Clinton) if they promise secure borders.

Right now, I'm convinced the republicans need someone who supports secure borders.  And with about 80% of Americans supporting it, I think we'll get it in 2008.  Still it's hard to predict, 2008 is a long way away.

WRONG!  I proved to myself I could vote democrat by doing it in 1992, and I will do it again if needed.

My main issue is borders and America's sovereignty in 2008.  My first goal is to work for getting somebody who supports secure borders like Tancredo/Allen/Gingrich the republican nomination for president.  Failing that, I'll see just where the two main party candidates stand on borders.  If both support secure borders, or just the republican, I'll vote republican.  If only the democrat supports secure borders, I'll vote for him/her despite what his/her stances on other issues are.  If neither major party provides an acceptable choice on the illegal alien crisis, then I will vote for the constitution party candidate.

Enough is enough.

YOU voted for BILL CLINTON?!

YOU voted for BILL CLINTON?!


Yes I did.  I've always regreted voting for Clinton, but I've never regreted not voting for George "no new taxes" Bush Sr., if I could do it over again I'd vote for Ross Perot.

My voting record:

1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan
1988-Bush Sr.
1992-Clinton
1996-Dole
2000-Bush
2004-Bush

Yes I did.  I've always regreted voting for Clinton, but I've never regreted not voting for George "no new taxes" Bush Sr., if I could do it over again I'd vote for Ross Perot.

My voting record:

1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan
1988-Bush Sr.
1992-Clinton
1996-Dole
2000-Bush
2004-Bush

Here is mine:
1988--Dukakis
1992--Clinton
1996--Nader (write-in)
2000--Nader
2004--Kerry

Yup, the first election in which I was eligable to vote, I had Gov. Dukakis to vote for.  Total drag!  Oh well, If I'd been a bit older, I would have had to vote for Walter Mondale, not too inspiring either!  I voted against Clinton in '96 because his positions on NAFTA and "welfare reform" were unforgivable.  I voted against Gore because Gore had portrayed himself as an environmentalist and then turned out to be a big business toady.  He also agreed with Dubya on all the important issues.  Furthermore, If Gore couldn't win in Massachusetts without my vote, he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance anyway.
I knew Nader didn't have a chance of actually winning, but I wanted to show support for Nader's positions. 

Not the Army, I mean the National Guard.


I know the army is thin right now, but according to a congressional report, all it would take to secure our borders is 36,000 men on the northern border, and 36,000 men on the southern border.  Less than expected.  It doesn't have to be army or national guard, it can be 36,000 USBP agents.

http://www.palominas.com/images/ds_photos4/bp_otj1.jpg

I know the army is thin right now, but according to a congressional report, all it would take to secure our borders is 36,000 men on the northern border, and 36,000 men on the southern border.  Less than expected.  It doesn't have to be army or national guard, it can be 36,000 USBP agents.

http://www.palominas.com/images/ds_photos4/bp_otj1.jpg

The northern border?
Pretty nice job freezing your azz off in some plywood security hut north of Whitewater, Montana, just sitting there smoking and playing cards day after day week after week!

Unfortunatly for big business, there are cetain jobs that you cannot out source: agriculture, domestic work, hotel/motel service. 

Our economy collapses without the work of illegals, so let's stop all this nonsence about securing the borders.

Our economy collapses without the work of illegals....


I thought it was only republicans who bought into the lies of big business.

I thought it was only republicans who bought into the lies of big business.

Well, illegal aliens are only part of the picture.
You could say "our economy" would collapse if it were not for the rank exploitation of ALL labor by the fat cat capitalists.

While the minutemen are all gung ho and shootin around the southern boarder a guy is let in by US
customs agents on the Canadian border carrying a saber, sword, brass knuckles, and a chain saw
with blood on it.  The later found out he had murdered two people.  Oh yeah he also told the border
agents he was a trained assassin with over 100 kills-he isn't but that is what he told them.  He came in
through Calais Maine, the same entry point of some of the 9/11 terrorists.  But of course he didn't fit the
profile so why suspect him?

While the minutemen are all gung ho and shootin around the southern boarder

The gun thing again.  The media has been beyond absurd with the minutemen.  Every article always sneaks in a mention that some of the minutemen legally carried handguns under Arizona's "open carry" laws.  They didn't even shoot.  But still with every article it's "the minutemen, some of who were/are armed....." or "for days the minutemen sat out of the border watching for illegal activity with handguns and coke...." Sheesh.

I agree Donoota, that guy shouldn't have been let in.  Our borders need to be protected, both the America-Canada and America-Mexico borders.

If we get blown up by someone who illegally crossed the northern or southern border, Bush's legacy is dead....and the democrats will (rightfully) try to impeach him.  I hate to say it, but the blood will be on his hands.

If we get blown up by someone who illegally crossed the northern or southern border, Bush's legacy is dead....and the democrats will (rightfully) try to impeach him.  I hate to say it, but the blood will be on his hands.


Yeah, right.

If the Republican controlled Congress is not going to impeach Bush for his illegal war based on lines, which has led to the deaths of 1,600 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis, and has destabalized the Mid-East, you think Tom Delay and company are going to hold his feet to the fire on illegal immigration?

Sure.

If we get blown up by someone who illegally crossed the northern or southern border, Bush's legacy is dead....and the democrats will (rightfully) try to impeach him.  I hate to say it, but the blood will be on his hands.

Why should such events deprive Bush of a saintly legacy?  Ronald Reagan committed war crimes in office and his economic programs were an utter fiasco for all but the top quintile income bracket.  Yet Ronald Reagan is still our Great White Father by dint of big propaganda, big lies, and big fantasies perpetuated by the Republican Noise Machine.  The main difference is Bush's economic programs will only prove to "benefit" the top few percentile in captial wealth, but the Republican Noise Machine is a hundredfold more sophisticated than it was in 1989.

Yeah, right.

If the Republican controlled Congress is not going to impeach Bush for his illegal war based on lines, which has led to the deaths of 1,600 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis, and has destabalized the Mid-East, you think Tom Delay and company are going to hold his feet to the fire on illegal immigration?

Sure.


For one, I didn't say the impeachment would be over illegal immigration.

And two, if you want to make a point, use real figures and not ones pulled out of thin air.  For the past year and a half it's been 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.  It nevers changes.  And no real trustworthy soruce says it's 100,000.  Reuters says it's 20,000.

It goes to show what the democrats will believe.

For one, I didn't say the impeachment would be over illegal immigration.

And two, if you want to make a point, use real figures and not ones pulled out of thin air.  For the past year and a half it's been 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.  It nevers changes.  And no real trustworthy soruce says it's 100,000.  Reuters says it's 20,000.

It goes to show what the democrats will believe.

"Official" estimates range from 22,000 to 26,000.  The Britich Lancet study from last December estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, the Human Rights Watch called this number a "stretch."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7967-2004Oct28?language=printer
It would take me some more research to come up with a reason to believe either the high or low estimate.  One thing you can be certain of, governments lie about death in war. 
Another thing, even it the civilian death toll is only twenty or twent-five thousand deaths, are we sure we want to qualify that number with only?

While the minutemen are all gung ho and shootin around the southern boarder a guy is let in by US
customs agents on the Canadian border carrying a saber, sword, brass knuckles, and a chain saw
with blood on it.  The later found out he had murdered two people.  Oh yeah he also told the border
agents he was a trained assassin with over 100 kills-he isn't but that is what he told them.  He came in
through Calais Maine, the same entry point of some of the 9/11 terrorists.  But of course he didn't fit the
profile so why suspect him?
Why is this myth about the 9/11 terrorists still out there?
It was confirmed numerous times by various commissions etc that no 9/11 terrorists made their way from Canada to the US.  They all came in from other countries....not that that should matter, if the US doesn't want someone to enter they should stop them at the border...oh wait, even admitted murderes with weapons are allowed in.
Maybe this myth is like the WMD even when dis-proved it still is perpetuated...ah but we do have alot of chain saws up here....

Why is this myth about the 9/11 terrorists still out there?
It was confirmed numerous times by various commissions etc that no 9/11 terrorists made their way from Canada to the US. 


That doesn't mean our borders shouldn't be secure so people can't cross in here illegally.

The Canadian border is a problem, but the border with Mexico is the real problem.  Last I checked we didn't have millions of Canadians in our country illegally stealing jobs.

That doesn't mean our borders shouldn't be secure so people can't cross in here illegally.

The Canadian border is a problem, but the border with Mexico is the real problem.  Last I checked we didn't have millions of Canadians in our country illegally stealing jobs.

You're a free enterprise kind of guy, you ought to know they're not "our" jobs!  They are the bosses' jobs, and the bosses are entitled to hire whomever they like at whatever rate they please, in whatever part of the world they choose, to fill said "jobs." 
The corporate-bought politicians look the other way when the bosses hire illegals.  What right-wingers want is to abolish the minimum wage and state-set occupational standards.  That way the American worker can compete with the illegal alien for rock-bottom starvation wages.

What right-wingers want is to abolish the minimum wage and state-set occupational standards.  That way the American worker can compete with the illegal alien for rock-bottom starvation wages.


Believe it or not I agree.  But a low or no minimum wage is needed to compete as it stands now, like you wrote.  Also there is the question as to wheather the minimum wage is even constitutional.

If we secure our borders so little to no illegal aliens get in our country, defeat CAFTA and withdraw from NAFTA, I'll support raising the minimum wage.  But as it stands, raising it now will only mean more people getting fired, more people hiring illegal aliens, a bigger trade deficit, and even more likely jobs here will go to China.  >:(

Believe it or not I agree.  But a low or no minimum wage is needed to compete as it stands now, like you wrote.  Also there is the question as to wheather the minimum wage is even constitutional.

If we secure our borders so little to no illegal aliens get in our country, defeat CAFTA and withdraw from NAFTA, I'll support raising the minimum wage.  But as it stands, raising it now will only mean more people getting fired, more people hiring illegal aliens, a bigger trade deficit, and even more likely jobs here will go to China.  >:(

Millions of Republican constituents, like you, are disgusted with the illegal hiring practices of businesses that employ illegal immigrants.  And yet, you can't get your elected officials to use political muscle to sanction these industries.

The Constitution may not explicitly provide for a minimum wage, but without one we'll go straight back to the Graps of Wrath days!  The bosses will pit American workers against Chinese workers unless American workers force the legislature to STOP THEM! 
When Ronald Reagan said government was the problem, he was refering only to government that acted on behalf of the working class and racial minorities.  Reagan loved using the machinery of government to make the rich richer.  That's a big part of the Gipper's legacy.