Topic: Troops Won’t Be Used to Stop Illegal Immigrants | |
---|---|
Confirmed: Unarmed National Guard Troops Won’t Be Used to Stop Illegal Immigrants
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:28 PM from gatewaypundit The illegal immigrants aren’t just from Mexico: Mexican President Calderon was right. Those 1,200 National Guard troops who are being sent to the border… Will not be used to curb illegal immigration. The AFP reported: US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday. The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants. President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.” He said the move was “fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods — drugs, guns, people.” He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border. Nearly 13 million Mexicans live in the United States, more than half of them illegally. Ain't dis just another bag o' dung? Now they, libs, claim there are only arounf 7.5 million Illegals. “We have explained the president’s announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it,” Crowley said. Oh… And, the National Guard troops will not be armed. What's the point in doing this? More importantly were going to send unarmed National Guard to deal with drug smugglers who shoot and chop off heads? and these men and women are unarmed? To cut more costs, the troops will also be using cans with strings connecting them, to communicate with each other. |
|
|
|
Are these articles altered by the poster?
Cause it isn't even the real news as written. |
|
|
|
Border Troops Won’t Do Much, Say Residents
May 26, 2010 - 4:37 PM | by: William La Jeunesse While Washington wrings its hands over immigration, Arizona border residents say political dithering is making things worse. “Every time our president talks to the Mexican president, or every time the word amnesty comes over the Mexican news, there is a flood of people,” said one resident who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. She and her neighbors say unarmed National Guard won't deter drug smugglers or anyone else. “There's guys out here with no guns and they're our troops. The Mexicans think we're nuts,” says the resident. But it is not just Mexicans. In 2009 Customs and Border Protection arrested 52,000 illegal entrants from countries other than Mexico, known as “OTM’s,” including from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen. U.S. representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) says the crossings are a concern. ”It's the illegal drug human smuggling and yes, the potential for terrorism.” In spite of the Border Patrol's best efforts, thousands of people are getting through, on federal land like Indian reservations and national parks that cover almost half of the Arizona-Mexico border. In many places, agents can't pursue criminals in their vehicles for fear of damaging the environment. Rancher Fred Eddington says he is frustrated. “Border Patrol needs to go where they can go to do their job. And nobody else plays by the rules, so why should they?" The recently retired head of the Tucson Border Patrol puts it plainly: “The border is porous. We don't have the resources that we need. Somebody who wants to do us harm can get into the United States.” |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, facts have no place in the 'World of Make-Believe' that many choose to live in ...
|
|
|
|
Its going to come down to people sitting on hill tops sniping criminals as they cross and the govt. will only have themselves to blame. I'd be ok with this at this point... |
|
|
|
Edited by
FearandLoathing
on
Fri 05/28/10 05:33 PM
|
|
Are these articles altered by the poster? Cause it isn't even the real news as written. No, they are not altered aside from the last few lines of personal input. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/confirmed-unarmed-national-guard-members-wont-be-used-to-stop-illegal-immigration/ http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/26/border-troops-wont-do-much-say-residents/?test=latestnews Although Fox is hardly a source I would trust, the story is verifiable aside from their confidential source...for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, facts have no place in the 'World of Make-Believe' that many choose to live in ... I find that funny coming from someone that simply won't accept anything aside from what they already believe wholly to be truth. Probably still haven't read the links I provided in your other threads, have you? Can hardly verify any information you provide as being truth, matter of fact in a matter of a few minutes almost everything you posted I was able to shoot down with a quick search. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Fri 05/28/10 05:21 PM
|
|
Unfortunately, facts have no place in the 'World of Make-Believe' that many choose to live in ... I find that funny coming from someone that simply won't accept anything aside from what they already believe wholly to be truth. Probably still haven't read the links I provided in your other threads, have you? Can hardly verify any information you provide as being truth, matter of fact in a matter of a few minutes almost everything you posted I was able to shoot down with a quick search. Your sources aren't worth pursuing if I'm in the market for facts. But thanks for proving my point here ... |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, facts have no place in the 'World of Make-Believe' that many choose to live in ... I find that funny coming from someone that simply won't accept anything aside from what they already believe wholly to be truth. Probably still haven't read the links I provided in your other threads, have you? Can hardly verify any information you provide as being truth, matter of fact in a matter of a few minutes almost everything you posted I was able to shoot down with a quick search. Your sources aren't worth pursuing if I'm in the market for facts. Again, I was able to kill your reference points in a matter of minutes and the only response to my own reference points is they were 'biased.' I'm all for debating issues, but don't use fear mongering tactics to push your own agenda...if you would like to debate some time, shoot me a mail, but as I can see...it wouldn't be worth my time anyway. Believe whatever you will naively believe, but do know, that when you put up misinformation...I will be the first one to prove it. |
|
|
|
I was reprimanded for not providing links to my news articles.
I think we should ask the same of the OP |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, facts have no place in the 'World of Make-Believe' that many choose to live in ... I find that funny coming from someone that simply won't accept anything aside from what they already believe wholly to be truth. Probably still haven't read the links I provided in your other threads, have you? Can hardly verify any information you provide as being truth, matter of fact in a matter of a few minutes almost everything you posted I was able to shoot down with a quick search. Your sources aren't worth pursuing if I'm in the market for facts. Again, I was able to kill your reference points in a matter of minutes and the only response to my own reference points is they were 'biased.' I'm all for debating issues, but don't use fear mongering tactics to push your own agenda...if you would like to debate some time, shoot me a mail, but as I can see...it wouldn't be worth my time anyway. Believe whatever you will naively believe, but do know, that when you put up misinformation...I will be the first one to prove it. Uhhhh ... no. As for you being the first to 'prove' anything, keep trying ... one day you might succeed - as of now, you're still woefully short of reality ... |
|
|
|
Another half a** attempt by the government at something that has already been proven that.... it don't work.
|
|
|
|
It is help and it was asked for.
I guess we have become such a spoiled society that when we ask for help and someone gives us some we get to say "it isn't enough". What is it that makes us this way? |
|
|
|
It is help and it was asked for. I guess we have become such a spoiled society that when we ask for help and someone gives us some we get to say "it isn't enough". What is it that makes us this way? ROFLMAO Probably the FACT that we already know that what Obama has offerred won't work....an invasion is going on everday on our borders....it's gonna take a drastic change of action to clean it up. |
|
|
|
If 1,200 NG are placed 1 every 2 miles, it will only cover 2,400 miles. I know, as well as anyone, there will be at least 2 to 4 per outpost. Each doing either 8 or 12 hour guard shifts. So, how many miles does that cover putting 4 troops every 2 mile apart? About 600 miles? Feel free to correct my math.
|
|
|
|
Are these articles altered by the poster? Cause it isn't even the real news as written. No, they are not altered aside from the last few lines of personal input. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/confirmed-unarmed-national-guard-members-wont-be-used-to-stop-illegal-immigration/ http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/26/border-troops-wont-do-much-say-residents/?test=latestnews Although Fox is hardly a source I would trust, the story is verifiable aside from their confedential source...for obvious reasons. Poster is known for altering other people's post is why I asked. Okay so we are back to what was discussed on the last one of these. Man it is always the same crap over and over again. Most of the troops will not be armed or acting in a policing matter because it could be construed as an act of war. So the troops will be support so the real border patrol can do more patroling. IE "He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border. " Not even close. Not 1 NG Troop will have a gun! |
|
|
|
Another observation. Every time Mexican Military is spotted near the boarder, they are armed to the gills.
And why aren't there unarmed Mexican Military troops on the Mexican side doing the same? Seems like they would want to participate in this charade. |
|
|
|
If 1,200 NG are placed 1 every 2 miles, it will only cover 2,400 miles. I know, as well as anyone, there will be at least 2 to 4 per outpost. Each doing either 8 or 12 hour guard shifts. So, how many miles does that cover putting 4 troops every 2 mile apart? About 600 miles? Feel free to correct my math. Your math is good but you need to cut the 600 in half, because if you have 2 per post thats 600 miles. Now say it's 12 hour shifts you need 4 troops to cover that one outpost so you would end up with only 300 miles. Now not all these troops will be put on outposts so the number would be even smaller. 1,200 is a far cry from them at least 6,000 that were requested. |
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 05/29/10 08:10 AM
|
|
If 1,200 NG are placed 1 every 2 miles, it will only cover 2,400 miles. I know, as well as anyone, there will be at least 2 to 4 per outpost. Each doing either 8 or 12 hour guard shifts. So, how many miles does that cover putting 4 troops every 2 mile apart? About 600 miles? Feel free to correct my math. Your math is good but you need to cut the 600 in half, because if you have 2 per post thats 600 miles. Now say it's 12 hour shifts you need 4 troops to cover that one outpost so you would end up with only 300 miles. Now not all these troops will be put on outposts so the number would be even smaller. 1,200 is a far cry from them at least 6,000 that were requested. The NG troops were told they have to supply their own cans and string to communicate with. I seriously doubt the NG will be put in any area where they will actually encounter anyone. To do so and they have no weapons to defend themselves would be having them in a position to potentially be assassinated. |
|
|