I've lived in Mtn Home since 1989, so that's...hold on...I'm thinking...WOW! Exactly 25 years! Boy, I think I can almost declare myself an Idahoan. But my family is British and I grew up in Louisiana around lots of other Brits so I still think I'm a little bit of a mutt. Those of you who have been around awhile may remember when I used to blog all the time. My opinions weren't very accepted and there was always an issue because I work for the county. That really wasn't fair because I NEVER blog at work! And I am still entitled to my opinions and thoughts about city and county issues, right? However, it stirred a lot of pots and those pots certainly can make a lot of noise! Since I'm a writer, I took what I wrote in my blog seriously so I spent a lot of time researching things which got exhausting to do when you're not even get a paycheck for it. So I stopped. That was a blessing to many! However, to this day, I still have people stop me and ask me why I wasn't blogging and t! hey missed it. I've missed it. Mainly because there are so many issues that come up and I have no voice except around my friends and I'm sure they are tired of it.

Immigration Conundrum

Posted Sunday, August 30, 2009, at 4:05 PM

My next Czar is Immigration-Alan Bersin (Former US attorney): During his time with the Clinton Administration, Bersin implemented Operation Gatekeeper -- an increase in border enforcement that attracted much criticism. The operation cost the U.S. roughly $800 million dollars and doubled the amount of border patrol agents and fences. (By Hoa Quach, SDNN)

Since Operation Gatekeeper was a massive failure and with Bersin as the border czar, that will be a massive failure as well unless he makes more changes. I did a little research in order to figure out for myself why it is a failure. Afterall, hiring more guards was certainly a great idea supported by most people. However, hiring was only the first step. Many of you know that there has been some major issues concerning policy and immigration laws. One very important problem is the fact that border guards have followed policy and found themselves in a courtroom. Read an example:

Border guards are sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314707,00.html

People were outraged. Judges finally agree that the jury didn't get all the story so they were released, but I imagine their lives were ruined and all border guards affected. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494565,00.html

In 2006 legislation passed that required an increase in Border Patrol Guards in the thousands. For FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Home¬land Security estimates that the cost to hire, train, and equip one additional new Border Patrol agent is $187,955. So how much benefit would we get from that money? More if certain factors were addressed and changed.

Factors that significantly undermine the effectiveness of the Border Patrol:

* The disparity between incomes earned in the U.S. and in Mexico and other Latin American countries means that illegal aliens seeking a better life will always have a strong incentive to cross the border.

* The deterrent effect is undercut because those who are caught are not sanctioned for illegally entering the United States.

* Stricter enforcement causes those illegal's already in the country to stay longer.

* The practice of allowing illegal border crossings to meet labor demands also impair potential effectiveness.

Website: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1952.cfm

The first factor or problem of income being pretty self-explanatory.

So the 2nd factor: Deterrence Theory: increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. If the cost of crossing the border that is imposed by increased border enforcement outweighs the economic and social benefits derived from working and living in the United States, individuals will be less likely to cross the border illegally.

More border guards means more apprehensions, however the penalty is a slap on the wrist. Basically, we make them sign a voluntary departure form and send them back to Mexico. In 1998-1.6 million caught and signed the form, yet only 1.25% were prosecuted Honestly, the cost of being apprehended is merely the value of a lost day of working in the States. Unless the punishment is made stricter, there will be no incentive to stop trying.

According to this study(see website reference below): "Unfortunately, though adding more border patrol will increase the number of illegal's caught by 971,000 to 1,404,000 individuals, it will also serve to decrease the number already in the country leaving." In other words, increased risk of being caught will keep illegal's from wanting to leave because they may not be able to get back. Also, as it is right now, an illegal may borrow money to cover the cost of getting across the border and that money is owed whether they are successful or not. So if unsuccessful, in order to pay back the debt, they know that they can make more money here in the states so they will attempt to cross as long as it takes to be successful because the penalty if caught is minimal compared to the benefits. So if we stop more with additional guards, we also in effect, keep more from deciding to return. That would indicate that the immigration agents within should change policy in order to find the illegals here and send them back. Once back in their country, with stricter enforcement by increased guards, they will be unlikely to try to return.

Illegal's are not just from Mexico, though they will cross over from there because it is the easiest way to enter. Many border guards have been reported to say that 1 in 10 caught are Middle Eastern. It is widely known that Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups use Mexico as a safe haven and an easier place of entry due to the extreme ease and light tapping on the wrist if caught.

Concerning the fourth factor that causes failure of "Gatekeeper" is that immigrant workers are needed by many buisnesses such as agriculture and the service industries. W. P. Carey School economics professor Kent Hill said that there are "winners and losers," economically-speaking, from immigration. The "winners," Hill said, include the businesses that employ lower-cost immigrant workers and shoppers who benefit from lower prices. "Losers" include those American workers who compete with immigrants for jobs.

Though I want illegal immigration to stop and support those who want to come here that do it legally; there are some hard truths that we must address. Immigrant workers are in demand. They take the jobs at a low pay which is actually higher pay than what they get in their own country. These people make a reasonable living and in turn, spend their money here. The implications that would arise in our economy if these low-skilled workers were not here is far-reaching. (as much as I hate to admit it) "If low-skill immigrants are filling gaps in the labor market, they're making possible economic activity that wouldn't otherwise happen," said Judith Gans, manager of the Immigration Policy Program at the University of Arizona." Basically, this is how I understand it: If we slowed the availability of low-skilled workers, then those businesses wouldn't be able to produce as much, therefore causing higher-paid workers to lose their jobs; in turn that would cause a steeper rise in unemployment and a drop in the taxes that they pay which in turn effects all aspects of the consumers life. It is a domino effect. Border towns have seen a sharp decrease in revenue since the border has been tightened. In Arizona alone, 40% of their gross state product was generated by businesses that hire low-skilled immigrants. It is a hard truth but one to consider. And American's could take these jobs but these businesses couldn't afford the wages, the unions or the cost of benefits.

A big negative cost is of turning a blind eye to border crossings during the peak need for cheap labor is one that many have argued about. Our gov't has the cost of treating these illegal's who come across the border and suffer from a number of illnesses (Santa Cruz spent over a million treating them) or autopsy costs for the many who die trying to cross or thereafter. Those captured incur tremendous costs such as incarceration, attorney's fees, and deportation.

With widespread agreement -- among economists and policy analysts, at least -- that the benefits of immigrant workers on whole outweigh the costs, the key to immigration reform, panelists suggested, is to design a system flexible enough to retain those benefits. Ah, there's the rub! This is an Immigration Conundrum.

Comments

View 71 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112164695

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 10:32 PM
It's almost funny how you say Bersin and the Clinton administration's Operation Gatekeeper were failures, then as "evidence" attach links to stories about events in 2005 and after.

The Clinton Administration was out of office by 2001. Kind of like how the VA used the "Your Life, Your Choices" pamphlet more under Bush - 7 years - than it did under Clinton and Obama combined - less than 4 years.

-- Posted by ExInternMike on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 1:47 AM
Isn't it. My post is more about the researching the program and it's leader's effectiveness not the Presisdent, although he is the one who appointed him again. I wanted to try and understand what exists now and what is recommended to fix it. It is a problem with vast issues. I was trying to see it from all angles. Though I have screamed for border control, I have found that there is more to the issue than just having more guards.

As far as that pamplet is concerned. Yes, it was used earlier and pulled. I didn't know anything about it until now or I would have been just as mad about it then. Furthermore, I didn't think Bush Administration was the best, either. It had many problems. (time 6:39am)

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 7:39 AM
Wow, Dave, thanks for sharing that video. I read the transcript and it just breaks my heart. American kids have no idea how easy they have it. I certainly see how hard this issue is. You want the borders to be harder for illegals to cross, yet you see something like this and all you want to do is help them. Such a conundrum. (time6:49am)

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 7:49 AM
The VA pamphlet was published and promptly pulled from use by the Bush administration due to it's content. Funny how Obama keeps turning over decisions made by Bush....even the good ones

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 11:48 AM
Even though I am a great believer in a Senators Kennedy's public option choice to Health care. But I am adamantly--OPPOSED--to any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants he also endorsed. But alas Health care and illegal immigration are joined a the proverbial hip and must be separated. In 1985 immigration bill Sen. Kennedy assured the American people, that another AMNESTY would--NEVER--be enacted in future sessions of Congress. He was after all one of the principal authors of the Simpson/Mazzoli bill, in which he committed himself to all of the American public. Speed up a--POINTS SYSTEM--for top of the pinnacle highly skilled workers, but no more hosting millions of indigent foreign labor and families, who become public welfare charges.

PS: Illegal Immigrants will get full access to THE PEOPLES health care, if the Democrats pass a path to citizenship or better known as BLANKET AMNESTY. This piece of potential legislation, is not being fully advanced to the public and cloaked until after enactment? As with most civilized countries we are predisposed to treatment for any illegal alien in emergency hospitals. Except that this hospitals have become an open-house for any minor ailment to very expensive problems like dialysis?.

Once again we will be confronting this major dilemma on immigration reform, mainly because over many administrations immigration enforcement was never carried out. Over these decades lax policies have caused a massive overload of foreigners, who compromised themselves by not following the law, but are not entirely to blame? The awful fact is that the 1986 legislation was under funded and engineered for the particular business sector, unions, church, specialized attorneys and radical minority organizations by certain politicians. Since than the costs have been magnified, parallel to the--TRILLIONS--spent on nation building wars. At least 20 million illegal immigrants now reside in America, and decades of neglect, has swollen the numbers that in future years will undoubtedly cause irreversible overpopulation as analyzed by the US Census Bureau?

Trying to deport so many people is a possibility and a very expensive proposition. But their is another avenue that could be used, with equal success and not costing anywhere near using a forced deportation? We must demand from our rogue lawmakers in Washington to introduce a mandated, funded E-Verify? We know it works well because Special interest groups have used their influence to derail it. In the courts they have resuscitated racial profiling, including that it was faulty in its operation. The cure is simple--plaintiffs should go to the local Social Security office for straightening out irregularities. Until now we didn't realize its power to perform and remove illegal immigrants from the work floor and therefore our government should make it available to every employer under the penalty of fines and prison. BEFORE ANY NEW WORKER IS HIRED, THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AN E-VERIFICATION FORM WARNING THEM OF USING BOGUS ID AND A LEGAL FORM TO SIGN UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY IN MAJOR FOREIGN LANGUAGES. EACH BUSINESS MUST BE MANDATED TO DISPLAY AN E-VERIFY NOTICE. THEIR SHOULD BE A REWARD TO WORKERS, WHO CORRECTLY REPORTS ILLEGAL LABOR ACTIVITY TO ICE.

Democratic leadership made a fatal error, as it had already been funded for months to come E-Verify. The public eye and anti-illegal immigration groups became instantly aware of its special use. An outcry to Washington caused a re-emergence of this utility and now is firmly placed as a workable tool. Further innovations and technical progress--MUST--be made available and reasonable appropriations to modify its accessibility for the most fundamental PC operative? As time goes by, as all new computer programs bugs and errors will be removed and new versions will appear. A few Eastern states have made it fully functioning, while rebel states as California--a Sanctuary illegal immigrant state--is defying its use. Through voluntary now, over time it could cause mass evacuation of illegal labor from the workplace as by "Attrition". Millions will surely give up as employers will live under a dark cloud of penalties and return slowly to their home country.

The 1986 (IRCA) immigration act is very potent and is currently under attack by unions, ACLU, US Chamber of Commerce, as is E-Verify, 287 G, the border fence and anything that smells of enforcement. Corporate entities--COMMAND--unparalleled cheap labor with no restriction, which has been honored by certain unethical politicians who do not represent the majority of the jobless public. Years of inactivity by unethical politicians caused the immigration mess in the first place. So the old adage stands its ground even today, "You made this bed, so now you have to sleep in it"? President Obama is going to try and insist on pushing through another immigration reform, but we cannot let this happen. He should build on the 1986 immigration reform, add amendments and stop the OVERPOPULATION of this country. Do the calculations yourselves of the trillions of dollars used--OVER THE YEARS--to cater to foreign national workers, their families in education, hospitals and the penal environment.

We must assure that all American workers are gainfully employed, not individuals who have no right to be in our country? It makes me sick to see veterans of Korea, Viet-Nam, the Gulf war walking the streets homeless, while illegal immigrants get gratification from employers and lawmakers. WE NO LONGER CAN SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. OUR COUNTRY IS NEAR BANKRUPTCY. DEMAND E-VERIFY TO CHECK THE IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR EVERY US WORKER, BY CONTACTING YOUR LAWMAKER AT 202-224-3121. VOTERS SHOULD COMMAND NO MORE WEAKENING OF ANY LAWS INCLUDING 1986 (IRCA) IMMIGRATION CONTROL & REFORM ACT. JOIN NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH AND BE STUNNED HOW MILLIONS OF VOICES HAVE MADE AN INCREDULOUS DIFFERENCE.

-- Posted by Brittanicus on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 12:40 PM
"The VA pamphlet was published and and promptly pulled from use by the Bush administration due to it's content."

The Bush administration used it for SEVEN YEARS - under what definition is that pulling "prompt?!?"

-- Posted by ExInternMike on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 3:09 PM
I appreciated the video as well. It reminded me of my grandfather. A long time ago, when he was twelve years old, his father, who had been a representative in the Montana Legislature, passed away. My great grandmother took in laundry to support her family. Unfortunately for them, she wasn't able to make ends meet. My grandfather left Montana, alone, and went to Alberta, Canada, to work during the wheat harvest. He sent his earnings back to his family in Montana. My grandfather didn't talk much about his childhood, but this is one story he told, and he mentioned the understanding kindness of the men he worked with in the wheat fields of Alberta.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112164695

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 5:04 PM
Intern, Intern, Intern, you really need to fact check before you blog. Following from a doctor:

"The Veteran's Administration has a brochure entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" that was given to some veterans when admitted to the VA hospital system or in VA nursing homes. It was first published in 1997, and this 52 page book was promoted as the VA system's living will document.

In 2000 when the Bush administration reviewed this document, it was suspended, but has resurfaced once again. The suspension was warranted due to the nature of some of the end-of-life information it provided. It went well beyond living wills or medical durable power of attorney recommendations."

http://millermeeks.com/doctorsnotes/veterans/your-life-your-choices/

The orginal pamphlet was issued during CLINTON'S reign and was discontinued after the Bush administration found it's contents objectionable. So before you open your mouth and insert the other foot, do a little fact checking first.

Thank you and have a great day

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 5:33 PM
http://www1.va.gov/health/YourLifeYourChoices.asp

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM
I've made another comment regarding "Your Life, Your Choices". I have made that comment under the appropriate blog, so this thread will remain on subject.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 6:03 PM
On the broader topic of immigration there are limitations. Any project (fence, wall, etc.) is subject to diminishing returns. As one uses resources such as labor, capital, or land the amount that one gets from it will decline at a certain point. I know that someone here will disregard this but its been well known since the time of Sir Thomas Aquinas. The point is that maybe it is not economical or cost-effective to take this project to its fullest extent.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 6:29 PM
Oh, I fact-check, MHBouncer. Here's two sources that Bush didn't drop "Your Life, Your Choices" until 2007, including the National Right to Life Committee's Web site.

"Worse, he said, is that after the Bush administration shelved the pamphlet in 2007-"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/25/michael-steele/rn...

"the VA has brought back to life a death initiative into which Bush tried to drive a stake back in 2007."

http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug09/nv082409.html

-- Posted by ExInternMike on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 8:58 PM
This issue has many problems. I agree that the people must be able to pass the E-verify. I think that it is wrong that people cheat the system, sneaking inside our borders when there are those people who come here legally, worked hard and pass the test to become a naturalized citizen! Becoming a citizen should mean something! I was born in England. My mother and all her family are British and still there (except Mum who lives in Louisiana). My father was American. My mother, my brother and me became naturalized citizens. It wasn't handed over but earned. I have a tremendous respect for the many immigrants who came here with nothing and work harder than most to build wonderful lives. I'm sure most of you know a family like that. They deserve to be citizens.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 9:03 PM
My wife's mother is from Canada. She refuses to become a US citizen for one reason. She doesn't want to have to take classes to gain citizenship. SHe said if she does that she will know more about this country and it's roots than most of those who were born here. SHe has contributed most of her adult life to this country, paying taxes, raising a family..working hard. Yet she feels that we as a country need to know more about ourselves. Maybe she's right. From reading these blogs it's quite evident at times.

By the way Intern..we moved our discussion to the correct blog. Please try to follow along.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 9:55 PM
This is the blog where you tried to claim Bush pulled the pamphlet in 2000 and not 2007, MHBouncer, so it's the blog where I'll post two sources, one a daily newspaper's Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-check feature, and another a long-established political organization generally respected by conservatives, both stating the Bush administration kept giving out "Your Life, Your Choices" until 2007.

The bottom line is, both say Bush used the pamphlet for seven years.

I brought up Bush's seven-year reliance on a pamphlet whose existence critics are now blaming largely on Obama in conjunction with another observation:

Whatever the Ramos and Compean convictions tell us about immigration policy, it's the immigration policies of the Bush White House. Or perhaps the blame should be lain at the feet of the prosecution and jury. But to hold Bersin and the Clinton administration, which ended four years or so prior to the incident and subsequent trial, responsible?

It just seems on both the pamphlet and immigration the information presented here is very selective and aimed more at deflecting as much responsibility from falling on anyone who ever identified himself or herself as conservative as possible. I don't know, maybe you think when Democrat Harry S. Truman said the buck stopped here he meant future Republican administrations and officials could always pass it to the nearest Democrat.

-- Posted by ExInternMike on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 1:09 AM
I am sorry that some are ignorant and cant see the forest for the trees. Building an impenetrable wall for the length of the border would never pay itself off. Law of Diminishing Marginal Return. It has been proven thousands of times over. The benefits that accrue from a point will continue to decline to a point where the benefits become negative (so the costs outweigh the benefits). This is not politics but simple logic. Those who deplore govt. intervention support undertaking this venture which would be very expensive and the return on that investment would never come close to the initial outlay. This outlay would come from tax dollars. Sounds like quite the conundrum.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 10:31 AM
This is a sensible article from a man in California. I understand Californians are viewed skeptically and are not welcomed by some in Idaho, but if this man's origin can be put aside, perhaps we can stay on subject.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/19/immigration-reform-and-fear-f...

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 8:39 PM
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1801600/conservative_leaders_fearful_pe...

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 9:02 PM
So Ex you're right, I'm wrong because you posted TWO sources of info including oen that called Steeles a LIAR about what he was talking about. Both of your sources quote basically the same ingfo which means it was probabaly from one source. ANd from everything I've found on the net, the source is incorrect.

I moved my post to the appropiate blog..you know the one where Kim was actually talking abou tthe pamphlet.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 11:06 AM
The fact that they are willing to work for low wages and most Americans refuse to will insure that this issue persists. We want low prices when it comes to food, electronics, and clothes. The most costly input to the production process is labor. If one can lower the cost of providing labor, that lowers the price and helps the company be more stable. I am not sure how to resolve this economically. Maybe Americans need to adjust their expectations.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 11:52 AM
www.factcheck.org

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 12:45 PM
Mr Dave Thompson: I don't know why you felt the need to question me concerning when I write or where I write and whether my boss doesn't agree with what I write. (For those just tuning in, see his comment to my blog Czar #1 & #2) Have I asked you where you work or when you write or if you are using a personal or company computer? No? Well, I guess that puts you in a different catergory than me, huh? I suppose my life is now everyone's business and where I work certainly makes me such a great target, huh? Have I asked everyone's work hours? Is it anyone's business? But I will let you know so you can check the calendars I took Aug.10-21 off on vacation & because this seems to be such an issue, just so you know, get your calendar, dude! I will not be in the office tomorrow. Since I have a meeting to attend. Also-Because I have comp-time, I will be needing to take an hour or so off at unexpected times and I will most certainly keep you informed. But mark Sept. 18-21 as a long weekend for me, though out of town, I may post a blog just for you so be sure to watch. Oh and just in case you didn't hear me from before, factcheck this!

-- Posted by kimkovac on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 8:38 PM
Come on, Kim! Posting these off subject responses is not productive.

I'm still waiting for a response to the questions I asked you on the Green Jobs Czar: Van Jones blog back on August 29th.

If anyone would like to review my comments to Kim, please review the post and comments to her blog, Czar #1 & #2.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 9:53 PM
I thought it was quite productive for me. Unfortunatly, you picked the wrong time to question my ethics. Of course, you couldn't know that at the time that you wrote your comment. Suffice it to say, my skin has been worn quite thin lately and since I am human with all the flaws associated with that ailment, I can react negatively to aggressive stimuli. You reminded me once again that my time is rarely my own. Thanks for that little nudge. My back is alittle straighter, my jaw is set a little firmer and my ability to focus is certainly sharper. Wow, if I were Rocky, I would be dancing and shadow boxing right now. Forget the raw egg, though. Disgusting!(Time 6:30am)

-- Posted by kimkovac on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 7:30 AM
Excue me but most of the views on this page are really pathetic. Are people so opposed to Mexican Immigration because of racial issues or beacuse of economic issues? More Chinease, Korean and Japanese are granted citizenship in this country than any other group. In fact I know Chinese Immigrants that where not only granted citizenship but where given 50,000 dollars of government money to begin a business and the US governemnt took it upon themselves to even purchase a 250,000 dollar home for these immigrants. I don't see mexican immigrants getting the same treatment from good ol Uncle Sam! If you have a problem with immigration look at the US policies on certain groups. The Mexicans pose no threat they are simply trying to make a living for thier families. Be smart look at a way to tax thier income not kick them out.

-- Posted by novia88401 on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:20 AM
Looks like Obama has ANOTHER personel dilema..does he keep Van Jones and PROVE he doesn't care about this country...or admit he made a mistake and FIRE him. I say fire him and give us another goon to throw rocks at.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 6:40 PM
And tell me Novia, WHY are these people GRANTED citizenship?...or are they granted a VISA....big difference. Last I checked the Mexican comminists weren't trying to stifle the freedoms of the Mexican people. Most of the Chinese you speak of are politcal refugees for excercising there inherent right to the freedoms you so graciously enjoy. I DO have an issue with any race illegally coming into this country and making money from jobs that we don't have enough of for the CITIZENS of this country. THen taking that money and sending it out of THIS country to support their family back home. If this is truly the land of milk and honey these people wish to live, then let them apply for visas and after being here the required time, apply for citizenship. It's truly that simple. They then become citizens with the full rights that come with the title...including paying into social security and paying taxes. Their children get to attend free public school...they don't have to worry about being scooped up and sent home. What is wrong with those rules Novia? Or are you one of those sheeples that believe that EVERYONE...no matter where you call home should have the same rights that my ancestors died to give you?

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 6:49 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/should-the-census-count-i_b_66897.ht...

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:02 PM
A 2006 article regarding the chance of an American dying in a terror attack.

http://www.stats.org/stories/2006/terror_crunch_jun05_06.htm

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:59 PM
I deeply agree in people coming here legally, working and becoming citizens. I certainly feel really bad for those living in other countries. Good grief, why would this administration think our country needs to be closer to places that their own people are dying to get out of? Over a million alone braved a 90 mile crossing of the gulf in order to get out of Cuba, yet what did I hear a gov't official say? That Cuba's Fidel was brilliant?

There is a reason why we have immigration laws. We are supposed to regulate who comes here. It also helps keep communicable diseases from spreading and criminals from coming here. That is what the problems with illegals arise. We have no control over that. And I am very concerned about our enemies coming in through those holes in our borders.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:13 PM
Firearm and Explosives Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-125R

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:28 PM
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-93

Northern Border Security: DHS's Report Could Better Inform Congress by Identifying Actions, Resources, and Time Frames Needed to Address Vulnerabilities

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:35 PM
Hey Dave, I've read your posts and I have a question. You pull "facts" from differetn website. Most of them leaning a bit left. Then in another blog you quite verses from the bible. My question is, Do you have a original thought or are you a slave to what you read? It's one thing to read "news" posts, it's totally another to sift thorugh the garbage and find truth in it.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:08 PM
I have read plenty about 9/11 and the associated terrorist threat and there is one glaring hole in it. They did not traverse across the Mexican or Canadian border. They flew in from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. Hmmmm... makes one wonder.

Immigration from Mexico and Latin America is an entirely separate issue from that of Islamic militants. If you have not noticed, there is a bit of a cultural difference. I speak Spanish and know some recent immigrants quite personally so dont give your usual inflammatory rhetoric. Yes, immigration in the form of those coming from outside of the Americas (North, Central, and South) should be tightly controlled. That is where it came from and so that is where we should focus our attention on.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 11:48 AM
Hello mhbouncer.

The links I've posted are just some of the stuff I've read through. Whether or not those links contain the word "truth" in them is not my call.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 5:09 PM
I've read this and now I'm comparing the timeline offered in this link to the 9/11 Commission Report. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/911-TerrTrav-Monograph.pdf

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 9:17 PM
Again, how did those terrorists come into the country?

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 10:07 PM
Oh... thats right. Well not really. They came over on flights from Europe/Middle East/Africa to America. No detour in Latin America or Canada. A straight A-to-B connection. When you refer to terrorist, I am assuming that you are talking about Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or other Middle-Eastern groups. With that being known, why would they complicate their with a stop in a largely poor country that does not cater to outsiders like we do. Simple logic.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 1:06 PM
We seemingly embrace these types with open arms in the name of diversity and political correctness. As we all know, there is plenty of financial assistance and support groups for these types.

Now they go to Mexico or Latin America where it is every man for himself. No govt. handouts and no one really cares if life is not working out for you. Oh, so these foreigners are feeling isolated and having a tough time. To most countries that are not the U.S., it sucks to be them. So after their less than cordial reception, they have to navigate the poor road system. Why go through that trouble when one direct flight will solve the problem? Canada may be a different story but that tirade can wait for another day.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 11:13 PM
No one is going to convince me that intelligent, focused individuals are going to add complications to their job when they dont have to. A direct flight here is shorter, less expensive, and more certain. We cater to outsiders. You can deny this all you want but its the simple truth. Latin America does not go out of its way to help outsiders. They have enough issues of their own let alone giving a potential outsider help. There has to be a reason that these Middle-Eastern types have never gone through Latin America on their way to here.

Finally, If I told you to go to the store would you first go to Parma and then make the journey to the store. No, intelligent individuals will choose the path of least resistance. Unnecessary detours create cost and uncertainty. Look at other terrorist actions. Did the terrorists that bombed the Madrid subway take extra detours. No, they took a direct flight to Madrid and executed their ignorance.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 9:56 AM
I am not saying that all is safe but investing in equipment, concrete, and man-hours to police the big wide-open nothing that is the Mexican border seems ludicrous. Immigration is another issue entirely with its own pros and cons. To stay on topic, I would feel stupid knowing that I invested billions to police the desert when these Middle-Easterners flew in from Rome or wherever and executed their ignorance anyways. I am not saying that we should begin a program of hate but welcoming every foreigner with open arms may not be the answer as well.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 9:22 AM
The supply of Marines or appropriate/adequate personnel is not infinite. It never has been nor will it ever. This is not an indictment of current society. Only certain individuals are cut out for that job as you know.

Using all of them to stand in a line and protect the big wide open nothing of South Texas, Arizona, and NM is a waste. They could be doing something else more productive. Training is a never-ending ordeal. No training is done standing watch over the serene nothingness of the desert.

There is no reason yet to believe that terrorists are going to stream across the desert. We stand a better chance of preventing these terrorist attacks by keeping the noose tight at airports. Another well-worn piece of debate is swift, decisive, intelligent action on our part when we are attacked or our allies are. What that exactly entails is unknown. Everybody is the know-it-all on this topic but apparently no one has came up the solution yet.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 8:40 PM
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 9:43 PM
It all depends on what the American public feels is more important? Do we want cheap labor and therefore lower prices on goods produced with unskilled labor or not? Do we want assurance against outside threat or are we happy with what is currently in place? Gaging the level of outside threat is nearly impossible. There is no way to quantify it exactly. It all depends on who one talks to. If the whole of America wants to tighten the border then fine. The individuals here that oppose this view dont speak for the whole of America. I know that I dont. If there is to be a change then lets have it reflect the whole of America and what it wants. No use relying on the past and needing to rehash it.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 16, 2009, at 12:55 PM
That was not the point. The point is if we want the border airtight some choices will have to be made. Again, do we want cheap labor and low prices or not? There is no debate about that. Americans demand high wages and a high standard of living. Just drive down Eagle Road and that is all the proof that one needs.

Second, if the whole of America feels that the threat is imminent and they are willing to make the sacrifices to protect against that then fine. We are a representative democracy. It would be easy to say that since FDR so regime has really embodied the whole of America. Regardless of what you or I think, it should come down to what the whole thinks not just overpaid senators and think tanks. I am not sure how one would quantify this level of interest. Taking a national referendum sounds good but not everyone has accurate information. Everyone is a know-it-all but yet 99% of the public has no military experience nor extensive knowledge of the outside world. Quite the conundrum but we shall see how it goes.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, at 11:02 AM
Illegal immigration aside, these immigrants that will work for less save us a ton of money. They dont require health insurance, unions, or any relatively unnecessary perks. If the border is airtight, people are going to have to live with higher prices, uncertain supply of produce, and likely some unemployment due to those rising prices. If that is what they want and they are willing to accept the consequences then lets move ahead with it. I am simply stating the consequences of the action.

The motives and desires of one group may not represent the whole. America has always been a mix of different ethnicities and groups. I am not sure that the motives that drive these types you speak of would be as pure as you imply. It may be because I am cynical and think that most people are not pure nor genuine and simply put on a show for society. I dont feel that most people are selfless enough for that to work. I may be wrong and if so, then that's life.

Govt. is supposed to embody the wishes and desires of the populace. That seems to not be the case in the last 50 years but that is the idea. If the masses want to dedicate resources to the cause then thats the path they should go down. I dont feel it is necessary but I am only one of 300 million. I guess the point of all this is that I would hope that we would not let one niche group that does not embody the whole run the show.

Being that this idea would require vast amounts of resources, I would hope that Americans take the time and energy to research it before putting it into action. Americans dont always back their emotional, know-it-all, gung-ho rhetoric with fact or logic. So we shall see.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, at 12:34 PM
We can debate the probability of Middle-Easterners taking the detour of going through Mexico by car or foot til the cows come home. As for Latinos, they do the work that Americans think that they are above. To motivate middle-class America to work at the slaughterhouse or in the fields will take mass shortages or high wages. White middle-class types will refuse at first to pay double the price for basic consumer goods. Now when they find out that there is no other way they will have to adjust. This will result in the demand for other goods sinking to new lows. Again, this is fine and dandy if America is willing to accept it. These are just logical consequences to these actions.

California and the border states have a definite issue with illegal immigration. Idaho is a different story. Argue all you want but I know many immigrants and they dont embody the stereotypes that you would put forth. I can speak fluent Spanish so I would know if they were lying. Robert Vazquez's little stunt about charging Mexico 4 million dollars was laughable. Well, we all need a laugh. Its not just Latinos but also Asians, Bosnians, and Eastern Europeans. I know of plenty that work at Wal-Mart that get stipends from Uncle Sam. Oh and they go to school for free. They should have to struggle through the rigors of going to college just like the rest of us.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, at 8:29 PM
Hey Twil, give this country another few months of high unemployment and those all high and mighty Americans will be looking for those jobs that only the latinos will do.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Thu, Sep 17, 2009, at 10:38 PM
I dont debate the merits of tightening the security on incoming flights and outgoing for that matter as well. That is how they got here. They did not swim across the Atlantic. Nor did they fly to Mexico and buy a car and decide to drive across the desert and cross the border that way. So just do a little reading and think a bit. They came over on AIRPLANES. Immigration of Latinos and Middle Eastern terrorists seem to me to be unrelated. Now I guess it could happen in the future but then why would they not choose Canada instead. Less resistance and less distance to populated areas.

There are three basic inputs to production. Land, Labor, and Capital. Land is a fixed cost meaning that once the sale is made, its done and over with. Labor is the most expensive item because of the ongoing, variable nature to it. If a business can find cheap labor, they are going to utilize it. It is basic economics. No one is going to go broke so that they can appease everyone else. The point is that one cannot blame businesses for using this cheap labor. I choose not to work in the fields because I can make more doing something else.

Legal immigration is what I speak of. So to clarify, cheap labor used by businesses that is legal and certified is fine. Illegals are a topic for another day. Blabbering on for another page will just put someone to sleep so I will refrain. Illegals bring negative aspects with them besides the obvious.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Fri, Sep 18, 2009, at 10:48 AM
Canada has always steered clear of conflict, for better or for worse. It has helped them in some ways and in some ways not so the jury is still out on that one.

I guess they could fly into the Caribbean and then take boats to the mainland. That seems like a lot of trouble when there is a cheaper and less time consuming way to accomplish the end task. I realize that by plugging one hole (airports) we will funnel the rats into another. People on a mission adapt and make the best of what is given to them.

One idea is that we stop funding the State of Israel. I am not anti-Jew by any means but from a financial standpoint our contributions keep them afloat. Our quasi-Isolationist policies in the 1800's helped us to not create a lot of enemies (and allies either).

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Sep 21, 2009, at 11:42 AM
There is a difference between helping and supporting them financially. Help implies that they are doing their best to support themselves but just cant get there. The US provides for 25% of their GDP. If they want to be taken seriously they will have to stand on their own. That is not to say that we should not be allies but this seems more like a dependency.

I am sure that if tightened the screws at airports, they would adapt. Stop intervening in their affairs would help as well. Instead of focusing their displaced ignorance on us, they could go after their true enemies. By continuing our "peacekeeping" missions we just add fuel to the fire.

Back to immigration, giving someone power like that you describe would result in someone using that power for all the wrong reasons.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, at 10:02 AM
you do realize that the overwhelming majority of the arms and equipment that the Israelis used to fight the Seven Day War against Iraq originated here. So that says that they are only a power because of the U.S. They only exist because of the conscience of the Western World. Their strength is a byproduct of American donations and Western European intervention. Yes, I admire their determination but I find that they rely on everyone else too much.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 22, 2009, at 10:40 PM
Their determination or ability to survive stems from the fact that they are the minority in that part of the world. They either assert themselves or perish.

Have you ever thought that in periods of non-War that we dont need to play GI-Joe. Oh, so we should initiate a war or conflict just because we can. Necessity is the mother of invention. When an action is needed, the reaction will come. Delusions aside, there is no war going on that is not a peacekeeping mission. We have no business being in Iraq or Afghanistan. So from the time of the Civil War to WWI, some like you probably spouted off the same, "We are going soft, no one knows how to fight" rhetoric. Hmmm... well we did adapt and figure it out come WWI and ultimately WWII and so on...

Iran has been their nemesis for years so why have they not disposed of them yet. The world has known of their intentions since the late 70's. Their nuclear program has been known for 20 years. There obviously is more to the story. If the threat was so eminent, some one would have reacted. I know about uranium enrichment and all that jazz. It takes time to be of use. I know that you advocate just destroying them but its good that not all have that mentality. Without knowing the full story, some would just go ahead with it regardless of consequences.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM
The biggest reason Ireal doesn't need Americans on the ground to fight it's wars is because EVERYONE is required to enter military service. Males for 3 years and females for 2. Once they are out of the active service they are considered part of the ready reserve force and ALL are issued weapons and ammunition. So now you have hundreds of thousands that are military trained AND ARMED to act in a minutes notice. Try that here and the ACLU and all the liberal cry babies would cause a s*&^ storm like you've never seen. I think the miltary teaches respect..both for yourself AND your country. It teaches you responsibility and commitment. And one of the most important things it teaches you is how to look out for people other than yourself. How many of the left wing professors in the universities and colleges can do that for you? Go ahead, let me have it, tell me you can learn all these things in college...BULL!!!

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Wed, Sep 23, 2009, at 11:48 PM
Israel only one exists because of the collective conscience of the US and Western Europe. You can argue all that you want but that is stone cold fact. Without the events of WWII, this discussion would not be occurring. Their "strength" was nonexistent up until the 1950's.

Next, upon the Western World forcing this upon the Middle East they were supplied with virtually everything by the outside world. If you need proof of that, just read their initial census reports. So had it not been for the world feeling sorry (rightfully so) for them, they would not be a nation.

Mandatory military service is fine for Israel. They have many enemies. These enemies are many and in some respects are equal. It is also a theocracy. Church and state are not separate so the motives change a bit.

Character is not learned in the classroom. Some have it, some dont. I know of many ex-Military types who are wastes of skin. Ignorant, arrogant, and could not care less for anyone so I feel it is a crapshoot.

About Iran, I am not sure what we should do. Obviously we get our info from the media which is always biased. If solid intel tells one they plan to attack then we should take decisive action. If there is not going to be one, we should leave them be.

Hitler only put people back to work because they had guns to their heads. These people that were employed worked for next to nothing. Today's minimum wage is exponentially greater than any that peasants in Germany earned. Coercion and fear go along way when one has nothing.

I get it, you seek to discredit anything that does not embody the America of the 1950's. Nobody and no generation is perfect. There were flaws to life then. My generation has flaws and I am fine with admitting those. Last time that I checked, we are all humans and still need the ATP reaction to continue existing.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Sep 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM
Politicians and leaders always talk big. They say what their supporters want to hear. Whether or not they actually follow through with it is comical. You can pretend that they mean everything they say but I will go with probability.

Iran, Syria, Turkey, and most of the other Middle Eastern countries have threatened Israel either explicitly or implicitly in the last 30 years. So that means we just obliterate them or assist in Israel's doing the same? Second, we are civilians. We do not know the full story. Lie all that you want and give me this, "I have been on the front lines and blah, blah, blah...." nonsense but the point is that few know the full story. Our mostly uninformed, passionate rambling just takes up airspace. I dont pretend to know all the details and exactly what to do.

The Russians have had a history of being shady and having no integrity since the 1700's.

Back to the original topic, I would be curious to know how these border towns would react if the border was tightened?

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 11:07 AM
Its called thinking ahead. I know that if I stated that I nor you nor anyone knows the full story you would respond. Your response would pretend to be knowledgeable or just slam on anyone that is not military. Point blank, black and white if one does not know the full story then dont put on a front and act like the know-it-all. Being a vietnam vet and knowing the full story behind Iran are not connected. One experience does not convey knowledge to the other. I am fine with admitting that I dont know something. It may be unrealistic to expect the same of others but I try.

If two guys are duking it out in the parking lot, I leave them be and move on. If it affects me or my loved ones, then it changes.

I dont feel bad for border towns but rather just simple curiosity.

I have been advocating to stay out of their business for years. So we can agree on that. Israel should be left alone to fight its own battles. As well as all other countries.

Again, have you ever thought that this is peacetime. Terrorist attacks are not included in that. There is no eminent, life-or-death, struggle that affects every citizen. In times like that, history (rome, charlemagne, etc) has always shown that society lowers it preparedness. Its only logical. Having all of your able-bodied males playing GI Joe when there are more productive uses is not rocket science. It may not please the Republican conscience but simple economics knows not party lines. Simple matters of choice. Choice has always existed and always will.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:08 AM
You know, you really sound ignorant sometimes. You dont know jack didley about what I watch/read or dont. I am impartial to news source. They are all biased and all have flaws.

Hmmm.... peacekeeping missions and terrorist-related activities dont count in my book. Our involvement in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, and Kuwait did not affect everyday life. Those conflicts did not change life in America except loss of lives and angering the public. No one's life in Montana is in danger due to the actions of Iran, Iraq, or whatever. Pretend all that you want.

I dont agree with what I have read about the CIA situation but there is more to the story than what some jaded reporter or power-hungry politician wants us to know. I will reserve judgment for later.

"I think the marionettes who pull Obama's strings would love nothing BETTER than to find a "justifiable" way in which for him to DECLARE Martial Law. That would give them ABSOLUTE POWER."

How is this any different than the nutjobs that claim that the world will end on X day in X year. This sounds like the Book of Revelation which was just nonsense written to inspire Christians against the "evil" Romans. Did any of the events happen as written? No. Was there any fact/reason/logic behind the words? No.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 10:14 AM
"Hmmm.... peacekeeping missions and terrorist-related activities dont count in my book. Our involvement in Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, and Kuwait did not affect everyday life. Those conflicts did not change life in America except loss of lives and angering the public. No one's life in Montana is in danger due to the actions of Iran, Iraq, or whatever. Pretend all that you want."

Did you really mean to write that Twil? Try telling that to the families of those who are in those countries fighting a WAR. You included Korea which truly wasn't a war, it was a police action and we were acting on the behalf of the UN and not the United States. I whole heartedly disagree with you that what is going on in Iraq and Iran isn't affecting the safety of those here in the states. Apparently your TV is broken and haven't seen where they have arrested men of muslim faith and middle eastern decent who have loyalties to Al Qeada and the Taliban who were bent on detonating devices in crowded public areas. So tell me how this doesn't affect us. We are fighting a frontal assault trying to keep those who want to do us harm in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against armed troops instead of innocent civileans here.

The fact, yes FACt that Iran has fissionable matrial and don't give a **** what the rest of the world thinks should scare the hell out of you. How long before Israel gets tired of waiting for Obama to get Iran to give up it's quest forthe BOMB through diplomacy and just blow the hell out of those nuclear plants? Then what...who goes after Israel, US? Iran and Lybia? So you think that Iran won't retaliate against Israel if that happens? Where does that put us? US Troops on either side of Iran, a decades old agreement to help Israel if needed and a president who's been kissing terrorist butt for the past 8 months. Good Bye Israel.....

Wow, you're right Twil, NONE of this affects YOU at all...

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 5:22 PM
Ok, the war in Somalia did not change anyone's income, no one not fighting the war lost a life, no average American lost great sums of money, time, or resources. Only those directly involved were affected. War in my estimation involves everyone and affects all whether they contribute or not. That was not the case in that situation and the others that I named. They were police actions that could have easily been avoided and the lives of Americans would have no worse than before.

I guess when it comes down to the core of it all, the truth really lies somewhere between my objective approach and your inflammatory rhetoric.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 4:25 PM
*would have been no worse than before*, does not make a whole lot of sense otherwise.

Kool-Aid, what the heck are you talking about? Seriously what is meant by that?

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 8:22 AM
I always thought that the "Koolaid" was something connected to the poor brainwashed Jim Jones people who drank the Koolaid as instructed and they all died. Blind followers is what I thought. Much like the sheeples or the lemmins. I heard this great song yesterday. Let's see...What is that song? "We weren't born to follow, you gotta stand up for what you believe." Something like that. Oh crap, now that song is stuck in my head for the rest of the night.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 7:09 PM
So to boil this down, one of us is no better than the other. It takes all types to make the world go round.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 9:46 AM
I'll give you that one on Somalis, Twil. But much like THIS president, THAT president didn't fully commit his troops nor trust the commander. If the commander on the ground had had ultimate control he would have done things much different including bringing in more troops and shutting down the warlord they were chasing. They would have taken the town and used it to draw in the militias where they could pick them apart one by one. He had one bad day where 17 soldiers died because of bad policy. Clinton was trying to take out ONE MAN using a small force of specialized soldiers. The commander wasn't allowed to hold ground and move to the next objective. They operated from a firebase and moved into the city when Adid was spotted. I'm no history expert but sounds alot like what Johnson did in Viet Nam. And it's slowly sounding more of what Obama wants to do in Afghanistan. Draw down our forces, operate as "advisors" to the afghanistan army. Go after spotted terrorist in the mountains with drones. He no more wants to win this war than Johnson did in Viet Nam and Clinton in Somalia. Remember it was the Clinton policies and lack of a back bone that lead to the bombings of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1993 bombing of the world trade center and if you can balme Bush for the economy then I can blame Clinton for the attacks on 9/11. Remember all the preperation and planning took place while Clinton was president and he had slivers of intelligence he chose to ignore. Seems liberals like to play at war but since most have never strapped up combat boots before a mission, they have no clue that war is best left to warriors.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 10:25 AM
Somalia, we never should have been there. That conflict was someone else's heartache. The lives of 99.9999% of Americans would have not changes in any way if we had not intervened. If we dont intervene in Vietnam, tell me how life for the average Idahoan would have been worse off?

I do believe that we are going to enter the realm of war or military action, then we need to go at it 100%. Let the trained and elite go at it. My objections primarily come at the front end, whether to get involved or not. After that bridge has been crossed, I am fine with entrusting the military. Too many hands in the pie and no one gets anything done.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 12:37 PM
*I do believe that if we are going to*.

Proofreading should become a new hobby of mine.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 2:50 PM
I agree Twil, It's bad policy that gets us into most wars and police actions. Viet Nam is a good point. The communist took over the country in the end anyways and the world as a whole is no worse for it. However, when the politicians get us into a war then it's time to give the warriors a free hand in doing what they have prepared YEARS for. Give them the money and tools to do what they need to do to win.

As a former police officer I saw first hand how politicians got involved in police matters. Here is a 25 year career veteran officer being told how to do his job by a 26 year old city manager. If we had told the city manager how to do his job he would tell us that we didn't have the training. So to should bureaucrats keep their collective fingers out of what they don't know.

Let the administration work the diplomacy side to end the war quickly to save lives but leave the killing part to the professionals.

-- Posted by mhbouncer on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 3:23 PM
As an additional note, if there is solid intel that tells us that a threat is eminent then I would say let the appropriate personnel go after it. If they have to be a bit "un-Pelosi" then so be it. Life does not wait on having attorneys and translators. Iran, if we decide to undertake action against them then it should be decisive, swift, and complete. Let the people who are involved finish the job. I dont know if I agree with staying there afterwards and rebuilding the country. If I was to be a soldier in a similar situation, I may think different. That day may come so who knows.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Sep 29, 2009, at 4:56 PM
The future will reveal that. We are pretty at meddling in everybody's business or at least have shown that talent in the past.

I have entertained thoughts of joining the Air National Guard. The only obstacle is that I want to deployed to Iraq or some place like that. To fight and possibly die in a place that we should never be would be foolish. If I want to die so bad, there are many other ways to do it. If we were to remove ourselves from Iraq (not Iran), I dont feel that the average American's life would be any better or worse. Who knows though, the future may show a different story.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Oct 1, 2009, at 9:29 AM
"we are pretty good at meddling", I meant to say.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Oct 1, 2009, at 1:20 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register