Clark Griswold
-
Posts
3,038 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Clark Griswold
-
-
Nice that you label all immigrants like that. Your true white robe colors are showing
Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
Yours are too, the original intent of this thread was about securing the border(s) from illegal crossings, nothing to do with legal crossings / immigration. Those who argue against merely stopping illegal crossing / immigration really are saying that other people who are not citizens of this country have special rights to violate laws that actual citizens of this country do not.
BTW I specified illegal aliens, not legal immigrants.
-
By you keeping out those who you don't want in, aren't you infringing on my private property rights to sell, or rent to whomever I choose to enter into a contract with? Or as a business owner, whom I can hire to work for me? So your "right" to possibly feel crowded supersedes my rights as a property owner or business owner to run my businessour home in its best interest?
Because your "freedom" to enter into business, contracts, etc... with whomever can drag/bribe/sneak their way into the country infringes on my right to not be robbed/killed/raped/harassed by illegal aliens and infringes on the sovereignty of my nation to control it's borders
-
Thanks for proving what I said earlier- The problem is self correcting.
When too many immigrants come the resources and available jobs become very limited and with it the incentive to immigrate. Many would even choose to self deport at that point!
Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
Do you wait till you get a Resolution Advisory before correcting a loss of separation problem when you can see it coming 20 miles out?
Do you wait till you get a Pull-Up Pull-Up before correcting a loss of terrain clearance problem if you know you have a CFIT coming?
Why do we have to wait for the pain / problem to get so severe that people will just leave a country to get away from it?
Why can't we lead the turn and control our destiny?
Do you wait till the stove burns your hand and you feel the pain before you remove it?
-
Open borders, amnesty, long term high immigration (legal & illegal) pick your poison, are not wise national policies. Allowing in more low-skilled workers (and their dependents) will cost much more than they will ever contribute in terms of payroll taxes and depress the wages of the working poor and working class. What Vertigo proposes (ostensibly a free market of labor which really is just a race to the bottom) can not ever be as Mexico or whatever labor exporting country you want to pick will not allow a reciprocal move to open it's economy or society, again the elites of the third world don't care a whit about their own poor and just expect the gringos to let them in, thereby solving their problem of a dissatisfied mass of poor.
We are enabling some of the worst governance / inattention by turning a blind eye to this and allowing it to continue.
Robert Rector’s Study: Open Borders + Welfare State = Disaster
Build the fence(s) - Patrol the border - Arrest & Fine the illegal EMPLOYERS - Deport the illegals when they are arrested
-
1
-
-
Keeping borders closed restricts human freedom.
So Israel doesn't have the right to keep Palestinians from coming back to Israel or 20 million Arabs just deciding they want to live in Israel?
What about Ukraine? Do they have the right to keep 50,000 Russian "citizens" on their border from coming across?
Human Freedom is balanced and reasonably controlled to prevent anarchy. Restricting human freedom is not always bad, I like restricting the freedom of criminals for instance.
Restrictions on the right to migrate are only moral if there is clear evidence of very bad consequences. Even then it could be questionable.
Examples of Serious Crimes of Illegal Aliens
What are you defending by keeping an immigrant from entering? Undue pressure on your culture? Wage protection from a more competitive foreigner?
Yes, societies and economies that adhere to different standards for workers' rights, environmental responsibility, rule of law, etc. have the right restrict themselves from those that don't. Why is our culture and nation required to be the accumulator for the rest of the world? Large scale immigration is actually not the norm for our country and wild rapid swings in demographics tends to lead to self-segregation as assimilation which is a slow, osmotic process is not allowed to take its course. New entrants to the society find a ready and sizeable cohort of those like them and choose to band together rather than blending with the majority and adding to it.
If it's pressure on your culture, does that mean you have the right to keep blacks out of your white neighborhood as well?
No, I am not arguing for a non-equal society of citizens, as illegal aliens are not citizens they have fewer rights inside of our sovereign borders. They have some basic rights if they are here (even illegally) but not the right to be here illegally.
If it's wage protection does that mean you can keep a younger competitor willing to work for less from attending a job interview by any means possible?
No, that is just sophistry and histrionics. Do you really believe that our nation is somehow different than other countries and it does not have the right to control itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, what you advocate for is anarchy.
Or is it just because it's the law and the state has the right to enforce its laws? Where does the state get those rights? From its citizens, correct? The government cannot have any rights that its citizens do not possess.
The government is entrusted with responsibilities that no citizen could or should posses, say the right to execute, declare war, enforce laws, negotiate treaties, etc... For the sane and rational function of society, liberty is responsibly curtailed and power transferred to the government composed of its citizens.
And no citizen has the right to deny immigrants access across a border, or do we? If yes, does that mean I can restrict you from entering my state? After all you're not a citizen of my state, or my city, or my neighborhood.
Yes, we have the right to deny people, if we choose to, not to come into our country. Really went out on a limb there.
If we as individuals don't have the right to close borders, then how can the state have that right?
Not sure if serious.
Or perhaps you think U.S. citizens collectively own the land which makes our nation. And through the democratic process we've transferred part of the ownership to the government. Does that do the trick? Well no. There is plenty of land in the U.S. owned by foreigners and foreign entities that do not get to vote and therefor have no say in that democratic process that transfers ownership to the government. And if the government does own the land, that means they could decide who you can invite over to your next BBQ, or your Superbowl party and that's just absurd.
Again. Not sure if serious...
-
I'm not sure that partial drug legalization is actually part of the solution. They aren't simply about drugs only anymore. Don't get me wrong, drugs are a large part of it. Mary Jane is just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits on cocaine, meth, etc... which will probably never be legalized. Like any good business, they have diversified. Many have evolved into essentially what Amazon is, a one stop logistical shop for everything.... kidnapping, human trafficking, pirating intellectual property, etc. Drugs may have launched their mechanism but their real bread and butter is how they sell and traffic their product. Either way it's a complete mess... especially when U.S. banks such as Wachovia in 2008 alone processed $378 billion in Mexico without any anti-laundering actions.
Can't disagree with you, Vertigo's relevant link was an article about how legalized weed is hurting the illicit production & smuggling business from Mexican cartels, every little bit helps... weakening the Cartels helps the Mexican government defeat them and marijuana legalization with a strong secure border are good tactics in the strategy to build a stable, prosperous and modern Mexico... our ultimate southern border objective, long term for the US it is not optimal to live next door to a not third world exactly but not first world country either... the porous border and our lax immigration, employment and citizenship enforcement policies keep the elites of Mexico from having to deal with their problems, just encourage your poor to go North, send home money and demand citizenship; money goes home, can gets kicked down the road and political hegemony by demographic shift happens, seems tin foil hat and conspiratorial but it is happening...
Good article:
-
Love the comment section. People getting all excited about the possibility of killing another human being for crossing an imaginary line on the ground.
An imaginary line on the ground? So if 10, 20, 30 million people just walked across the border, got here somehow or were sent from another country and just decided that wanted to live here that's ok? No say so on the part of the nation, its citizens or respect for its laws or sovereignty? The most basic definition of a nation is the ability to control its territory. If we don't enforce our borders and laws we are no longer a nation and ultimately a society in decline and disintegration.
Acting in defense of your interests and your nation is not racism, bigotry, unfair or un-American.
I don't believe in or advocate for shooting illegal border crossers on sight and people post shit on the internet out of the bravado of anonymity but that doesn't undermine the need for a physical barrier system, coupled with a border security and immigration enforcement and control strategy.
-
Yep - partial drug legalization (basically marijuana and a few others) is part of the solution. Drugs, like oil, sometimes gives money and power to some very unsavory nations, regimes, people, etc...
-
Good luck with that.
They control the purse strings, they have all the power. Fortunately, the current leadership team seems to realize that a lot better than the previous one did and at least is trying to communicate with them, as opposed to the idiocy we witnessed under Skeletor v2.0 with the end around Eielson "draw-down" that was a BRAC in all but name that they didn't bother to talk to anyone in Congress about before trying to execute. But you aren't getting anything done without working with, not against, Congress.
Exhibit A for this: if you are talking seriously about a BRAC as being an option for cost savings anytime in the next decade, you don't have a clue. Congress will not be authorizing another BRAC anytime soon.
If Pierre Sprey was running things we would have a fleet of nothing but daytime only no radar fighters armed with nothing but two Sidewinders and a Vulcan.
He had some good ideas, but like most zealots, he took them way, way too far.
True but light a candle or curse the darkness, keep trying to get thru their thick skulls and get the freedom to reform the military. Most of them beleive the military's primary function is to be a jobs program rather than an actual military.
On Sprey, I agree as he is brilliant but just a bit opinionated and not open to the idea that any fighter technology past 1970 actually works...
-
You are out of your element. Both those aircraft will still be around when everyone posting here is eligible for retirement. Mass is still taught as a principle of war, right?
KC-10 will be sacrificed for the KC-46. B1 for the next-generation bomber. F-16 will have the longest life in the fighter world. Unfortunately, the F-15E will just be retired, no trade except maybe for our pensions.
Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it. Mass is important but it has to be combined with quality, balance the two but the AF doesn't seem to know that, where was the mass when we only bought 187 of the planned 500-700 F-22s? I hate to say it but the Navy seems to have a better procurement strategy, they got the SuperHornet and Growler on time and reasonably on budget, so they have sufficient quantity with great quality.
Legacy systems just get that much harder to support as Diminishing Manufacturing and Vendor Scarcity come into the later stages of the MWS life-cycle. Exit that death spiral before it wraps up too tight.
One is nuclear and one is not, that makes a difference.
True, but the B-1 could be put back into the Triad. Difficult and short term expensive but long term cost savings could be realized.
We have to decide (and by that Congress has to get its big fat snout out of the process) what do we want the AF to be? Very big but very old or SLIGHTLY smaller and much newer.
-
We're arguing about the wrong things, guys. The 2015 HASC-approved military budget will be about $600B in 2015. To show how insanely huge that is, the total yearly operating costs for the A-10, B-1, U-2, and KC-10 put together come to less than $6B. That's less than 1% of the pot for some pretty damn effective platforms.
Meanwhile, military retirement costs us $52B per year. That's more than the entire KC-46 acquisition, repeating every year. Canceling legacy platforms save us pennies in comparison, but it's the only thing that seems to generate attention and debate.
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx
The Moose is loose... and right on point. The DoD is now like GM was, a company that used to build cars for profit but devolved into a benefits management entity. Our retirement, healthcare, pay and benefits are the long term problem. Legacy systems need to be replaced but compared to those benefits (which are hard earned and deserved but not long term sustainable to extend to NEW entrants to the military) they are peanuts, just like tax cuts for the rich compared to the 800 lb gorillas of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
Like it or not, at some point the DoD is going to have to modernize its compensation, benefits and HR policies. All topics not related to the original point of this thread so a course correction from this rant...
The B-1 or the A-10 is not a good choice as the two do completely different missions (primarily). Why isn't the choice between the B-52 or the B-1? Both legacy bombers, both with similar capabilities, but one with more life, more survivable.
Retire the Buff, start retiring the oldest 135's, Hercs and bases with no runways...
-
Legalization of some drugs maybe, it certainly will take away most of the cartels' money but the border is still going to need a new strategy, It is the loss of sovereignty slowly that is the long term problem, possession is 9/10th of the law and having a large population that in your country that are not citizens and still strongly identify with their country which borders yours has the hallmarks of disaster. As TreeA10 said:
I bet the Ukrainians wish they had been able to keep a neighboring different ethnic group out of their country now that the different ethnic group would rather identify with their mother country.
-
-
Clark said this:
He literally just asked if any OCONUS mission takes precedence over the border. You know, are OCONUS missions like keeping Iran from getting the bomb, preventing another 9/11, making sure North Korea doesn't start World War 3, shit like that which are clearly much more existential threats against American lives...are those things more important than patrolling a border with Mexico. I said:
You realize that we have 2 states and multiple territories that are OCONUS, right? You realize that we have missions that protect America that take place not within the contintental borders? And again you double down on your ignorance:
Joe, let's keep a good discussion going. I'll agree with you to a point. instead of saying precedence I should have said, CONUS sovereignty & security is a mission of equal importance to our OCONUS missions. Precision in language is important.
All the things you listed are vital to our national security but you just can't ignore the threat next door. It is a threat, a threat of neglect and weak governance, on both sides of the border as the current situation benefits powerful and influential people on both sides of the border, the passive collusion is criminal and I would say borderline treasonous for the continued neglect.
Business interests in the US who want cheap, compliant and disposable labor coupled with ethnocentric advocacy organizations linked to a political party want a new working class that votes by and large a certain way and the elites of Mexico and Central America don't want to modernize their economies, provide for their poor and govern responsibly, they would rather off-load their "surplus" population, receive remittances into their economies and keep the status quo. This is the political, economic and I would say cultural problem, that will have to be solved at the ballot box, in the courts probably along with a vigorous debate.
What we need to solve as security professionals from all the domains of military, law enforcement, intelligence and legal, is a new integrated construct to solve the law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. Not just a fence or a Guard mission but a whole encompassing strategy, not just new tactics. During the Cold War, most of the organs of Federal government worked toward the overall strategy of containing, undermining, deterring and fighting when necessary communist aggression. We need that same holistic approach to our law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. This will be by necessity involve a military mission, appropriately sized, equipped, tasked and deployed, but an actual force to apprehend and if required neutralize any unauthorized person crossing into the United States.
The Heritage Foundation has a good idea for an encompassing strategy:
15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern ExposureIn this proposal the author advocates for State Defense Forces (volunteer forces that would be by law funded and accredited by DHS and DoD, I would argue for an enduring Guard mission for this under Title 32 status as a more appropriate solution.
-
More on National Guard on the border as we are discussing the pros/cons and whether there should be a US military mission on the border
Operation Jump Start, largest operation running from 2006 to 2008.
Operation Phalanx, the successor operation running from 2008 to 2011.
Operation Nimbus, last significant operation, running from 2011 to 2013.
Each one following Jump Start was a draw down with Nimbus being mainly air support. The ROE was so restrictive that it was an observe and report only mission pretty much with Jump Start and the follow on missions had few boots on the ground.
No matter as it has all rolled up now and Mexico has it's own problems too on its southern border with Guatemala, but they're building a fence.
-
Do you realize that you're saying any mission outside the CONUS couldn't possibly protect America?
You just completely invalidated our participation in WW2 and OEF.
Think about that for a second.
We can do both, we have the technology... seriously though we can defend our border(s) and participate OCONUS as required... the focus will be confronting and deterring our near peer enemies and competitors but not ignoring significant problems on our doorstep, border security is not only an LE mission
-
Meh, they've got a Marine airbase in San Diego, so I think the great city of Ron Burgundy is safe from harm.
This does bring up a really interesting point though. The way I see it, people feel bad for illegal immigrants who sneak across the border in search of a better life (valid point), but rather than pressing the issue on the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to reform the US's stringent immigration policies so that people can legally come to this country for work and other legitimate reasons, they pressure the Feds to simply not defend the border. So now our border is a sieve while a full-on war between drug cartels armed with Army-grade weapons/equipment and the slightly corrupt Mexican government is raging right on the other side... Over drugs that are going into our country. I have a friend who grew up in Mexico and he won't go home, even to visit his family over the holidays, because the random murders and kidnappings have gotten out of control.
The classy city of San Diego has managed to take control of the anarchy and has a real barrier, some problems but a huge improvement over the non-existant physical barriers we need in urban areas...
San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control
Some may incorrectly infer from my earlier posts that I hate Mexico/Mexicans and other people using Mexico as an easy point to cross illegally into 'Merica. Nothing could be further from the truth, President Calderon (previous President of Mexico) is a brave man and good leader who initiated the War on the Cartels that we have seen for the past few years. He has risked his personal safety and that of his family to save Mexico from becoming a failed narco-state (List of politicians killed in the Mexican Drug War). We should commend and assist Mexico in fighting this war, they should be if not the top foreign policy concern of the United States then priority 1.1 as they live next door and are our 3rd largest trading partner. I believe ultimately the best souther border for the US is stable and prosperous Mexico to the south but in the meantime, good fences make good neighbors so build the triple layer fences with vehicle barriers in urban areas, surveil high traffic areas and patrol the rural areas with the National Guard (Army and ANG).
A secure border (both North and South) with real port of entry security and visa control is just the start. If you don't arrest the employers, you'll never turn off the magnet that draws them here. You don't have to arrest all of them, just start making examples of a few. The first few agri-busiinesses that gets a 25 million dollar fine or construction company that gets shut down for 6 months and has its equipment siezed will begin to change the landscape.
Drugs and the huge demand for them causing border insecurity are another problem, separate but closely related to what irks me and I hope a growing majority about our criminal border security and immigration/employment enforcement.
-
My comment was meant to be sarcastic. I'm actually in total agreement with you. It's criminal to spend so much time and money (and blood) defending so many other countries with our military while leaving our own so open and vulnerable in the name of political correctness. On top of that, Washington has the balls to cut military funding and tell us to do "more with less" while fully funding entitlement programs and keeping the borders wide open. Has any other country in the history of mankind ever purposefully engaged in such self-destructive behavior? Serious question
Cool - answer to your question, not one that has maintained its position or survived intact. Great nations or empires commit suicide, not murdered.
Clark Griswold....
Oh boy, how to put this.
Your posts remind me of the crazy emails my relatives spam my inbox with about how Hillary Clinton is overturning the 2nd Amendment and how Obama is a Muslim Kenyan etc.
TrainerModel - so you it's all good on the border? No need to use our considerable COIN resources we've built up over the pas 10 years to secure the southern border? What's so tin foil hat about recognizing Mexico is not a failed state but a weak state or unwilling state and it is time to change the equation?
CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode? -
Credit where credit is due...I'm sure some of them are just trying to politely return our Fast and Furious guns...
Maybe but why is ok to have their military on the border but if the US did the same that would be "militarization" and just unfair and wrong, we're having to fight this with one hand tied behind our back with a bunch of whiny, bed-wetting lawyers at the ACLU shovel out some BS to keep America from actually defending itself.
-
1
-
-
Uh....yes? I would hope a military man, especially an officer, would understand that more than anyone.
So by your reasoning, securing and protecting our actual homeland can take a back seat to protecting South Korea? Because if there was a sudden spike in the usual carnage south of the border and suddenly a 200,000 Mexicans suddenly just pushed their way into San Diego, that would be no big deal?
Hundreds of Illegals storm California Border Patrol
Here's another little gem about how security on the border with Mexico should be a second thought.
Transnational gangs form alliance with Mexican cartel, becoming more sophisticated in trafficking drugs, guns, people
“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”President Ronald Reagan
-
1
-
-
The border is more out of control than the public knows (civilian or military). CBP estimates they only catch maybe a 1/3 of the illegals crossing into the US (anecodotal from a 7 year CBP agent in the busiest sector on the border).
We are constantly told the lie that they are just people looking to do "work Americans can or won't do". That's bullshit and only a lie told by corporations and their political pawns who want a weak labor market and short sighted politicians who dream of getting 10+ million new voters.
No other country allows itself, that is the key phrase, allows its borders to be so weak when it has the resources it to secure it. It is criminal. Here's an example of one of the fine individuals just "looking for a better life" that violate our laws and are not supposed to be here.
Controversial Muslim cleric caught sneaking into U.S.
Does anyone really believe that any of our OCONUS missions really take precedence over securing our actual border? Tell me you don't think this guy sneaking in is just the tip of the iceberg...
-
2
-
-
When in the hell are we going to actually protect our own country?
N4T Investigators: Rogue Mexican Army troops crossing the lineThere are about 28,500 US military personnel in South Korea right now assisting in deterrance and defense of the 15th largest economy in the world that also has the 6th largest military (by AD personnel) with a 2.9 million reserve force and we have almost no US military actually stationed on and tasked to defend the southern border. Can we get at least half of that on our border?
One can dream though...
-
2
-
2
-
-
-
Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States
in General Discussion
Posted
Why do you try to confuse legal and illegal immigration? You keep trying to equate the two. There is a process, I am sure it could be improved but there is a way to do it legally and it may not always allow everyone in (which in my opinion is good) but not everyone is guaranteed everything they want in life either.