Borders, language and culture . . . this is a great definition of a country and is often espoused my Michael Savage (Savage Nation, AM radio) on a daily basis. Logically, the problem with illegals is manifold to anyone that objectively views the issue.

For every dollar the illegal contributes to the economy via sales taxes and, in those rare cases, SS taxes and income taxes, the country expends over $4.50. That's not a good return. The prison, health care, education and other systems are overburdened to the point that it affects us all.

Two of my neighbors are US citizen Mexicans or legal resident aliens and they are among the most vocal about the need to allow immigration by the book. They are decidedly proMcCain.

I would hope this general election will address specifically the issue and allow the candidates for President to go on record in how they intend to address the issue. While I am very proBush, addressing illegal immigration during his tenture has been a major deficiency IMO.

I have really two problems with President Bush. Well...If you must know...Three. He's actually for open borders (which is where the third one comes from). I OBJECT to the "patriot act"...And three...Pres. Bush is for "one world order"...Just what we need...RIGHT!!!

Bushy, I agree with you on the first of the three. The second, I think we need to fight terrorism. The third, I just don't believe. I believe that the Democrats have spewed that around enough that people have started believing it. I believe that people are using this term to define the United State’s (you can insert Bush here if you wish) willingness to protect its trade interests in the world.

I know that there are lots of different opinions on this forum, and I respect everyone’s view, but I do disagree with some.

Cary

The "Patriot Act has not done very well in keeping Americans safe. It has been great as a tool for LE officers with grudges to grind to harrass individuals they don't like. All that act does is make people feel secure while their "God given rights" are put aside for dismissal by the government of the rich, by the special interests, and for bigger government.

That is not the way it is supposed to be.
CRAP! now I have to go and load some more ammo.

PaulS,

"The Patriot Act has not done very well in keeping Americans safe? I don't understand that statement. Our homeland has not been attacked since 911. Please explain. I'm open to being persuaded. I understand that the Patriot act has allowed some monitoring of suspicious individuals, but to monitor the rest of us would bore them to death.

Cary

The initial enabling legislation of the Patriot Act had some vagueness that was challenged judicially, some of which was ruled unconstitutional. When it was passed by Congress in 2006, many revisions addressed a number of issues and, it seems, the Patriot Act is working in its intent to access to information that can thwart terrorism both at home and abroad.

While we may not be comfortable with the ability of the government to access our personal financial and medical information, the tools to intervene against terrorism has born fruit IMO. Several major terrorist attacks planned against the US homeland, for instance. And, I suspect, if we knew the entire productivity of the Act, we may see some benefits. OTOH, if anyone has incidents of abuse, please reference any specifics that have occured as I have an open mind and would like to know about them.

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

PaulS, "The Patriot Act has not done very well in keeping Americans safe? I don't understand that statement. Our homeland has not been attacked since 911. Please explain. I'm open to being persuaded. I understand that the Patriot act has allowed some monitoring of suspicious individuals, but to monitor the rest of us would bore them to death. Cary

There have been no arrests and convictions of terrorists under the provisions of the "Patriot" Act (a misnomer if I ever saw one) that did not exist under some other law. None of the new provisions which transfer power from individuals to the central federal government have been instrumental in anything, let alone keeping us safer. So, no, it has not done well in keeping Americans safe.

OTOH, the feds can now go on fishing expeditions on anyone who is suspected of being a "terrorist". What's a "terrorist"? Under the "Patriot" Act's nebulous definition, it could be anyone.

And, Handloader, US laws have no force beyond US borders, so it doesn't do a whole lot of good at thwarting terrorism abroad. Most of our intelligence abroad, such as listening in on international phone conversations, was enabled under the Carter administration by an executive order.

What still chaps my ass is the fact that so many people will accept the premise that US citizens may be denied the right of habeus corpus and tried by a kangaroo court that is not part of the judicial branch, just because someone labels that person as a "terrorist" with or without probable cause. That's just plain wrong.

The best thing our government could do to keep us safe is to control our borders. You'd think that in wartime, that would be a high priority. But, between the lobby consisting of large employers of manual labor and the desire to keep the corrupt Mexican government afloat, our government is not willing to do that. If they had controlled the borders from the start, we would not be where we are today.

Yes we need border control on the southern border. Be it a fence, wall, or moat. But I understand the northern border is secure I saw the border patrol in action.

The problem with the "patriot act" is that it takes only one officer's "suspicion" to hold a person without any due process, indefinitely. Citizens are "REQUIRED" to cooperate with any law enforcement official - so if a cop wants to stop you and talk to you when you need to get to work and you don't want to talk to the officer you are arrested, and held without a phone call, a lawyer, or even being charged. There have been a few US citizens that have even been held and tortured for information they had no way of having.
You don't get this information in the US news because no one wants to admit that we have screwed up royally.
Do YOU feel safer? I don't.

i wanna know whose idea it was to allow the government to be protecting ME? they aint sitting in my driveway at night with a truckload of soldiers armed to the teeth. when we had trouble i had to go and call them and wait for them to arrive AFTER the occurance.. yep thats protection alright...

I will stick with my own thanks. prevention is better than cleaning up afterwards

No Paul...I don't!!

The police are not required to protect you. This came down from a supreme court ruling. Their job is to investigate after the fact and apprehend. To respond to your situation in a timely manor. Other then that...Yer on yer own...

Bushy,
That reminds me... In Seattle a couple of years ago a woman sued the police for not protecting her when she was robbed. The court ruled that the police were not required to protect an individual but rather were in place to protect the larger population at any given time.
In order to win a suit in Seattle you would have to have over half the population under attack at the same time. I don't think that will happen.

I don't need the protection of the police. I have locked doors and unlocked guns. I pity anyone who comes into my home uninvited. I even have "No Trespassing signs up so the cops need a court order or probable cause to come onto the property.

Bushmaster wrote:

The police are not required to protect you. This came down from a supreme court ruling. Their job is to investigate after the fact and apprehend. To respond to your situation in a timely manor. Other then that...Yer on yer own...

Started alot of arguments with this one, it amazes me how many people think they know the law on this one !!!!!

Where can I get a copy of the supreme court ruling on this ???
Or at least a general statment on it.

Go find it yourself Chambered...I read...I don't reference...

Chambered, from NRA-ILA:

Police are "not generally liable to victims of violent criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection." (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981)