Do our Representatives really represent us?

[armedandsafe]

79% Support U.S. Troops on the Border to Fight Drug Violence
Monday, March 16, 2009 Email to a FriendAdvertisement
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of U.S. voters now say the military should be used along the border with Mexico to protect American citizens if drug-related violence continues to grow in that area.

This marks a 21-point jump in support for the use of the U.S. military along the border in just two months.

Only 10% now say the military should not be used in that fashion, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Republicans feel even more strongly about the use of the military than others. Ninety percent (90%) of GOP voters say the military should be used to protect U.S. citizens if the violence crosses into this country, compared to 72% of Democrats and 76% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties.

President Obama has expressed concern about the rise of drug violence in Mexico and is reportedly considering sending the National Guard to the border if the high level of violence moves into this country.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of voters are concerned that Mexican drug violence will spill over into the United States, including 50% who are very concerned. Just three percent (3%) are not at all concerned. There has been a sizable jump in this concern also over the past two months.

The majority of voters (52%) remain more concerned about drug violence than illegal immigration. Forty-one percent (41%) are more concerned about the illegals situation. These numbers are largely unchanged from the survey at the beginning of the year.

Also unchanged is the level of voter support for continued building of a fence along the Mexican border. Sixty-one percent (61%) say the United States should continue the fence, but 27% disagree.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans are at least somewhat concerned that Mexican drug-related violence will spill over into the United States, with 60% very concerned. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats are at least somewhat concerned, including 46% who are very concerned. Voters not affiliated with either party track very closely with Democrats on this question.

Yet the majority of GOP voters (53%) remain more concerned about illegal immigration than growing drug violence. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Democrats, on the other hand, are more concerned about drug-related violence. Unaffiliated voters give the edge to drug violence by a 50% to 44% margin.

Republicans also are more enthusiastic supporters of the border fence. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans say the United States should keep building the fence, as do 53% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliateds.

Clearly one reason for the higher level of concern about drug violence in Mexico is that far more voters are now following stories about it. Seventy-six percent (76%) say they have followed news stories about growing drug violence in Mexico at least somewhat closely, including 33% who are following it very closely. Only five percent (5%) are not following it at all. In early January, just 43% were following the news at least somewhat closely, with 19% following it very closely.

Even without the higher level of concern about drug-related violence, 74% of voters said in early December that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the country’s borders.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told Fox News last week that the Obama Administration will soon unveil a plan aimed at stopping weapons bought in this country and money from drug sales here from going back into Mexico. This will help alleviate the violence between warring Mexican drug gangs, she said.

Homeland Security has announced that it is using money from the new economic stimulus plan to continue work on the border fence.

Pops

[satellite66]

Easy to answer. NO

[Nighthawk]

Originally Posted by satellite66

Easy to answer. NO

amen

[artabr]

The only thing they represent is their own wallet and power. They are just a bunch of money hungry, egotistical baffons.


Art

[Vladimir]

National Guard, yes. Military, no.

[armedandsafe]

National Guard, yes. Military, no.

I'd like to see the State of Texas, or Arizona call out the Militia. Wouldn't that be fun!!!

Arm them with cameras and radios and back them up with a National Guard Armored Brigade.

Pops

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

National Guard, yes. Military, no.

What's the difference?
The National Guard was created by an act of Congress. The National Guard is not the militia referenced in the Constitution, no matter how you want to spin it. It is the U.S. military.

[USMC-03]

The mission of the military is defending the nation. It seems to me that guarding the border falls into that category. Using combat forces to chase unarmed illegals is far from optimal but as far as I'm concerned, allowed.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

What's the difference?
The National Guard was created by an act of Congress. The National Guard is not the militia referenced in the Constitution, no matter how you want to spin it. It is the U.S. military.

One is under the authority of the state, one is under the authority of the federal government (basically).

That is a pretty big difference .

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

One is under the authority of the state, one is under the authority of the federal government (basically).

Only kind of. Who foots the bill?

The one who pays is the one in control.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Only kind of. Who foots the bill?

The one who pays is the one in control.

Textbook Marxism if I've ever seen it

[momo]

Originally Posted by artabr

The only thing they represent is their own wallet and power. They are just a bunch of money hungry, egotistical baffons.


Art

and they want to get reelected.

[Big ugly]

I still say go private contractor with it. A handfull of rednecks, a couple of quadrunners and 4 wheel drive trucks, and some huntin dogs. Train the dogs to sniff out refried beans. Reward $50 a head alive, $20 ded. border be secure in about six months.

[Vladimir]

We need a comprehensive approach.

1. Strip away their jobs by creating stricter controls and methods for promoting legal employment.
-No jobs and there is no motivation to get to the United States

2. Restrict Money Flow
-Money going to Mexico should have to be followed with paperwork to ensure it was earned legally.

3. Announce a Free-Pass Period towards AWAY [from here]
-Anyone caught in the process of leaving the United States won't risk standing any form of charge for being here illegally.

4. Aid the Mexican Government
-A stable and successful Mexico means less people trying to get to America. Additionally, with the increase of drug violence it is foolish to think we can that war by only playing on ONE side of the border. [EDIT: IE military and development aid, which are actually very connected since a STABLE Mexico will naturally achieve more].

Get to the point where the only people trying to cross the border DESERVE to be shot (IE they are related to the drug violence, or that al-Qaeda via Mexico scenario we always hear about- essentially no more illegal immigrants because they are no longer trying to get here) and then we can EASILY protect the border with some high powered rifles (I know pretty liberal of me to advocate not shooting illegal immigrants but I pride myself by proposing only realistic options ).

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by Big ugly

I still say go private contractor with it. A handfull of rednecks, a couple of quadrunners and 4 wheel drive trucks, and some huntin dogs. Train the dogs to sniff out refried beans. Reward $50 a head alive, $20 ded. border be secure in about six months.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

We need a comprehensive approach.

1. Strip away their jobs by creating stricter controls and methods for promoting legal employment.
-No jobs and there is no motivation to get to the United States

2. Restrict Money Flow
-Money going to Mexico should have to be followed with paperwork to ensure it was earned legally.

3. Announce a Free-Pass Period towards AWAY [from here]
-Anyone caught in the process of leaving the United States won't risk standing any form of charge for being here illegally.

4. Aid the Mexican Government
-A stable and successful Mexico means less people trying to get to America. Additionally, with the increase of drug violence it is foolish to think we can that war by only playing on ONE side of the border. [EDIT: IE military and development aid, which are actually very connected since a STABLE Mexico will naturally achieve more].

Get to the point where the only people trying to cross the border DESERVE to be shot (IE they are related to the drug violence, or that al-Qaeda via Mexico scenario we always hear about- essentially no more illegal immigrants because they are no longer trying to get here) and then we can EASILY protect the border with some high powered rifles (I know pretty liberal of me to advocate not shooting illegal immigrants but I pride myself by proposing only realistic options ).

I think either one will work. We should try Vlad's idea first, and if it doesn't work, go with BG's.

[tireman7.62x54r]

Almost 40% of the Federal prison population are non-US citizens. But the Media keeps telling us that illegal & legal immigrants only come here to work.