PDA

View Full Version : Finally, we are beefing up that southern border!!!


BABronco
02-13-2008, 03:41 PM
This crap just pisses me off. :bomb: :crazy:
___
___
____The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…
For Mexico.......


“We can’t even get our own border straight, and we are going to provide Mexico with funding so they can solve their problem,” the reader fumed. “I doubt the Central Americans are staying very long in Mexico anyway. We know where they are going!”

Too outrageously outrageous to be true?

Well, I checked it out and it’s even worse than the reader described. Far worse.

The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.

Naturally, the State Department has taken a lead role. They’ve held meetings in secret and cut out members of Congress from discussion. You’ll love the explanation for the secrecy: Mexico is “sensitive,” you see. Also, according to one expert, “Mexico is very protective of its sovereignty and very worried about any incursion of U.S. security forces or private contractors—like Blackwater—coming in to train Mexicans.” Yeah, they’re worried about incursions and sovereignty.

The State Dept. disclosed the first phase of the Merida Initiative last October, involving some $550 million in aid for inspection scanners, helicopters, surveillance tools, and case management software:

This partnership would support coordinated strategies to:

*Produce a safer and more secure hemisphere where criminal organizations no longer threaten governments and regional security; and
*Prevent the entry and spread of illicit drugs and transnational threats throughout the region and to the United States.

To achieve these goals, President Bush has requested $550 million as part of a multi-year program to provide:

*Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.
*Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.
*Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice – vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.
*Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.
*Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leaders’ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.
*Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.

The Brookings Institute issued more details and analysis in November:

For the past six months, without input from respective legislatures, government officials have quietly planned this joint endeavor. The newly elected president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, campaigned on a platform of citizen’s security, committed $3 billion of federal funds to this priority and persuaded the Mexican army and navy to lead the fight against the drug cartels and the criminal networks. The cartels and the networks are distinct, but drug money is the juice that feeds both enterprises: together, they have become an international threat to Mexican national security. In this campaign, President Calderon found a strong ally in President Bush. In March this year, they met in the colonial town of Merida to strategize on combating transnational crime. In the interim, and out of public scrutiny, government officials drew up the technical elements of a plan, known as the Merida Initiative, to avoid any confusion with Plan Colombia.

Under the terms of this Initiative, the United States will commit 41% of the $500 million grant to military equipment, which will include six brand new Bell 412 helicopters and two Casa 245 twin-engine aircraft. Accompanying both is a two year agreement to provide maintenance and spare parts. This represents a significant improvement over the gift of Hueys in the 1990s under the Excess Defense Articles program. Those helicopters soon became inoperable and were cannibalized for spare parts, leaving a bitter taste by the recipients of “hand me downs.” Now, the grant of new equipment, plus the maintenance and spare parts, assures the Mexican armed forces that we take collaboration seriously. However, the planned use of the Casa aircraft needs to be discussed publicly, given its multiple and potential capabilities from medevac to cargo, to intelligence gathering, even to use as a gunship equipped with light cannons.

There is encouraging news in the Initiative that 59% of the grant will be earmarked for civilian agencies responsible for law enforcement. This is much needed, but the number and complexity of Mexico’s security agencies will need more than cash to reform. Multiple Federal agencies have earned a reputation for ineffectiveness and corruption; among them, the Attorney General’s Federal Investigative Agency, the Ministry of Public Security’s Federal Preventive Police Force, the Ministry of Government’s Center for Investigation and National Security and the Ministry of Finance’s Customs Administration. Furthermore, the 32 states within the Mexican Federation hold responsibility for crime control. State security agencies and the courts have not protected the citizenry effectively. According to surveys carried out by Transparencia Mexicana, the police and justice system are perceived as having worse problems of corruption and inefficiency than other public agencies.

If you subsidize it, you’ll get more of it.

Which is exactly what Bush-Calderon Mexican stimulus package will do. Add this to Dick Lamm’s plan to destroy America.

At a little-noticed hearing (finally) on the plan last week, seems there was some opposition.

Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, D-Ariz., questioned whether it was wise to assist Mexico at a time when the U.S. economy appears to be headed toward a recession.

“Unless we have our house in order, putting millions into Central America and Mexico is not the solution,” she said.

But I haven’t read about any opposition from Republicans. Yoo-hoo. Anybody home?

Meantime, Mexico refuses to extradite criminal suspects who’ve fled from the U.S. down to Mexico unless our prosecutors drop death penalty charges against them.

Oh, and just in time to mobilize pro-illegal immigration activists during this heated campaign season, Calderon landed in the U.S. yesterday for a five-day visit:

Officially, the five-day trip is billed as an “encounter” with Mr. Calderón’s compatriots abroad, according to a statement from the president’s office to the Mexican Congress. But the visit could backfire, experts say, by putting the focus back on the hot-potato issue of Mexican migration….The trip allows him to “reach out to Mexican communities in the United States, which he hasn’t been able to do in his first year in office, and support them, and tell them they’re not alone,” said one official speaking on the condition of anonymity. And it will help him to “strengthen the relationship with the U.S. private sector” as he tries to bring more investment to Mexico, the official added.

Mr. Calderón, other officials say, is also trying to reshape the immigration debate in the United States by showcasing the “hard work” and “economic benefits” that his compatriots represent to the U.S. economy and economic integration of the two countries.

“Timing is everything, and the timing of President Calderón’s trip speaks volumes – following Super Tuesday and on the eve of the remaining primaries,” said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, president of Peschard & Associates, an independent consulting firm. “He clearly will capitalize on the timing, plus some of his politically oriented meetings, to make sure he puts Mexico on the next president’s desk and even try to shape the bilateral agenda.”

Among the U.S. politicians Calderon will meet with: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He will also meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a prominent Hispanic leader who endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No word on whether John McCain is on the schedule. Perhaps Juan Hernandez will stand in.

I ask: Whose sovereignty is in jeopardy?

Rohirrim
02-13-2008, 03:51 PM
I think this follows our government's basic plan of helping industry by bringing in illegals to undercut American jobs and reduce labor costs. It would be too expensive for us to pay our own border agents or military to secure our border. It's cheaper to outsource the labor end of it to Mexico. So, we pay Mexico to secure our border. See? It's genius, really.

The free market really can solve everything. ;D

alkemical
02-13-2008, 04:16 PM
I was going to say sorta the following Ro~

Just A) Remove the border and you don't have a problem

or B) Pay the illegals, err - undocumented workers, err - whatever to watch the border.

Taco John
02-13-2008, 04:39 PM
I've been told that if you are not in favor of funding Mexico and every other nation for that matter , then you are a isolationist - and isolationism doesn't work.

cutthemdown
02-13-2008, 05:24 PM
We need a border that is uncrossable. I don't want to hear it can't be done. We put a friggin dude on the moon for gods sake. The Chinese built a wall with no technology back in the day. I think it was pretty great but i'm no history buff.

We need a border the mexicans can not cross unless the go through a checkpoint. It a very different world we are heading into and we need to insure American values last. To live here you have to be an American not just sneak in to make money. This country will be ruined if we keep going like we are. Somehow these Presidential canidates have managed to not have the southern border be a huge issue.

alkemical
02-13-2008, 05:42 PM
We need a border that is uncrossable. I don't want to hear it can't be done. We put a friggin dude on the moon for gods sake. The Chinese built a wall with no technology back in the day. I think it was pretty great but i'm no history buff.

We need a border the mexicans can not cross unless the go through a checkpoint. It a very different world we are heading into and we need to insure American values last. To live here you have to be an American not just sneak in to make money. This country will be ruined if we keep going like we are. Somehow these Presidential canidates have managed to not have the southern border be a huge issue.



Do you know how much engineering goes into making a wall like that? They had technology.

An uncrossable mexican wall? What, is it going to be made of saurkraut?

rugbythug
02-13-2008, 05:46 PM
Do you know how much engineering goes into making a wall like that? They had technology.

An uncrossable mexican wall? What, is it going to be made of saurkraut?


Korea has done it

alkemical
02-13-2008, 05:51 PM
Korea has done it

Well of course Korea's wall doesn't have mexicans crossing it. What kinda logic is that?

Dukes
02-13-2008, 07:32 PM
If Washington wanted to fix the border they would have ten years ago. The problem is they DON'T want to.

cutthemdown
02-13-2008, 08:26 PM
Do you know how much engineering goes into making a wall like that? They had technology.

An uncrossable mexican wall? What, is it going to be made of saurkraut?

I don't want to hear it can't be done. It can be done and must be done. It will take a long time and tons of money but in the end it will be worth it.

cutthemdown
02-13-2008, 08:28 PM
Well of course Korea's wall doesn't have mexicans crossing it. What kinda logic is that?

He's just pointing out that walls have worked to some extent. Sure any wall can be crossed but not on the number they flow right now. Spots in Israel where they have built a wall are working. It sucks to build a wall, but we have a country south of us that has built there whole way of life off leaching off of the USA and ruining jobs for average Americans. It's time to protect what is ours!!!

Bronco Bob
02-13-2008, 09:44 PM
Do you know how much engineering goes into making a wall like that? They had technology.

An uncrossable mexican wall? What, is it going to be made of saurkraut?

Of course the Great Wall of China worked because they killed anyone that
tried to go through it. It was built because the Mongols kept invading
and even reached the capitol of China a time or two. So the wall was built
on the border by the Chinese army and when it was done, there were
garrisons built into the wall and troops lived there at the wall. That way
there were troops right there to take on the Mongols before the Mongols
could get anywhere near the capitol.
So just building a wall doesn't solve anything. You need a massive amount
of troops stationed along the wall to ward off invaders.

Bob
02-13-2008, 10:31 PM
I think this follows our government's basic plan of helping industry by bringing in illegals to undercut American jobs and reduce labor costs. It would be too expensive for us to pay our own border agents or military to secure our border. It's cheaper to outsource the labor end of it to Mexico. So, we pay Mexico to secure our border. See? It's genius, really.

The free market really can solve everything. ;D
Yes, and here is another wonderful idea the government has -- we are going to barrow from the Chinese, ( that we will pay back pay later with interest) so that we can give out that money to Americans, who will spend it on --- you guessed it Chinese products. Freaking idiots -- all of them. Anything for a vote, and to put off the bubble from popping on their watch…

Bob
02-13-2008, 10:34 PM
Of course the Great Wall of China worked because they killed anyone that
tried to go through it. It was built because the Mongols kept invading
and even reached the capitol of China a time or two. So the wall was built
on the border by the Chinese army and when it was done, there were
garrisons built into the wall and troops lived there at the wall. That way
there were troops right there to take on the Mongols before the Mongols
could get anywhere near the capitol.
So just building a wall doesn't solve anything. You need a massive amount
of troops stationed along the wall to ward off invaders.

The American people could solve this problem -- its that the government leaders are weasels and are not patriots -- one club wants votes, the other want slaves.

Enforce the laws we have -- if the ACLU Internationalists get in the way, shut them down like they would have done in the 40's. Stop arresting border patrol agents that do thier jobs.

Hell, the easiest thing is to stop the draw to coming over, and enforce the law with employers. The might just have to pay higher wages to thier legal workers to draw them in. Next, make it possible after the border is shut for those who want to come over legally to do so, and not wait for years for paperwork to be processed.

Bronco Bob
02-13-2008, 11:12 PM
The American people could solve this problem -- its that the government leaders are weasels and are not patriots -- one club wants votes, the other want slaves.

Enforce the laws we have -- if the ACLU Internationalists get in the way, shut them down like they would have done in the 40's. Stop arresting border patrol agents that do thier jobs.

Hell, the easiest thing is to stop the draw to coming over, and enforce the law with employers. The might just have to pay higher wages to thier legal workers to draw them in. Next, make it possible after the border is shut for those who want to come over legally to do so, and not wait for years for paperwork to be processed.

I'm just saying a wall is useless without people manning the wall to
make sure no one is coming over it. And yeah, let the border agents
do their job. But how are the laws going to be enforced if there aren't
enough agents on the border to enforce the laws.

Rohirrim
02-13-2008, 11:18 PM
All you have to do is show them your badges...






Sorry. Couldn't help myself. :rofl:

Bronco Bob
02-13-2008, 11:22 PM
All you have to do is show them your badges...



Badges? We don't need no stink'en badges.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-14-2008, 12:49 AM
We need a border that is uncrossable.

Who would pay for this, and how?

(I like the idea, BTW.)

Bronco Jamus
02-14-2008, 02:01 AM
One layer wall isn't going to do it. It has to be several layers and atleast two. Then you patrol between the walls.

Taco John
02-14-2008, 02:45 AM
One layer wall isn't going to do it. It has to be several layers and atleast two. Then you patrol between the walls.


And that still won't make a lick of difference if there are employers here who will hire them and if there is birthright citizenship and there is free healthcare and there is welfare and social security and amnesty plans.

A wall isn't going to work. It's just going to be an expensive failure.

cutthemdown
02-14-2008, 03:49 AM
Who would pay for this, and how?

(I like the idea, BTW.)

obviously we have to pay for it. I would support a tax specifically for a fence. High taxes where the money just gets lost in the govt I am against. But if we are really going to use the money for better roads, bridges, high speed trains, and most importantly a border fence I would be all for it.

The countries infrastructure needs some technological infusion IMO.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-14-2008, 03:53 AM
And that still won't make a lick of difference if there are employers here who will hire them...

This is precisely where the right-wingers have a major conflict:

They want the government to do something about illegal immigration, but they are opposed in principle to any sort of government regulation of business or the "free market."

alkemical
02-14-2008, 08:47 AM
Of course the Great Wall of China worked because they killed anyone that
tried to go through it. It was built because the Mongols kept invading
and even reached the capitol of China a time or two. So the wall was built
on the border by the Chinese army and when it was done, there were
garrisons built into the wall and troops lived there at the wall. That way
there were troops right there to take on the Mongols before the Mongols
could get anywhere near the capitol.
So just building a wall doesn't solve anything. You need a massive amount
of troops stationed along the wall to ward off invaders.

Shhhh! I'm trying to let them keep telling me how the korean's keep mexican's out. ;)

alkemical
02-14-2008, 08:48 AM
He's just pointing out that walls have worked to some extent. Sure any wall can be crossed but not on the number they flow right now. Spots in Israel where they have built a wall are working. It sucks to build a wall, but we have a country south of us that has built there whole way of life off leaching off of the USA and ruining jobs for average Americans. It's time to protect what is ours!!!

Well, it's good to know that the Mexicans are giving the Korean's immigration problems too. See, it's not just us. Mexicans just like to cross borders.

ant1999e
02-14-2008, 08:58 AM
Of course the Great Wall of China worked because they killed anyone that
tried to go through it. It was built because the Mongols kept invading
and even reached the capitol of China a time or two. So the wall was built
on the border by the Chinese army and when it was done, there were
garrisons built into the wall and troops lived there at the wall. That way
there were troops right there to take on the Mongols before the Mongols
could get anywhere near the capitol.
So just building a wall doesn't solve anything. You need a massive amount
of troops stationed along the wall to ward off invaders.

Slug says that immigrants are invading the U.S.

alkemical
02-14-2008, 09:00 AM
Slug says that immigrants are invading the U.S.

Yes, but they aren't on horseback. So, that's why we don't have a wall. Maybe if they had a catapult too......

Bob
02-14-2008, 02:26 PM
I'm just saying a wall is useless without people manning the wall to
make sure no one is coming over it. And yeah, let the border agents
do their job. But how are the laws going to be enforced if there aren't
enough agents on the border to enforce the laws.

I am ok with more folks on the border to protect us, and walls -- but think that if the draw to come here is never addressed, and the laws are not enforced we couldn't build a wall high enough to stop everyone... (as was demonstarted recently in disvovered massive tunnels.

Another thing that has to happen is that Dems and Repubs need to expect that those they elected do something, and not get sucked into the bull crap reasons they give for doing nothing.

Bob
02-14-2008, 02:31 PM
And that still won't make a lick of difference if there are employers here who will hire them and if there is birthright citizenship and there is free healthcare and there is welfare and social security and amnesty plans.

A wall isn't going to work. It's just going to be an expensive failure.

Its not THE solution -- it would slow things down -- like it has where it has been built. A bill was already passed to build it and I thought money was already allocated to built it.

cutthemdown
02-14-2008, 02:57 PM
This is precisely where the right-wingers have a major conflict:

They want the government to do something about illegal immigration, but they are opposed in principle to any sort of government regulation of business or the "free market."

Not really. The republicans I know all want the Govt to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Republicans are very much for the rule of law.

cutthemdown
02-14-2008, 02:58 PM
Well, it's good to know that the Mexicans are giving the Korean's immigration problems too. See, it's not just us. Mexicans just like to cross borders.

Whatever your posts are generally getting dumb and dumber.

alkemical
02-14-2008, 03:19 PM
Whatever your posts are generally getting dumb and dumber.

Good, eventually i'll be on a level on which you can comprehend.

Spider
02-14-2008, 03:47 PM
well everybody pretty much knows my stance on this

cutthemdown
02-14-2008, 04:13 PM
Good, eventually i'll be on a level on which you can comprehend.

you used to post cool stuff on science and technology, now it's just a bunch of crap.

Meck77
02-14-2008, 04:20 PM
I don't know how many of you have driven along any part of the Mexican border but I've done it several times.

Buddy of mine owns a ranch at the border near Nogales. That is one of the largest border crossing in AZ. We use to go out to his place to target shoot and we'd even drive across his land into Mexico just for kicks. It's been more than 5 years since I've been out there but back then NOBODY was watching.

We could build a 100 foot tall concrete wall and they'll get through it.

Reform needs to come from within our government and from Mexico.

ScottXray
02-14-2008, 04:58 PM
A wall, or a "closed" border is essential to stop the illegal immigration that keeps going on. We need several constitutional amendments that I would be in favor of.

1. The national language is ENGLISH. All government publications, pamphlets and laws will be in that language ONLY. If you don't know English and you are here LEARN it, or pay for your own translators. This includes all public education systems that receive federal funds.

2. People born in the US, to US citizens are natural citizens. People born in the US to foreign nationals, whether legally here or not, are citizens of their parents nation , not the US. Naturalised citizens must have already completed the naturalisation process before the birth of their children for their children to have citizenship by birthright. Foreign nationals who are here lawfully, but not yet naturalised may apply for citizenship for their children born here after the child has attained 5 years of age if they also become Naturalised first. Dual citizenship is not allowed.

3. National Voting rights will ONLY be given to every adult US citizen who has performed at least 18 to 24 months of US public service. This may be in the armed forces, civil service, border patrol or other federal programs, including federally approved state programs, in which they enlist. People with medical and other disabilities that preclude them from national service, but can be shown to have good mental facilities (meaning able to understand issues and communicate effectively) will be given a waiver for national service. All persons who have not completed said service or recieved a waiver will NOT be allowed to vote in any federal election. NON US citizens will NOT be allowed to vote in any federal election, regardless of their length of time in this country until they achieve US citizenship and meet national service requirements. No citizen who has completed national service will be denied voting rights in any federal election, including felons and criminals. State and local voting rights will be determined by the individual states and localities.

I realise that some of these seem exteme , and the voting rights thing would have to be phased in with ages....anyone currently of voting age that doesn't meet the requirement would scream loudly...like most women and many others that never did any type of service. But you could simply say that anyone born after a certain date must meet the criteria, so that say 2015- 2020 is when it implements, and anyone else is grandfathered in.

The national services could be used for any number of things, the key being that you have to comply in some way. No service....no vote. People would have an investment in this country before they are allowed to determine its course.

cutthemdown
02-14-2008, 04:58 PM
I think it has to be a combintation of a more secure wall/fence and reform at home. The border fence in Southwest California has worked really well.

Meck is probably right in some desolate areas a fence would prob not work. But we can make smuggling people in very difficult by patrolling and building fences where they most like to cross. Take all the water stations out, add more border patrol and punish Americans who hire illegals.

Not one thing will solve this problem, we need a massive change in how we approach the southern border.

alkemical
02-14-2008, 05:21 PM
you used to post cool stuff on science and technology, now it's just a bunch of crap.

I still do, you just don't pay attention.

Spider
02-14-2008, 05:23 PM
LOL at the Idea of a wall .........Seriously , lets look at this .... Mexico doesnt have an olympic team for a reason people .... Anyone that can run jump or swim is already here ..a wall will only cost money , make us look like Russia and China , and a wall will only keep disabled out ........

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-14-2008, 05:51 PM
Not really. The republicans I know all want the Govt to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Republicans are very much for the rule of law.

The key phrase here might be "the republicans I know."

How about the cheap labor conservative wing of the republican party?

Meck77
02-14-2008, 05:58 PM
LOL at the Idea of a wall .........Seriously , lets look at this .... Mexico doesnt have an olympic team for a reason people .... Anyone that can run jump or swim is already here ..a wall will only cost money , make us look like Russia and China , and a wall will only keep disabled out ........

I lived in Az for many years. Seems like every 6 months or so they would discover another damn tunnel under a wall.

Bury the wall 5 feet and they will dig under 6 feet. Go down 20 feet and they'll dig 21ft.

There are shacks on both sides of the border then can connect to. That's how they do it.

We need to get our boys home from Iraq and get some troops with orders to shoot to kill. That would stop the illegals in no time.Ha!

Spider
02-14-2008, 06:03 PM
I lived in Az for many years. Seems like every 6 months or so they would discover another damn tunnel under a wall.

Bury the wall 5 feet and they will dig under 6 feet. Go down 20 feet and they'll dig 21ft.

There are shacks on both sides of the border then can connect to. That's how they do it.

We need to get our boys home from Iraq and get some troops with orders to shoot to kill. That would stop the illegals in no time.Ha!

they offer truckers up to 1,500 cash to transport these people ......
we need our boys home , but as Taco said , we need serious change in Mexicos government for anything ot work ;D we will leave the shoot to kill for Raider fans ;D

Bob
02-14-2008, 07:02 PM
A wall, or a "closed" border is essential to stop the illegal immigration that keeps going on. We need several constitutional amendments that I would be in favor of.

1. The national language is ENGLISH. All government publications, pamphlets and laws will be in that language ONLY. If you don't know English and you are here LEARN it, or pay for your own translators. This includes all public education systems that receive federal funds.

2. People born in the US, to US citizens are natural citizens. People born in the US to foreign nationals, whether legally here or not, are citizens of their parents nation , not the US. Naturalised citizens must have already completed the naturalisation process before the birth of their children for their children to have citizenship by birthright. Foreign nationals who are here lawfully, but not yet naturalised may apply for citizenship for their children born here after the child has attained 5 years of age if they also become Naturalised first. Dual citizenship is not allowed.

3. National Voting rights will ONLY be given to every adult US citizen who has performed at least 18 to 24 months of US public service. This may be in the armed forces, civil service, border patrol or other federal programs, including federally approved state programs, in which they enlist. People with medical and other disabilities that preclude them from national service, but can be shown to have good mental facilities (meaning able to understand issues and communicate effectively) will be given a waiver for national service. All persons who have not completed said service or recieved a waiver will NOT be allowed to vote in any federal election. NON US citizens will NOT be allowed to vote in any federal election, regardless of their length of time in this country until they achieve US citizenship and meet national service requirements. No citizen who has completed national service will be denied voting rights in any federal election, including felons and criminals. State and local voting rights will be determined by the individual states and localities.

I realise that some of these seem exteme , and the voting rights thing would have to be phased in with ages....anyone currently of voting age that doesn't meet the requirement would scream loudly...like most women and many others that never did any type of service. But you could simply say that anyone born after a certain date must meet the criteria, so that say 2015- 2020 is when it implements, and anyone else is grandfathered in.

The national services could be used for any number of things, the key being that you have to comply in some way. No service....no vote. People would have an investment in this country before they are allowed to determine its course.

Wow, someone more conservative than me...

There is too much incentive for BOTH parties to not do a damn thing. The people need to hold the government responsible to uphold the laws on the books -- those politicans that do nothing must be voted out. So in otherwords -- screw you McCain -- you cannot be trusted, freaking traitor on this issue. What I dont get (and I mean this sincerely) is that so rarely do I see outrage from the Dems about this issue -- they support Obama, for example but wont call him out on it? Is it that the media filters them out? They need to be afraid that their power will be taken away if they get it wrong.