Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="diesel96" data-source="post: 757452" data-attributes="member: 9859"><p>That&#039;s a pretty irrellevent question for this forum..... Where&#039;s your train of thought at, implying only those who served in the Armed Forces have more substance for an anti-immigration debate ?&nbsp; After-all, this is a Law Enforcement issue at the Local, State, County, and Federal levels and a Constitutional challenge. And last I heard,there&#039;s only one version of the Constitution. Now the Nat&#039;l Guardman being deployed are the new kids on the block, and have been retrained as Gap fillers to assist the Border Patrol. To support the efforts of law enforcement, not to have a direct law enforcement role, not to confront, unless confronted, any particular threat. I find it odd that you ask this question, and with a snooty attitude no less,. If you can give us a pertainet answer as to why this question of yours is rellevent, I&#039;ll be happy to respond.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="diesel96, post: 757452, member: 9859"] That's a pretty irrellevent question for this forum..... Where's your train of thought at, implying only those who served in the Armed Forces have more substance for an anti-immigration debate ? After-all, this is a Law Enforcement issue at the Local, State, County, and Federal levels and a Constitutional challenge. And last I heard,there's only one version of the Constitution. Now the Nat'l Guardman being deployed are the new kids on the block, and have been retrained as Gap fillers to assist the Border Patrol. To support the efforts of law enforcement, not to have a direct law enforcement role, not to confront, unless confronted, any particular threat. I find it odd that you ask this question, and with a snooty attitude no less,. If you can give us a pertainet answer as to why this question of yours is rellevent, I'll be happy to respond. [/QUOTE]

Verification