backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by Tom mc3s.. on Jun 29 at 7:46 AM


After a standoff between President Obama and Texas Republicans, President Obama has agreed to spend $500M USD to expand border patrol and new Reaper drones to patrol the skies.  (Source: AP)

The Reaper drones will hunt for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.  (Source: AP)

The move comes amid southern states' controversial crackdown on illegal immigration and opposition to providing Mexicans a path to citizenship.  (Source: AP)
Drones will help monitor Mexican and U.S. nationals, watch for illegal immigrants and drugs

Amid a heated debate over legislation passed earlier this year in Arizona aimed at identifying, prosecuting, and deporting illegal immigrants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will be increasing the number of unmanned drones used to patrol the U.S. Mexican border, hunting for drugs and illegal immigrants.

The Federal Aviation Administration has granted the DHS permission to launch missions from along the border, including Texas, and along the Gulf Coast region.  The Customs and Border Protection department will maintain a drone at the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in Texas.  That drone will likely be used to hunt down groups of people crossing the border illegal, alerting authorities to apprehend them.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy will also be cooperating with the DHS on using other drones on drug-enforcement related missions.  The collaborative effort is dubbed "Operation Roadrunner" and will scan license plates on the U.S. side of the border to try to spot known drug traffickers.

The DHS will also be working with the Justice Department to implement a cooperative framework to share drone-related info with the state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's plan involves cities not on the border, but in the general area providing additional resources to the border towns.

The drones used in most of the patrol will be the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, a large, versatile UAV sometimes referred to as the Predator B.  The Reaper can carry a heavy amount of ordinance, but it would be assumed that the border patrol drones will be unarmed.  The drones can be outfitted with a variety of sensors.

Thus far the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs has only used 6 Predator B drones, the first of which was deployed in Arizona in October 2005.  That drone contributed to the seizure of four vehicles and 8,267 pounds of marijuana [PDF].  That success encouraged the Border Patrol to establish more patrols of the Mexican and Canadian borders.  One drone is based in North Dakota, at the UAS Operations Center in Grand Forks, four in Arizona, at the UAS Operations Center in Sierra Vista and one based at Fort Drum, N.Y.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the drones will be their use in detecting and capturing illegal immigrants.  President Obama, an advocate of immigration reform, was reportedly reticent to increase government spending to deploy more drones to track illegal immigrants and drugs on the border.  However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) forced Obama's hand by blocking the confirmation of Michael Huerta to be deputy director of the FAA.  They now are going to received the $500M USD in extra federal spending they wanted, and at least two more drones.

Mexico is one of the heaviest sources of illegal immigration.  Of the 11 million illegal immigrants who participated in a 2008 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent, or roughly 6.3 million individuals came from Mexico.  

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or....
By quiksilvr on 6/24/2010 12:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
Simply increase the taxes of goods and services and DECREASE the amount we get cut from our paychecks? That way illegal immigrants will pay more taxes. So long as its a balanced tax shift I see that making this whole illegal immigration issue pretty moot.




RE: Or....
By quiksilvr on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Or....
By HrilL on 6/24/2010 1:07:09 PM , Rating: 5
damn you're lucky. In California they only seem to last 4 years and then you've got to get a new one. I think you have to pay a fee every time so that is probably why. We're in a money grab state. Stealing from the people that work hard and giving it to the people that don't work at all.


RE: Or....
By Anoxanmore on 6/24/2010 1:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly if you want to solve the immigration problem fairly easily would be to institute a national ID nixing the DL and SSN ID's currently available.

You need to attack the problem from the bottom up, not the top down, like the government (ALL governments) are trying to do.


RE: Or....
By Redwin on 6/24/2010 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
... your papers please?


RE: Or....
By Anoxanmore on 6/24/2010 4:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
Can you give me a rational reason why it would not work?


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 5:16:26 PM , Rating: 3
The only reasons are irrational, and usually boil down to "300 years ago we all were immigrants" and "the Nazis did it".


RE: Or....
By bigdawg1988 on 6/25/2010 11:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
More government and it would REQUIRE that people register. Good luck trying to push that through. Besides, people would eventually figure out how to get fake ones, just like with DLs and SSNs.
What I want to know is how come it's so easy to pay a grand or more to get over here illegally, and so hard to get over here legally? Do we intentionally make the process hard or something?
Wouldn't it be better to make it easier for them to get green cards so they can be documented and taxed when they work?
The real fault of this are all the so-called entrepreneurs who hire the illegals in the first place. Damned traitors!


RE: Or....
By HrilL on 6/28/2010 7:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
LOL most if not all illegals use SSNs. You can buy a full fake ID kit with birth cert and SSN for around $350 cheaper in some places. So while some do work under the table for cash far more of them working legally and pay taxes. Probably end up paying more in taxes because they don't file for a tax return. My dad's friends daughter had a lot of issues because of this. They wanted to collect back taxes because someone was using her SSN while she was a kid and stopped paying taxes. The IRS wanted those taxes and tried to get them but they're like WTF she wasn't working when she was 8-12 years old... The point being that a lot of illegals do actually pay taxes.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 2:14:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Arizona is essentially giving the state the rights to ask for federal information (cops asking us for citizenship/green card papers?), which is highly unconstitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that local and state authorities are forbidden from enforcing federal law? The "unconstitutional" canard came only from those that haven't read 1070, and those that did immediately backed off on the assertion.

1070 is based entirely on federal law. If 1070 is unconstitutional, then federal immigration policy is also unconstitutional. Heck, it's the very first thing mentioned in the bill:

"A: NO OFFICIAL OR AGNCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."


RE: Or....
By quiksilvr on 6/24/2010 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 1
That is simply stating that the federal immigration laws must be upheld and not limited or restricted.

Only the federal government can investigate on your legal status because that is a FEDERAL issue and not a STATE issue. You can't have state officials ask you for FEDERAL documents. That's one of the several glaring problems of this bill.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't have state officials ask you for FEDERAL documents.

But you CAN make it illegal for any public entity to restrict a state official's collaborating with federal officers for information in federal documents. The vast majority of the salient text in 1070 makes it quite clear that state officers can't act unilaterally.


RE: Or....
By Solandri on 6/24/2010 9:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where in the constitution does it say that local and state authorities are forbidden from enforcing federal law? The "unconstitutional" canard came only from those that haven't read 1070, and those that did immediately backed off on the assertion.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I realize the argument is somewhat pedantic. How exactly do you define a search as being "unreasonable"? But let me put things in perspective. When I was in high school in 1984 (before the end of the Cold War), we got a new transfer student. From the Soviet Union no less. It turns out the USSR granted a limited number of visas to emigrate, and his family decided what the heck, applied, and got one.

The stories he told of what life was like back in Soviet Russia gave those of us in the class a rare glimpse into the hidden world behind the Iron Curtain. Not from the viewpoint of the media, or a visitor being shepherded by government lackeys, but from someone who was born, grew up, and lived there his entire life. Among the many insights he shared, things that most of us would never appreciate unless they were suddenly gone, was this one: Freedom to travel.

In the USSR he told us, you couldn't go where ever you wanted. If the authorities thought you didn't belong, they could stop you and ask for your ID and papers, and sometimes detain you and hold you indefinitely. You didn't have to do anything wrong, you didn't have to be acting suspicious. If a government official/policemen merely thought something wasn't right, he could stop you. His family and others rarely traveled because of this, and when they did it was always with full paperwork and documentation substantiating who they were, where they were going, and why.

What a change it was when he came to the US! You could go anywhere (well, almost anywhere) for any reason and the government wouldn't bother you about it. A policeman wouldn't question you without cause. It was a novel and foreign concept which he frequently spoke fondly of - the idea that you could go someplace, any place, on the spur of the moment, just because you felt like it, without having any reason for it, without having to prepare an explanation for it to give to authorities.

That's what 1070 turns on its head. In the USSR, you were presumed to be doing something wrong, and had to prove to authorities that you weren't. In the US, you were presumed to be doing nothing wrong, and it was up to the authorities to prove that you were. 1070 moves us from the US way of doing things, towards the USSR way of doing things.

I'm a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. I support the CBP and if they say they need a fence between us and Mexico, I'm going to give it to them. I think we should change our Constitution so a child born to an illegal in the U.S. is not automatically granted U.S. citizenship. I think hispanics advocating going easy on illegals simply because of their cultural relationship are nuts and reverse-racist. Heck, I question the SCotUS decision that illegals have Constitutional rights merely be being on U.S. soil.

But 1070 is one step too far. It violates a fundamental, unwritten founding principle of the U.S. That the individual is always to be presumed innocent, and the burden of proof rests on the state to prove otherwise before taking action.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 11:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You have not read 1070. There is no conflict between it and the 4th Amendment. 1070 does not permit officers to engage in any searches or seizures that they weren't already permitted to do under law.

Again, every figure of note on the political stage, making the "unconstitutional" assertion, has stepped back from that charge after actually reading the bill.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 11:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
To up the ante: If you think there is some aspect of 1070 (as far as legislation goes, it's a fairly light read) that violates the 4th amendment, please cite and quote the text for all to see. Violations of the Constitution need to be exposed, and if you truly felt so passionate about it, you'd leap at the chance. I'll wait.


RE: Or....
By DrKlahn on 6/25/2010 9:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Solandri it does not go against the 4th Amendment at all. Law Enforcement must already have you detained for another infraction to perform this check. Please read the bill.


RE: Or....
By Ben on 6/24/2010 1:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Moot point? How about when we don't have enough water? How about when the roads are so congested that traveling 60 miles takes 3 hours? How about over-crowded schools?

I'm sure your answer is to use the increase in taxes to upgrade the infrastructure, but all it has done so far is gone into the pockets of state union workers and been used for state funded programs such as upgrading officials offices with oak furniture.

Meanwhile us "little people" get to put up with the overcrowding.

Moot point... gimme a break.

If you walked into a convenience store and the clerk behind the counter didn't speak english, you might not thinks it's a moot point. Obviously you don't live in a border state like Texas, Arizona, or California.


RE: Or....
By aegisofrime on 6/24/2010 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of hiring someone if he/she can't communicate with the customers?


RE: Or....
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
There's a tremendous point in hiring them--you put them in your customer service department!

That way, complaints fall on deaf ears. ;)


RE: Or....
By smackababy on 6/24/2010 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
He will work for less than someone who does.


RE: Or....
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
"What's the point of hiring someone if he/she can't communicate with the customers? "

Ask the companies that outsource their support departments, like Dell, Walmart, etc.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 2:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point in bringing in a customer base that can't speak the local language? It's only creating a special category of lower class that is inherently trapped in a limited sub-culture. How warm and compassionate.


RE: Or....
By quiksilvr on 6/24/2010 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, as a resident of Arizona (and recently escaped to DC), I completely understand. But it is a mixed bag.

On one hand, yes you deal with clerks that don't speak English and higher crime and drug usage (road congestion isn't much of an issue thanks to AZ's top notch road infrastructure), but it was our doing.

By making it way too difficult to legally immigrate to the US (something that the foundation of this country has been built upon), you promote illegal immigration. Why not? You get to avoid taxes, you escape the hell you used to live in and provide for your family back home. But businesses were greedy and decided to pay illegals WAAAY under minimum wage. In doing so, businesses became so reliant on illegal workers that transitioning to legal workers is next to impossible. Their businesses would crumble. We have become woefully dependent on illegal immigration in an economic stand point.

Yes our roads are less congested, but businesses have taken a huge hit and crime hasn't gone down at all (that new gun law doesn't help any).

So for the short term, by increasing taxes on goods and services AND DECREASING TAXES FROM OUR PAYCHECKS, we can at least get more money from the illegals and they can carry their own weight, so to speak.


RE: Or....
By bubbastrangelove on 6/24/2010 1:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Millions of people immigrate to the United States of America legally every. There's a legal process for the sake of meeting standards and screening undesirables (criminals and being unable to contribute to society).

Getting into the US shouldn't be like joining a gym. We have enough people who can operate a weed wacker that are unable to find a job.


RE: Or....
By sviola on 6/24/2010 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Millions of people immigrate to the United States of America legally every


Well, I thought the US only allows for 50k work permits each year...


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 4:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't specify a time scale; perhaps he meant "every century"? :D


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
By making it way too difficult to legally immigrate to the US (something that the foundation of this country has been built upon), you promote illegal immigration.

If that were true, illegal immigrants wouldn't be predominantly from a single country.

No, the fact is the United States has turned a blind eye to Mexico and its economic/social conditions; life sucks in Mexico, and so people want to go where it doesn't suck. Nobody wants to address this aspect of the issue, because it doesn't allow for any easy proposals for solution. The only real way to "stop" illegal immigration is for Mexico to not be such a shitty place, and for that to happen there needs to be a shift of power from corrupt politicians and drug lords. And again, there's no easy way to do that.

Republicans like the cheap labor, Democrats like the idea of getting more votes, and all of them like the fact that immigration - legal and otherwise - is lowering the average age in the country (an average old age is a bad sign for an economy, especially one with SS benefits). That's why we had a push for Amnesty: Legitimize all the illegal immigrants and you can start getting tax revenue from them. It's a superficial and simple mindset, but that (in my opinion, at least) is the basis for the attitude.


RE: Or....
By Micronite on 6/24/2010 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 3
You're right that immigration isn't a bad thing, the American nation was grown from immigrants. No argument there.

However, there needs to be a way to at least know who is coming into the country. We make is so easy for someone to enter the country illegally, that it's a wonder we even have terror watch lists and the like. We won't let terrorists fly into the country (the front door), but we leave an open door in the back.

Your solution is to get peoples' money, but that doesn't really solve anything. A lot of the illegals steal Social Security Numbers and end up paying some taxes anyway.

It's a serious problem when we have Mexican drug-runners holed up in an Arizona county, shooting anyone who enters, and our best reaction is to put up signs telling people not to go in there. If this were a bunch of "right-wing nut-jobs" doing the same sort of thing in, say, Montana, we would go in there and obliterate the threat. Instead, we let the armed foreign invaders hang out in the back yard. Should we just give Mexico that territory and shift our nation's borders?

Political point-of-view aside, this situation and our non-reaction is an enormous embarrassment to our nation.


RE: Or....
By callmeroy on 6/24/2010 2:00:18 PM , Rating: 1
Here's where I stand on the illegal immigrant issue

1) This is a nation of foreigners so anyone who is hard core against immigration is a friggin moron they live in the USA

2) I don't HATE someone JUST for the fact of being an immigrant, but I do HATE the fact that if you are "illegal" it means you worked the system (not that its hard to do these days)...you didn't take your turn you just butted a head in the line....my great grandparents were from Italy they came over properly, waited to be legal filled out the paperwork, went through the processes, etc.

What makes illegals think they are above that stuff - that aggravates the hell out of me.

3) If you aren't "documented" that means you aren't paying taxes -- because essentially how can you if you have no documentation...you have no tax id / ssn. But you still use tax payer services...you still take advantage of the ER, you still (and this is amazing to me) are able to get a license and drive a car in some states....

On top of that we have droves of yahoo's in all these protests demanding health care benefits, welfare benefits, etc. etc. for illegal immigrants...who aren't paying taxes... WTF folks...

THAT's my beef with illegal immigration and yet because whole cheap labor industries (mostly agricultural and the restaurant business) depend heavily on immigrant labor...(not to mention the votes they represent) our country's government tip toes around the issue with kid gloves...


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 2:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) This is a nation of foreigners so anyone who is hard core against immigration is a friggin moron they live in the USA

Immigration can be quite healthy for a nation, just as red meat can be healthy for a person. Of course, too much red meat can kill ya.


RE: Or....
By callmeroy on 6/25/2010 8:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I hear reading comprehension is good too...(probably the same moron who voted it down has just as good comprehension skills as you do...)

I said I'm for LEGAL immigration....I'm AGAINST (and have been since the first time I ever formed an opinion on the topic) ILLEGAL immigration.


RE: Or....
By mydogfarted on 6/24/2010 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Or, you know, pay social security and medicare taxes for a benefit they'll never receive
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-...

quote:
Spokesman Mark Hinkle says Social Security does not know how much of the $9 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants. The number is certainly not 100%, but a significant portion probably comes from taxes paid by illegal immigrants.

Nine billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is only about 1.5% of the total $593 billion paid into Social Security in 2005.

The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.
quote:
In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."

An IRS spokesman said more recent figures aren't available.

The Social Security and Medicare taxes from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion, Hinkle said.

That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during they eight-year period


quote:
But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.


RE: Or....
By albundy2 on 6/24/2010 7:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
my dad is hardcore against immigration. he's had a problem with immigration since plymouth rock. something to do with manifest destiny and growing up in a dustbowl called a reservation.


RE: Or....
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 9:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
An excellent example of the potential consequences of unchecked population movement and the inability or unwillingness to maintain one's territory.


RE: Or....
By inperfectdarkness on 6/25/2010 8:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
there's more to it than just that. yes, a national sales tax would be fairer & produce more fiscal responsibility than a national income tax; but it won't entirely fix the problem.

right or wrong, a large majority of the funds illegals earn here is being sent to mexico. read: propping up the mexican economy. those funds are not being funneled back into our own economy; so we're bleeding from a de-facto trade deficit.

worse, those funds are sometimes then used to assist more illegals in crossing our border.


Drones on the border
By Jimmi James on 6/24/2010 6:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me. $500 Million dollars for drones on the border. Are the illegals now flying in the air? This is a total waste of money. The illegals are everywhere so what good is a drone gonna do? How do you arrest, detain and deport with a drone. HEY JANET, OPEN YOUR F'N EYES!! We don't need no drones. WE NEED THE DAMN BORDER SECURED, THEN BUSES AND PLANES TO RID THIS NATION OF THE COCKROACHES!!




RE: Drones on the border
By SPOOFE on 6/24/2010 9:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are the illegals now flying in the air?

Cameras can be pointed down. Ask U2.


RE: Drones on the border
By sleepeeg3 on 6/25/2010 12:46:35 AM , Rating: 3
Drones are all good by me, if they are armed. The first illegal to have his head melted off by a laser would be an awesome deterrent!

Miles of fence... meh, we'll cut through it or dig under it. Unseen, flying homicidal robot with night vision, bunker buster bombs and a deathray strapped to it? Forget that! Who wants a Corona?


Illegal Immigration
By Jimmi James on 6/24/2010 7:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
A few things here that people seem to confuse or have mis-stated. 1. Yes this nation was founded by immigrants... BUT, MOST certainly NOT be third world Hispanics. 2. The U.S. issues 140,000 work permits PER MONTH... NOT the 50K per year as someone above posted. 3. Hispanics WILL NOT ASSIMILATE like other immigrants have. They will bring their nation, flags, culture, and language with them. There are currently over 3 million illegal Hispanics in Los Angeles that speak NO English and the L.A. school system is 75% Hispanic, 11% Black and 9% White. This nation has made a huge mistake by allowing this to go on and ignore the problem, it will very soon resemble the cesspool in Los Angeles and Mexico.




RE: Illegal Immigration
By Tom mc3s on 6/29/2010 7:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
Protip: Arizona wasn't always part of the US and there's been "dirty beaners" living there longer than the US has existed.

You'll get more people to agree with your stance on this issue if you'd kindly leave the racism out of your arguments.


WTF
By rcc on 6/24/2010 2:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, it appears this article is about Texas, and DHS, and etc.

So why is the first paragraph all about the immigration feuds in AZ?

Who, what, when, where, and why. Lead with it. I know this isn't a newspaper, but !@#$%




Drones?
By Indianapolis on 6/25/2010 10:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
They're going to use Obama supporters to protect the border? Oops, sorry...wrong type of drones.




By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 2:15:58 PM , Rating: 1
Have drones circling Wall St. Armed drones. Bin Laden wanted to economically cripple the US, but he hasn't come close to what the Wall St scum have accomplished.




Hmm
By Daniel8uk on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hmm
By Kanazozo on 6/24/2010 1:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because thats what Americans do? We are so terrified of collateral damage that we do what needs doing. I had a friend deployed in Iraq who's convoy was pinned down under very heavy fire several years back. Our troops were getting shot and killed, and an air strike on the fortified enemy position was denied because it was 400 yards from a Mosque. I dont know how many good men and women died because of our efforts to keep the international community happy (and disuade the perception that Americans are bomb-dropping monsters), but even 1 was 1 too many.

No - we will not arm a drone to bomb illegal immigrants because thats not what Americans do. Your assertion of its inevitability is rediculous and just reaffirms the fact that some have a horribly tainted perspective of our country.


RE: Hmm
By Kanazozo on 6/24/2010 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
".. DONT do what needs doing" (Im missing that edit button about now)


RE: Hmm
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 2:17:38 PM , Rating: 1
Stories like yours were recently covered by the NY Times.


RE: Hmm
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
He's from the UK. If I were him, I'd be far more worried about his OWN government using cameras, drones and surveillance equipment to carry out executions on offending citizens there than here.

They are quickly becoming a police state.


RE: Hmm
By DigitalFreak on 6/24/2010 4:00:04 PM , Rating: 1
They should load the Reapers for bear and take out any illegals trying to cross the border. Hell, I'd sign up for piloting one of those babies.


RE: Hmm
By Aenslead on 6/26/2010 1:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, don't get too exited - probably one of those Mexican cartels "we" provide with fireguns and ammo will take them down almost inmediately, or better yet, they will figure out the silly and simplistic logic behind those multi-million tax-payer dollar aircrafts and their nutshell pilots.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... build a wall, put some drones, kill some folks - in the end, useless.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles
Dawn of the Drones
June 6, 2008, 6:15 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki