NFL Rejects “Controversial” Border Patrol Ad??
February 14th, 2007 by 
Kevin
The National Football League refused to run a recruitment ad for the U.S. Border Patrol in last week’s Super Bowl program, saying it was “controversial” because it mentioned duties such as fighting terrorism and stopping drugs and illegal aliens at the border.
When did it become “controversial” in this country to enforce the law?? Did I miss some sensitivity training?? And it’s not like it’s a sensational ad, as is pointed out in the article, no other sports league has had a problem airing the ad.
The Border Patrol ad asks for “the right men and women to help protect America’s southwest borders.” It lists duties as preventing “the entry of terrorists and their weapons,” blocking “unlawful entry of undocumented aliens” and “stopping drug smuggling.”
The War on Terror is literally a fight for our lives. The War on Drugs is a war we are losing. And “a nation that cannot defend it’s borders is no nation at all”. How is it that the NFL can have a problem with promoting any one of these?
What is happening to our culture when we are willing to sell off our own country for $2 million, 30 seconds at a time? Because that is the only thing I can think of, the almighty dollar. The NFL was afraid of losing market share in Latin America. It’s a bad sign when the National Football League, won’t give it’s own nation the time of day…even if paid to.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in Immigration, Tales of the Gridiron | 
5 Comments »
February 14th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Kevin
You will like this one then – Minnesota DFL (Mou DFL) today has offered a pro-immigrant bill package. Don’t know if the legislation will pertain or apply to illegal immigrants! but it should not!
Pat
February 14th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
The NFL has gone too far this time!
http://www.IWillBoycottTheNFL.com
February 14th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Pat, do you know the bill number?
February 15th, 2007 at 7:31 am
A new citizenship test designed to make applicants think about questions rather than just memorize answers is beginning a trial run.
Volunteers will try out the new questions in San Antonio and El Paso beginning Thursday. Officials in eight other cities nationwide also are beginning to administer the pilot naturalization test this month, in an effort to revamp the exam for 2008.
The 140 or so draft questions on the pilot test cover U.S. history and government, but many are designed to be concept-oriented, as opposed to many current questions that require memorization of historical facts.
“You don’t have to put a lot of thought process into something you could just memorize,” said Myrna Garza, a district adjudications officer for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in San Antonio. “This will help you … understand what’s actually happening, the reason for it.”
One question, for example, asks: “What does the judicial branch do?” The three answers accepted as correct are: “reviews and explains laws,” “resolves disputes between parties” and “decides if a law goes against the Constitution.”
The reading and writing portions of the exam are also being revamped, but only slightly, Garza said.
To pass, test-takers must orally answer correctly six of 10 pilot questions on the civics section of the pilot test. If they don’t pass, they can take the regular test afterward.
The other cities that will start administering the pilot soon are Albany, N.Y; Boston; Charleston, S.C.; Denver; Kansas City, Mo.; Miami; Tucson, Ariz.; and Yakima, Wash.
After the question tryouts, the government will spend a year whittling the pilot test down to 100 questions, with consultation from community groups and educators.
“I want to make sure that people understand this is certainly not to make the test more difficult,” said USCIS spokeswoman Maria Elena Garcia-Upson. “We will continue to accept immigrants literally from countries A to Z. We just want to make sure that when they’re (reciting) the oath of allegiance, raising their right hand at the time of the ceremony, that they understand our process here in this country and what our forefathers stood for.”
February 15th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Kevin
I don’t think there is a bill number yet but here is an article with some details:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1001997.html
Pat