Freep This Poll -- Should the borders be militarized?

Denver Post ^ | June 19, 2002 | Bill McAllister and Michael Riley

[Tancredo Fan]

Do you think that troops should be placed on the Mexican & Canadian borders?

Related story:

Tancredo wants troops now along U.S. borders

By Bill McAllister and Michael Riley
Denver Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - WASHINGTON

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., launched a public campaign Tuesday for the immediate deployment of troops to patrol the borders with Canada and Mexico.

In a news conference outside the Capitol, the two-term lawmaker led his Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus in urging President Bush to place thousands of active-duty soldiers or National Guard troops on the Canadian and Mexican borders to choke off the flow of illegal immigrants.

Tancredo conceded he had no idea what the deployment would cost or how many troops would be needed. He seconded a suggestion by Bill King, a retired Border Patrol chief agent, that it might take as many as 20,000 troops to secure the Mexican border.

"It sounds good to me," Tancredo said. "That may be a drop in the bucket."

Congress has approved funding to put 10,000 more agents on the northern and southern borders by September 2003.

The White House, however, rejected Tancredo's call for more troops.

"Immediately after Sept. 11, troops were located on the border on a temporary basis until federal officials could be trained to provide reinforcement and additional support," said spokesman Scott Stanzel. "At this point we don't see a need for troops to be stationed at the borders."

Tancredo is an outspoken critic of Bush's efforts to liberalize immigration, and a poll released this week suggests that the congressman's view may be in line with the majority of Americans.

The poll of 1,015 likely voters by Zogby International found that 68 percent of respondents believe the government should deploy troops on the borders temporarily to curb illegal immigration. Fifty-eight percent agreed that the U.S. should admit fewer immigrants each year.

Bush's Republican allies in Congress called Tancredo's plan too costly and unlikely to effectively seal the borders.

"We need to be aware to threats to our security, but the answer is not closing our borders at a cost that would divert huge resources from what the real need is," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

Canadian and Mexican officials said they already were working hard with the United States to improve border security. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley are working on a "smart border" plan so legitimate travelers can move back and forth "while increasing the security of our border through cooperation and intelligence-sharing," said Pamela Chappell, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Embassy.

"Having military on the border will not move us toward that goal," she said.

[Tancredo Fan]

Ping!

[MrB]

FReep voted to 61%.

[Aquinasfan]

Militarize the borders. Have citizen volunteers patrol the beaches.

[thescourged1]

FReeped and bumped.

The suggested 20,000 troops in the article is almost 2 full light infantry divisions' worth. It can be done though.

[FreePaul]

Got there but it wouldn't accept my vote. I even disabled my cookie rejector.

[madfly]

A large amount of manpower is used my the military for peace time research, enviromental research, modifying the weather, tons of futuristic programs, that need to be put on hold. They need to re-direct these people to where they are needed, NOW - the PRESENT.

I would do a search but don't know where to start. Going to freep that poll right now.

[CatoRenasci]

Make that heavily armed, authorized to shoot to kill, citizen volunteers patrol the beaches and borders.

[AzJP]

Why doesn't your buddy Tancredo have the b@!!* to get on his horse to stop welfare giveways? That's what attracts illegals, illegals that come up from the north, down from the south, and in through airports.

Stop that welfare crap and we'll get folks who WANT to work.

No, Tancredo wants to increase domestic military police.

Now we have politicians taxing us for welfare, and here comes this "Republican" (from a non-border state!) who wants to tax us for a new bureaucracy of domestic military police!

He doesn' want a real solution, he wants to expand the federal government.

Let's put the first gun toting federal jackboots around the edges of Colorado and I'll ski in Utah and Idaho.

These Republicans that think every solution is an increase to Big Brother are good fodder whenever a brainless right wing do gooder asks why I left the GOP.

[madfly]

While your at it, Please Freep this similar poll for us ARIZONA folks :)

http://www.gopusa.com/arizona/



Thanks

[CecilRhodesGhost]

Placing military forces along the US border is to move in the opposite direction of globalism, free-trade and the future. America has been a beacon of hope for immigrants everywhere, and when it shuts the door, it will encourage other Western nation-states to do the same. Worse, it will cause friction (based on anti-immigrant rhetoric) in the EU, and likely affect the chances of UK joining the EU. As for NAFTA being expanded ( a Bush initiative) this will too be delayed if a military force is placed at US borders. It will mean longer lines for the 18-wheelers hauling goods to retail outlets across America. It will mean that the price of food may rise because guest workers can't enter the US farms easily. It will mean that to a degree, Americans will not be thinking global but rather local... and that's also bad for foreign-policy agendas in DC, such as Kosovo or the Middle East peace efforts.

[madfly]

From GOPUSA ARIZONA poll

GOPUSA Poll

What is the single most important issue for the 2002 election?

Border problems
-- 50%

Education
-- 20%

Family issues
-- 5%

Gambling
-- 10%

State budget
-- 0%

Taxes
-- 15%

GOPUSA Poll

[dougherty]

I tried to vote, but it said that I have already voted. What the...?

[madfly]

http://www.gopusa.com/arizona/

Link re-posted for ARIZONA poll.

[taxed2death]

I'd gladly pay 5%-10% more in food prices to keep the dirt-bags out. As for the rest of your arguments.....so we pi$$ off a few euro-weenies, who cares.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Well, the thought in people's minds should be:

"H.W.A.Q.V.?

"How Would Al Qaida Vote?"

The other issue is what policy the millions of illegal lawbreakers who violate US National Borders, (many of them serving as potent cover for drug runners, human traffickers and potential terrorists) would like to see in place?

People, please vote when you consider these points.

[dennisw]

Freeped it 3 times. Put our military on the borders!! Take them out of Kosovo and let the Serbs settle accounts with the Albanian Jihadists.

[MissAmericanPie]

"We need to be aware to threats to our security, but the answer is not closing our borders at a cost that would divert huge resources from what the real need is."

Is he trying to make us laugh. Wonder what he thinks the "real need" is? They really must think their talking to children, or sheep.

We can kick in an extra ten billion for the United Nations to throw away, refund UNESCO a terrible agency, catch up on our 58 billion back "dues" to the U.N., we can fund a huge pork barrel Farm Bill for congressmen to take home, give to corporate farms, and get some goodies back in their campaign war chests, we can take over airport security, we can reorganize government under Home Land Security, we can send troops to the Balkins to protect borders and protect the Al Queada, at a cost of billions, we can give minorities free down payments on homes, we can throw immigrants back on welfare, we can spend, spend, spend, but suddenly they run out of money to put men on our borders, "ooops we are broke"...lol.

[mconder]

Suspend migration for 25 years. Treat illegal border crossing as an invasion. Shoot to kill all males, send the women and children back to Mexico at Mexico's expense. If Mexico doesn't pay, take it out of the foriegn aid we send them each year.