Posted on 01/06/2012 11:47:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Since the enforcement rests with the BP or other law enforcers (not with the fence), wouldn’t any enforcement activity be subject to lawsuits regardless of who’s plan it is?
Also, do we control the airspace over Indian reservations? If so, then the real-time aerial surveillance technologies should help stop drug trafficking.
“Who is said to be weak on the issue of border security and illegal immigration, but in fact has been endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and has been passed over for endorsement by Senator John “Amnesty” McCain in favor of Mitt Romney? “
“Since the enforcement rests with the BP or other law enforcers (not with the fence), wouldn’t any enforcement activity be subject to lawsuits regardless of who’s plan it is?”
Numbers game. A fence stops thousand of potential lawsuits coming across the border by its nature, minimizing said enforcement suits...thus saves the American taxpayer Billions.
“Also, do we control the airspace over Indian reservations? If so, then the real-time aerial surveillance technologies should help stop drug trafficking.”
See above.
Real time surveillance yes...then what? Lawsuits and media hype. Now you have the added screaming of Tribes claiming they are being threatened and Democrats screaming more abuse/lawsuits.
Or we just prevent them from getting in with a fence to begin with without all the media and lawyers, saving a fortune in wasted tax dollars on frivolous suits that help elect MORE Democrats.
Just so I understand where you’re coming from, what specifically is your opposition to a complete physical fence?
Are you aware that the ethanol PAC hammered Perry hard because he is the only candidate who was 100% against gov't subsidies?.
If we’re that concerned about avoiding potential lawsuits—it only takes one big one—then I’d say that we’ve lost. The better solution would be for Congress to give the enforcers more protection against bogus lawsuits. IOW, tort reform.
Those fences are monitored 24/7.
The drug cartels are getting more and more sophistcated in subverting our efforts to block their passage. We develop technology and physical barriers to stop them and it works for a while. But then the cartels put their millions/billions into circumventing our solutions.
Two examples: The drug cartels progressed from small planes and fishing boats to submarines ... SUBMARINES! Their tunnels have progressed from shovel-made holes of a few feet to miles of passageways complete with electricity, ventilation, and running water.
Their first submarines couldn’t go very deep. But as we discovered their methods, they built submarines that can go very deep and evade Coast Guard detection.
With the amount of money they have at stake, they’ll keep developing ways around our barriers. Is it worth spending millions/billions on a fence and water diversion that they will just circumvent?
Illegals sneaking across the border obviously don’t have those kind of resources, but they’ve started hiring coyotes who have access to the cartels’ tunnels and using them.
Does that mean we should just give up and not try? No. But I see a 2000-mile fence as a huge waste of time, money, and resources that will be circumvented not long after it’s built. Thus my position that it’s infeasible.
I do like your proposed solutions for the agricultural and environmental issues. I will have to give them some serious thought.
Sorry, I missed your reason at 136.
In response, I just refer to the Dems obstruction and the social/political/financial costs incurred once again.
To 147...that they wont due to the Dems as discussed, is the reason we need the fence.
I agree...they will keep trying and escalating. No question.
We all know the solution to the drug problem involves the Marine corps. Eventually it will come to that. But can you HONESTLY deny that the fence would make a SIGNIFICANT impact in illegals coming here, gutting the DEM power base or greatly reducing the drug traffic?
Subs...true. They can put the ammount of coke on a sub that crosses the border in 2 days on foot...it takes a month turnaround time. In that month the fence has stopped a monsterous amount of drugs and how many subs do they have? 2? 3? Tops? And we already found 2.
Now divert the financial resources spent chasing ghosts across the expanse of no mans land to the CG and those subs have a problem.
I’m sorry. I just do not see why people are so adamantly opposed to a (I’m winging it here) 10 billion dollar project that returns a huge benefit to America when (not you personally) so few make a peep that Govt lately spend that in about 10 H-O-U-R-S!
Just so I understand where you’re coming from, what specifically is your opposition to a complete physical fence?From my post #136: "I don’t think it is necessary or efficient to build a fence all the way from the Gulf to the Pacific. The manpower and surveillance technologies, such as aerial drones, are the most important pieces to get in place ASAP. Fences can be built where and when needed. And if it proves necessary to build it the whole length of the southern border, it can be done."
I don't oppose it per se. If it proves to be necessary it can be done. From my perspective it's about prioritizing resources. More fence means more cost and more manpower for maintenance (we know how proficient the government is at maintaining roads and bridges ... ). The only way to know how much fence is necessary is to build as needed.
Add to that the liberals’ favorite tactic of filing environmental lawsuits to keep things tied up in the courts. They like to prevent any real action on our part by requiring environmental impact studies, etc.
I could split the difference if it came down to it and not be totally depressed ;)...Build about 100’ish miles on either side of every metro area, make them work for it and then patrol the hell out of the rest... but again, there’s that Dem problem with the patrol/enforcement.
But remember what the Democrat/Libs pulled when we brought the fence up for Cali years ago? “This will only lead to deaths as poor unfortunate children seeking a better life die in 140 deg heat in the most inhospitable desert in the western hemisphere...” And a billion articles showing or discussing dehydrated people/puppies/babies that were ‘our’ fault..
And their non stop ranting caused how many millions in delays etc?
Part of my ‘do it all’ position is that we would have to refight the thing from scratch every single time...and then deal with the issues I mentioned before on top of it.
This will have to be my last post tonight. I have enjoyed our discussion. :)
Building a fence the whole length won’t guarantee that those opposed to it in the future, should they gain enough control, wouldn’t simply defund it and let the fence and border enforcement fall apart.
Yup...The BP now has to pay the Interior dept MILLIONS annually to “mitigate” their patrols of “sensitive land” due to such suits. I imagine its the same in Texas.
Most people are not aware that’s where a chunk of their taxes go.
Same here.
Defunding - I’m willing to take that chance...once it’s up ;)
No, I cannot and will not deny that a fence can slow down illegals who are on foot. I don’t believe it would provide any substantial impact on slowing drug traffic though. IMHO, our priority should be stopping the flow of illegals before drugs.
As I said though, they just find more creative ways around, through, over, and under the fence. It seems like a waste to fence 2000 miles of border. I do support strategically placed fencing. I haven’t spent much time examining the cost savings as you have. So I will have to give that some serious tought too.
Regarding the subs ... I watched a special about them recently on the Discovery/History channel or other and the CG said they have no idea how may subs the cartels have now. I suspect it’s more than 2 or 3. The CG suspects they have technology we don’t even know about yet.
We’ve had a good discussion and I have some things to consider, but I don’t think either of us changed our position, do you? I do realize that your perspective has valid points. I hope you can understand that most Texans (including Perry) do not strictly oppose a fence. We just aren’t convinced that it would be as effective as you believe it will be.
Actually, believe it or not, I did a little. I suppose if I HAVE to take a strategic fence, I won’t be as upset as I would have been ;)
Honestly, RE costs...
Sometime when you are feelin’ froggy, as an experiment, grab a pen and paper and take to the logical conclusion the costs involved with Illegals in America. For example, Illegal busted with a bound of pot...then figure the cost from that arrest to ultimate deportation...or arrested for assault.DUI killing some one and the cost to that family for hospital/funeral etc.
It is an absolutely STAGGERING amount of cash well into the billions every single year. Then do a somple cost analysis based on the number of illegals you personally believe that a full fence would stop.
If the numbers add up, well, there ya go. Now here’s the thing. Don’t just think “Education” or “Hospital” as those 2 alone are in the billions. Think of day to day things you see. Like the insurance you and 150 million other pay in higher monthly premiums or the added pharmacy costs to offset welfare.
I think you will be VERY upset at the numbers you generate...then realize you missed about 75% of things you or I would never think of.
Oops...forgot this. Also figure in the cash being sent to Mex and other countries that would remain here, andalso figure in the cost analysis the ‘annual’ savings gained by their lack of presence here.
My head haZ a sore ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.