Specifically how would you secure the Mexican border?
There is no public mandate now for something violent and extreme, like a wall or land mines. Too many innocent people will be killed or hurt.
Probably the only thing that would create the public mandate is a squad of terrorists coming to the usa via the porous border, and causing a whole lot of damage to the USA. Then people will see it is a national security issue, and not an immigration issue.
Until then, since we can't possibly police thousands of miles of border by using men, and there is no overhwlming public sentiment to blow little mexican families rushing the border to bits, what can we really do but wait it out.
Sad but true.
Bull feces. The border is open, because the bosses in DC want it open. It can be closed simply by dropping our meant-to-fail "Keystone Kops" aproach, adn adopting "wartime rules of engagement" to prevent the possible infiltration of terrorists.
As far as morality goes, once the new ROE were clearly promulgated, FEWER Mexicans would die crossing the border than they do now, because they would stop trying to cross. What leads to MORE Mexicans dying in the desert, is holding out the promise of amnesty, drivers' licenses, "guest worker" cards etc.
So if you really want to save their lives, then you will support closing the border.
I agree. We'll have to suffer a terrorist attack out west, or with traceable origins...south of the Rio Grande before there's enough hue and cry to slam the door shut. Even then, enough illegals may yell, NO! that we debate ourselves into a stalemate...until another attack. Then some illegals will decide Mexico isn't so bad, and they'll go back.
I've given up. I just want to slow 'em down enough that I don't have to learn Spanish before I die.
With all due respect....if we have neither the political will, men, or material to "police thousands of miles of (our) border" to protect our OWN Democracy....we sure as $h!t have ABSOLUTLY NO RIGHT, or MANDATE to send men, and materials half way across the world to install a supposedly "Democratic" form of government in some turd world Rat-hole.
WOT, or not. To keep doing nothing (or throw a measly 1000 additional HS agents on the border) or continue this dog and pony show, is just a pointless folly.
We send in 187 billion to "protect out national interests" in the crap hole called Iraq and let tens of thousands of "unknowns" meander across our borders unaccounted for each month.
Ironic?
Just plaine stupid?
A sellout?
a Joke?
No land mines, bombs and such needed.
We can put a man on the moon and we can not secure our borders? We have no right to even exist as a nation then.
Stick a fork in us (the US) we're done.
A wall is neither violent nor extreme. It's sensible response to an obvious problem.
9 posted on 09/28/2004 12:05:49 AM PDT by HitmanNY (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
How is a wall violent and extreme?
Hi HitmanNY, see my post #112:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1228958/posts?page=112#112
It is an admittedly rudimentary idea, but it's a start...
Simple. First, build an Israeli type fence the runs the entire length of the border, except make the fence out of wire so as not to obstruct the beautiful view and electrify the fence to a painful, but non-lethal level. Of course, you will need warning signs in mutiple languages, and while some may sneak over or under the fence the numbers will pale compared to the numbers illegally crossing the border today. And yes, I understand the wall would cost a few billion dollars to build and maintain, think of the project as a government work program that pumps money back into the local economy and think of the cost of maitaining the illegals under the current approach.
Second, build large GITMO type detention facilities for those caught illegally crossing the border as opposed to the current procedure of turning the illegals loose with an appearance ticket. When an illegal is caught crossing the border, LEO would check him or her for terrorist connections, criminal warrants, and prior illegal entries. If the person is clean, then he or she has the choice of immediate return over the border or respit at the detention facility, where they can remain until their case is heard, with the understanding that they can opt at any time for deportation if they don't like the conditions at the detention facility or get tired of waiting for their INS hearing. If a detained illegal has links to terrorism or an arrest warrant, then that person would be dealt with through the criminal system. Illegals with prior detention records for illegal entry would also be dealt with in the criminal justice system.
Third, initiate a limited amnesty program for illegals who can prove residency for at least three years prior to the amnesty effective date, provided they are not on the terror list or wanted for criminal activity. (This is necessary for the effectiveness of the next item.)
Fourth, all LEO working for any state or local government that receives federal funds must detain any illegal who has not timely applied for amnesty (no excuses). This does not mean that LEO must raid diners and construction site for illegals. It does mean that if an illegal is pulled over for speeding or running an stop sign and doesn't have the proper ID (proof that he has timely applied for amnesty), then LEO must detain the illegal for transport to one of the detention centers referenced above. While this might cause hardship in some cases, that's one of the risks of being an illegal.
Fifth, pending the construction of the fence and detention facilities referenced above, deploy 50,000 reservists and national guard across the 2000 mile southern border. 10,000 soldiers on patrol at any given time means approximately 5 soldiers per mile.
Sixth, no matter how much the PC leftists bitch and no matter how much the business world complains about the shortage of cheap labor, have some balls and hold a steady course.
Public mandate? There is no public mandate for the open borders nor for the amnesty that Bush is proposing --- actually Silvestre Reyes was only elected to Congress from his region because of his actions while he was head of Border Patrol --- actions which did something to control the border.
Re;
"There is no public mandate now for something violent and extreme, like a wall or land mines."
Perhaps; but it's not all that unpopular an idea, either.
"... Too many innocent people will be killed or hurt."
Ahhh... hello your Grace; if they are trying to ILLEAGALLY infiltrate and INVADE America, then they are CRIMINALS - NOT "Innocent", got it?
It is well established that a lot of these "poor downtrodden immigrants" are ARAB TERRORISTS, Mother Theressa, for Jupiter's sake; "Innocent" my rumpled old arse!
Not too many of them will have to be blown up or fried on electric fences before they get the message - I'm not sure you ever will, however.
If anyone wants to pursue the American dream, there are plenty of legitimate and legal options available to them. Sure they could use to be streamlined - what governmant program couldn't?
Our prisons are already full of these predatory invaders (call them "Immigrants" if you want to - its so very PC don't you know?) as are Hospital Emergency rooms, which are being driven out of business from having to provide services gratis to these legions of parasites or from being sued by them for the most trivial of contrived grievances.
Now our fearless leader wants to give them Social Security benifits, for goodness' sake!
They already are bleeding our economy pale with false or stolen identity scams (which are seldom prosecuted, for some strange reason) as well as working the welfare system and bankrupting munincipal governments and legitimate citizen taxpayers.
From what people out that way tell us, they refuse to pledge allegiance in schools, often refuse to learn English, and have no intentions of ever "assimilating" into American culture. They intend to take over, and don't seem at all shy about it either.
These are not "Immigrants", Pilgrim; they are INVADERS, and as much as Jeourgi BOOSH loves 'em, I would not mind a few of them blowing up on the way over the Rio Grande'.
Let the buzzards sort 'em out. Works for me, Amigo.
Specifically how would you secure the Mexican border? Once they know the use of deadly force is authorized the price to be smuggled across the border will be to high.