Posted on 08/19/2005 4:36:49 PM PDT by DTogo
In the final segment of the Brit Hume's "All Star" panel (Brian Wilson was filling in for Brit), the topic was the recent state of emergency declarations by NM and AZ governors. Asked if the Governator might be next, Charles Krauthammer suggested a wall is necessary to stem if not halt the flow of illegal aliens so that they can enter the U.S. legally in designated points (yes!). At his turn, Fred Barnes predicated his comments with the usual "Look..." and then said "we have to accept a certain number of illegal aliens" and that a wall would be too long and expensive. He also implied that we'd need about ten times the border agents we have today and that isn't practical either.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And we all know who is paying for the wall on the West Bank don't we....
anyone? anyone....
YOU AND ME!
that's who!
It's NOT too expensive. The outstanding wall near San Diego only cost 1.7 million a mile. Multiply that by the 1945 mile border, and you get around 3.3 billion dollars- a few months worth of the Iraq operation.
Even if you assume that some areas will be more expensive, it's still just 5 billion or so and will reduce the number of border agents we have to hire.
Maybe if we stopped giving illegals State and Federal benefits, they would stop coming.
Keith, too funny! :)
..."we have to accept a certain number of illegal aliens" and that a wall would be too long and expensive. ...
Cut off all government benefits to illegals. Use that money to build the fence. Secure the borders with a fence and more police making it very difficult for them to get in. For those who come in legally, tax them on their wages just like the rest of Americans, but no government benefits until they become U.S. citizens.
Fred says the wall would be too expensive. Can he back up that claim? I myself wonder if it wouldn't pay for itself and then some, especially in the long run because Mexico seems unwilling to fix their country to where their people can earn a living there. That means they will come up here where they can. The housing boom is one reason that illegal immigration has exploded.
We need to either cut off the gravy train and build the fence, or make Mexico the 51st state and clean up that cesspool they call a government down there.
Just a few thoughts. Comments welcome. It is only recently that I began to learn of all the gov. benefits illegals are now entitled too, and that is just wrong. I don't blame the illegals for that, I blame our goverment. They are the ones writing the checks with our tax dollars.
And worse, not all of them are just coming here to work like it might have been once upon a time. I'm talking about the MS 13 types and who knows who else, so this is also a matter of security, besides being an economic problem.
And if we use Mexican labor we can probably cut the cost by 90%.
The train with the issue called "illegal immigration" is picking up a ferocious head of steam and the whistle has already blown for it to leave the station. You have two choices: you can be ON that train, or you can be UNDER it.
And you DON'T have very much more time to make the choice.
We don't need to accept any ILLEGAL aliens. If they want to increase the quota of LEGAL immigrants from Mexico, that should be discussed but there is NO excuse to accept even one illegal alien. It's against our laws and if the government can't enforce the law what possible use is it.
A double fence, the two fences about 12 feet apart, with razor wire on top of each and in between, and sensors to indicate when people tried to cross would be no big deal, certainaly no more than building a two lane blacktop road. Fred just lost it on this one.
...WHO IS GOING TO CUT MY LAWN FOR $2.00 AN HOUR?
I'm not a Max Cleland fan but that's not what happened. He was getting off a helicopter and looked down to see the grenade lying at his feet. He thought it had fallen off his own harness. Somebody else dropped it. It didn't occur to him that it was armed and he went to pick it up. Just an unfortunate dumb-ass moment.
He was an officer, a communications section head, and he and some of his guys were escorted out to a remote site to do some antenna maintenance. Not expected to be a contact mission. And, there may have been some beer in the back for a post antenna erection party. Doesn't make it a boondoggle.
Not a fan of this site but it contains what looks like some facts about Cleland.
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/19/mark-steyn
Hey Fred tell that to the 15 year old girl in Spotsylvania you freakin stooge.
bump
A bounty and shoot to kill would thin out the border herd a bit.
No, Fred is just an elitest. When the people decide to get this done, it will be done, with or without the government or the pundits' blessing. Do you recall the fall of East Germany? No one thought the citizens could possibly bring down the Communist government and the wall, but one day the citizens of Luebeck, in E. Germany, decided to simply sit down and not move. Within 14 days, the government was finished. There is no country and no government if the people refuse to get up and do their jobs. It CAN be done, Fred.
All grenades are assumed, "ARMED" and he had no business picking it up! PERIOD
And it was the dumbest thing he could have done was to pick it up. PERIOD
Now you can make all the excuses you like but anyone who has been in the Marines and/or Army knows you don't pick up grenades off the ground. PERIOD
The guy WAS NO HERO! PERIOD.
People throw that word "hero" around like everyone who was ever in Nam was Audie Murphy! THEY WEREN'T!
Too long? Too long? I suppose a farmer would say I could build a fence around that field to keep the cattle in but that would be too long. WTH kind of thinking is that Fred?
The worst are the pundits that argue that the border cannot be secured and that spending more will not work. They love to use this fact "Since the 1990s border enforcement spending has tripled and we still haven't stemmed the tide of illegals." That is such a canard. If I were starving to death because I ate only 100 calories a day, and I then tripled my eating to 300 calories, I would still be starving. Liberals would argue from that example that eating more will not stop you from starving, "you tripled your caloric intake but you are still starving!" In making the argument for increased border enforcement, we need to do a better job of pointing out that there is a level of spending on staffing/barriers which will lead to a dramatic reductions in the number of illegals who can/will cross. We need to define that figure and challenge congress to meet it.
I'm surprised Barnes can't do the math...
At THIS rate -- and the virtual carte blanche invitation from President Bush to invade the U.S. with impunity -- Barnes discounts the tsunami of 10,000,000 more Mexicans who'll illegally invade during next ten years.
How much will THAT cost us Freddy-Boy??
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.