Posted on 01/12/2006 1:41:30 PM PST by VU4G10
India is building a 2500 mile long fence along their mutual border with Pakistan to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks.
The fence in SoCal has worked.
The fence in Israel has worked.
Build it now. Add a minefield or two or three.
He was on the US side when he was shot at by the agent. He then crossed back into Mexico, where he died in a Mexican hospital!
BS.
The Mexican had already crossed the border. The Mexican assaulted the Agent with deadly force and was shoot.
After being shoot, the Mexican escaped back into Mexico where he died.
Stupid is as stupid does.
That boy was a coyote, A guide for illegal aliens. He's a known pest who has been deported 10 times and was shot when he threw rocks at our Border Agents. Good riddance!
Please see my post #45. That kid was deported 10 times. Was a multiple offender who threw rocks at our Border Patrol agents. He was shot and killed.
The naysayers who tell us fences won't work obviously haven't seen them in action, or maybe they have and know they will work. They can whine all they want, the Senate, despite their huffing and puffing isn't going to stop it and neither will Bush, Fox or the open borders media simply because the American people overwhelmingly are in favor of it.
"Cost prohibitive" craziness? All I'm saying is to be practical about things, and not to do something that would be expensive AND ineffective. That doesn't mean I think National Security isn't "worth it."
"I believe personally that the military would solve the problem. A fence or wall would be too costly and hard to build..."
I agree. Plus, the fence would be a worldwide embarassment. Imagine V. Fox saying: "Mr. Bush, tear down this wall."
The Governor of Arizona is a Democrat and this is an election year for her. She has vetoed about 5 or 6 bills dealing with immigration and thoroughly angered everyone who pays any attention to the subject. So here's what she said in her State of the State speech:
The federal government has promised more border patrol agents for Arizona.
But, until they are here, I have asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to invoke article 32 of the federal code, which allows the federal government to pay for us to station the National Guard at our border. That financial support would allow the Guard to expand its presence and become even more involved in enforcing the rule of law at the border.
At first glance it sounds she wants to have the Guard at the border. But if you read it carefully you can see that if she gets no Federal money she won't be doing a thing with the Guard. Then she said this:
I also propose that we give the Department of Public Safety the manpower it needs to keep up with the overwhelming enforcement challenge.
And I want to make sure that law enforcement in the cities and towns that have been hit hardest by illegal immigration have the tools, training and personnel they need.
DPS doesn't do any border enforcement now, so it's a mystery what the new manpower will be doing. And the second sentence doesn't have anything to do with border enforcement or even arresting illegals. She vetoed the bill last year that would have given police the ability to arrest illegals.
She's a big-time leftie trying to make up for past mistakes by blowing smoke. Don't trust her - most people don't.
Couldn't agree more, putting up a fence is only part of the solution. More border patrols, interior enforcement including employer sanctions as well as cutting off all incentives to illegals in combination will be needed to put a stop to the flood.
The Border Patrol has been using ground sensors since the 1950s and I believe they are testing the ground radars as we speak. The problem is they dont have enough of the stuff leaving large areas with little or no coverage. Ask an agent what kind of technology they need and they will tell you more sensors and better IR cameras. So what does DHS buy, a 14 million dollar Predator UAV designed for a completely different mission.
I think that the Border Patrol may need to become more like the Coast Guard.
Please no. The Border Patrol already has more authority to enforce federal law than USCC including Title 8 & 18 (immigration) Title 19 (customs) and Title 21 (delegated from DEA). Placing them under the UCMJ would not do them any favors either.
The USBP makes more arrests per agent (also with the fewest civil rights allegations) than any other law enforcement agency in the world. There are just not enough of them.
You are absolutely right however, there is no silver bullet to solving this more agents or even the National Guard alone will not be enough. We need the proper mix of agents, technology and tactual infrastructure (fences etc.) to effect real and sustained border security. Additionally interior enforcement closing the jobs magnet that drives this activity will be a critical element.
I stand corrected.
"Good fences make good neighbors"...anon
I see you haven't imbibed any of the water down there, have you? Cleans like a brown tornado ... and in many places you can't flush the TP.
Hardly, ever heard the term Maquilladora?
My wife's last two cars were assembled in Mexico. (one Ford, one Mazda, and the quality is better than my Michigan assembled Mazda). Toyota also has plants there. At one time the last plant making real VW Beetles was in Mexico. Texas Instruments has long had a plant in Aguascalientes (Hot Waters. :) ) near Mexico City.
I'd much rather buy stuff made in Mexico, where the jobs might keep more Mexicans in Mexico, than stuff made in Red China.
Mexico has no incentive to build its own economy and reform corruption as long as it feeds off the US to the tune of billions each year...and as long as those who might be part of a revolution, give up and head north.
I wondered about that. I can't see a US Border Patrol guy shooting someone, who isn't shooting at him/her, dropping someone on the Mexican side. They have plenty that are on the US side to worry about.
No you wouldn't. They'd use UAV's for surveillance and on call quick reaction teams for interdiction. Or they could just use Apaches and F-16s, but I don't think we're ready to go that far yet.
He made some comment about they weren't worried about being invaded because Canada was our friend and Mexico was impotent. It struck me that we did not consider Mexico a friend even back then, and now Canada fits that description, not our friend but impotent.
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.