Posted on 01/27/2006 7:24:10 AM PST by RS
My statement - The current fencing is forcing the druggies underground and the illegal workers into the desert, yet many here think that this security would be enhanced more by turning the U.S. into an armed camp.
Did I say it would work ?
For it to "work" it would have to solve the problem you assign to it - if the problem is illegal workers, clearly it has not.
You have not solved the problem, simply changed it's form or location.
"When your boat is sinking, it is a good idea to bail, as you say."
But it would be a much better idea to get the boat out of the water -
The rats ( illegal employers and incompetant officials ) keep drilling more holes.
Moehoward - "Ah. So the fence DOES work. Good you realize this."
RS - "Well duh ... I never said it dosen't prevent some people from coming across"
post #109
Seems like this issue is settled, you must just like to type.
Yeah ...well aware after one attempt to be polite vs the response I got that the admin sorts around here seem to sanction for the OBL's ......just one more to add to the I employ illegals list thus they have to defend the criminal invasion of the CONUS .
Never underestimate the frustration that a good fence will bring to illegals.
My thoughts exactly. But if Hogan had all those tunnels why did he always come back to the camp, why not escape?
Could there be a similar tunnel somewhere in Iraq full of WMD? Looks like these tunnels are hard to find.
Won't get any argument from me.
But right now, all we're getting from our leaders is a laughable plan for a 'virtual fence'.
You argue like a Democrat.
"Could there be a similar tunnel somewhere in Iraq full of WMD? Looks like these tunnels are hard to find."
Yep, look how long it took them to find those buried jet planes.
Born on dates don't mean Jack. Lots of trolls have figured out how to do that by a number of means.
So, what were your other (banned) freeper names?
"Born on dates don't mean Jack. Lots of trolls have figured out how to do that by a number of means. "
Well, it appears that you seem to have much more knowledge of trolls and hacking FR then I have, both subjects that I have no interest in ...
I know that stopping these people is a multifaceted project. Physical barriers are not the only solution, but they certainly offer an immediate and effective beginning. If they can enter faster than they can be located and shipped out, we all lose. If they enter and cannot get any employment, expect a crime wave (with all the anti-gun rhetoric and laws passed for the law abiding to abide by that implies). Keep them out, and the rest is moot.
Are you a supporter of giving education and welfare benefits to illegals ?
Obviously not, if I seek to even keep them from entering the country. Stupid question.
Are you a supporter of those who break our laws by hiring illegals ? Not knowingly. But admittedly, I have no way of knowing the immigration status of people who can literally wade across the river, get a day job picking vegetables, or whatever. Neither, I would wager, do you.
How many government officials have gardeners or housekeepers or governesses who are illegals? If the answer is even one, we all are indirectly supporting them.
Increasingly, operations are being busted which show sophisticated capabilities for forging documents which would at least make illegal immigrants appear to be legitimately in our country. These document mills are right here, on US soil.
While it is good that these operations are being shut down, cutting the flow of customers sharply by physically preventing their entry into the country remains the most cost effective initial step.
Are you a supporter of giving those illegals who are able to circumvent your protections a free pass to stay here ?
Yeah, right, that is why I would be willing to shell out my tax dollars to keep them out in the first place. Get real. (All sarcasm aside, NO.)
Are you a fenceing contractor ?
Not in any sense of the word. I have a far more villified profession. I work in the oil industry.
Do you like wastefull big government spending projects and are against solutions that would actually save us money ?
Let's break that question down into components.
Do you like wastefull big government spending projects...
The only wastefull big government spending projects out there should be sewage treatment plants and landfills, those should be full of waste. Unfortunately, look at the public schools if you want an overall wastefull project. At least in this area, religious based schools are turning out students who (on average) excell far beyond their public school counterparts for about half the cost.
Maybe that is because they are not preoccupied with pickles, prophyllactics, and trying to tell their students that unnatural acts are normal.
To me an ongoing program of ferreting out illegal aliens is wasteful if there is nothing done to stem the tide at the source. That is the equivalent of pissing in a gopher hole. You might feel better, it might inconvenience the gopher, but in the end it really doesn't change much.
Sure, pursuing illegal aliens is a good idea. Pursuing employers who knowingly hire illegals is a good idea. But you buy the fence once. It makes no sense to be flying all these people out when they can just walk back in, you really don't accomplish anything. Employers who hire these people do so because, among other things, they are here. If they can't get here as easily, there will be fewer of them, and the percieved benefit of hiring people who are not here is nothing, unless you are the New Orleans Police Department.
...and are against solutions that would actually save us money ?
Again, I fail to see the savings in flying illegals home vs keeping them out in the first place. Keeping them out is the most cost effective method. Construction costs for a barrier are a one-time thing. A limited number will be able to circumvent that barrier, but no where near the number who would be able to enter without it.
As far as tunnels go, the expense must be outweighed by the potential profit. Two people can keep a secret (if one is dead, as the adage goes), but there is no way that enough people can be pushed through a tunnel to make it profitable, simply because the more who use the tunnel, the more likely one or more will disclose the location of the tunnel for concessions when caught, or the more likely traffic is to be noticed or create trails which would be readily apparent from the air. Those who move large quantities of illegal drugs through the tunnels have the limited operation and profit motive, but will not be able to just load up some backpacks and walk across.
SO that leaves me with some questons for you.
Are you a Coyote, looking at finding a new way to make a living if this border fence is built?
Do you depend on the importation of either illegal laborers or illegal drugs to make your living?
Do you own property where you are afraid of losing your southern exposure? Maybe wrecking your view?
I am having a hard time figuring out any other real motives for you to 'not see' where enhanced security features AT the border are a good idea.
When did we start bombing Mexico City? Not that I'd be against it, at least not in principle...
L
(Another FROBL quisling shows his stripes...)
The only 'successful' unlawful incursions I know of involved a Canadian national who would sneak across the border to a bar in a small town on the US side (less than a 1/4 mile) to drink cheaply and then walk/crawl home again at closing time. Hardly worth calling out the National Guard...
IMHO, the answer is a multiple fix involving physical barriers (fence), surveillance (primarily technical), and governmental policy.
Physical – There’s an acronym from the military that stands for Observation, Cover and Concealment, Obstacles, Key terrain, and Avenues of Approach (OCOKA). Having a broad area along the border devoid of shrubbery or terrain denies border crossers Concealment. Augment natural Obstacles with fences and other man-made physical Obstacles at strategic locations (the 2d “O” in OCOKA). The objective is to funnel MOST border crossers to areas that are more accessible. That leaves Key terrain and Avenues of Approach. Those could be covered by –
Surveillance – Sensors and optical surveillance can cover a broad area with minimal manpower, leaving more BP agents for patrol of high traffic areas and inland tracking of any successful crossers. BTW, did you know that BP agents aren’t required to have a search warrant to hunt illegals on private property within 50 miles of the border? I found that interesting.
Governmental policy – by changing policy to reduce/eliminate the incentives for illegals to enter the US would further reduce the overall flow.
As far as the drug runners go, the first two points above will make it much more expensive to do business in the US. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the legendary “Mena, AR” type of drug running we’ve heard of in the past, but that’s another subject.
"But you buy the fence once. "
Here's where it all falls apart, in San diego, they already bought the fence, then they bought lights, then they flattened the land, now they are buying a newer fence.
You don't buy it once, because it does not stop the problem, so they say - " Well it needs to be higher, longer, wider, doubled, trippled, different material or style, sesimic sensors, the National Guard patroling it forever etc .... THEN it will work !"
... But they leave the problem untouched.
"I am having a hard time figuring out any other real motives for you to 'not see' where enhanced security features AT the border are a good idea."
If my car develops a squeak, I don't try to "solve" it by buying buying ever bigger earplugs.
Those Americans who employ illegals are the cause of this problem, and there is noone who is addressing it.
Yes, this is part of the problem, and I advocate addressing that, too.
But not all illegals are coming here looking for a job. Not all want one. Look at the influx of MS-13 members, and you will get a clue. They are not going to wait for a chance to weed someone's flowerbed. They have their own industry, create their own 'opportunity', and a host of problems with it. It isn't just Americans employing illegals.
If Americans completely quit employing illegals tomorrow, then what? Will everyone here illegally just pack up their old kit bag and go home? Or will they turn to the 'underground economy' to make a living, dealing drugs or engaging in other, more violent behaviour?
We already have Americans who decide dealing crack or meth is a more lucrative pasttime than working at a burger joint or some other entry-level job. The drug wars could be a real interesting thing to watch (from a distance). Think they will just go off to be someone's gardener? Would you want to employ them in that capacity?
If the previous designs for barrier fencing are inadequate, then rectify the design problems. Somewhere in the US, we should have people capable of this, you think?
If you want the manpower and budget to go after the ones who slip through, then you must stop the flow.
If my car develops a squeak, I don't try to "solve" it by buying buying ever bigger earplugs.
If your car develops a serious leak in the crankcase or radiator, do you just continue to dump fluids in or get the leak fixed?
Now, in my previous post I addressed your questions, on a line by line basis. You have answered none of the ones I asked.
Your turn. Why do you object to stopping the problem at the source, rather than chasing these people helter-skelter all over the country?
I cannot assume the logic of stopping the flow across the border eludes you, although that is possible, so I must assume you have some profit or personal motive in not having any physical barrier to trans-border traffic. What is it?
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.