Oh sure.
Just part of the equation for strong enforcement freeing up human assets.
A few of these wouldnt hurt either.....
Posted on 04/07/2006 4:49:59 AM PDT by conservativecorner
It covers 33%. And people will still go around it.
It would require them to go literally hundreds of miles out of their way through some of the most forbidding terrain in North America.
Forbidding to U.S. couch potatos who never, ever, get off their butts, maybe. I'm now on the wrong side of 60, have been severely injured several times, am not a superstar athlete by any stretch of the imagination, and I can (and do) still walk that "forbidding" terrain.
All they need to do is get to a road, and the coyotes' U.S. operatives will pick them up and transport them along.
The rest would be monitored by sensors to track movement and initiate a response.
Respond with what resources? They have sensors here in east San Diego County, and the illegals are always moving through here without ever seeing a border patrol agent. I've called it in every time I've spotted them--they tell me, "Sorry, we don't have anyone available."
The U.S.-Mexican border is 2,100 miles. A 700-mile wall will only keep out the ones less intelligent than the people who think that a 700-mile fence will keep many people out.
Do it all the way: a 2,100-mile fence, plus a lot of border patrol agents along the entire 2,100-mile border.
Build the fence. Ocean to Ocean. There is NO other solution. Anything less will fail.
And put lots of people on patrol to make sure it doesn't grow any holes.
"And put lots of people on patrol to make sure it doesn't grow any holes."
Electronic monitoring could be built into it to detect vibrations from tunneling or climbing or any other monkey business. And it would SAVE lives.
But relying on those electronics would be foolish.
Oh sure.
Just part of the equation for strong enforcement freeing up human assets.
A few of these wouldnt hurt either.....
OK, so you also want to go about slaughtering them if they do cross the border, preferably from long-distance, so that you can pretend that they're just video-game icons, and so you don't have to reflect too much on what you advocate.
Nice to know where you stand.
"OK, so you also want to go about slaughtering them if they do cross the border, preferably from long-distance, so that you can pretend that they're just video-game icons, and so you don't have to reflect too much on what you advocate.
Nice to know where you stand."
No. You assume too much. I said "a few". Not a fleet. It is deterrance. Coast guard has WEAPONS on their craft that show they mean business, and they USE them on drug smugglers who will not follow instructions or if fired upon. It happens. If terrorists are crossing the border I WANT the tools to deal with that problem.
Quit making sense BUMP!!
Terrorists are most likely coming in through Canada, after they get Canadian citizenship.
Obviously a barrier would be more of a force multiplier than anything for our fine border enforcement officers. There has to be some way to get HR 4437 introduced to the Senate.
That would be my ideal, as well. Poster #33 is actually 'boots on the ground', and feels 700 miles would be a good start. As long as no amnesty or silly GW proposal is attached, I feel that way as well.
And an untended fence is not going to work, either. They still have 5% of baseline apprehensions going on in a densely-patrolled sector with a big fence. That means that, despite enormous expenditure of resources, 5% of the illegals are still getting through in the toughest sector.
700 miles of fence, and the same number of guards? You won't stop 1% of the illegals.
Defeatism is only an option for those who desire defeat.
HR 4437 would be very effective. Precisely why OBL's and apologists scream (literally) bloody-murder every time it is mentioned.
There's a fence around the White House.
Realistically assessing the situation and the likely consequence of a half-a$$ed course of action is not defeatism.
HR 4437 would be very effective.
I suppose it depends on how you define "effective." It lets some folks known more for words than deeds pretend that they're doing something useful and still get campaign contributions from folks who employ illegal aliens. In that sense, it's effective. It doesn't actually stop one flippin' illegal immigrant who has a two-digit IQ and slightly more determination than the average couch potato.
Precisely why OBL's and apologists scream (literally) bloody-murder every time it is mentioned.
They're screaming bloody murder because those same folks who give the backers of HR 4437 campaign donations to keep the BP/ICE off their backs also fund the opposition to HR 4437--just to get you to support it instead of supporting a fence running from sea to shining sea.
They got you to back something that won't work--and to think that you're supporting "doing something."
Sucker...
LOL! You're a hoot. It makes being here a felony, makes aiding-and-abetting prosecutable offenses, beefs up enforcement, requires ALL employers to verify immigration status, provides a barrier...
And most importantly, does not provide any type of reward for sneaking into our country illegaly.
"They're screaming bloody murder because those same folks who give the backers of HR 4437 campaign donations to keep the BP/ICE off their backs also fund the opposition to HR 4437--just to get you to support it instead of supporting a fence running from sea to shining sea."
Afraid not. The people who support HR 4437 are the people who want the problem stopped. Roughly the same 70% at whose expense the OBL's are working to flood us with unwanted 'guests'.
Don't you and Dane have a group therapy session to attend tonight?
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.