Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: azhenfud

Excellent response.

I'd like anyone who finds comfort in this law, and the funding allocation, to read both in their entirety and then get back to us regarding the odds that a fence will ever be built.

It's so obvious that our 'leadership' has artfully inserted so many post scripts to this legislation that the money, if spent at all, will be spent on 'virtual wall' concepts (which are generally hollow efforts aimed at keeping us all quiet), simply because all of the stipulations regarding an actual physical wall cannot possibly be met.

The schemers are hard at work, and the majority of the citizenry hasn't a clue.


68 posted on 01/06/2007 10:35:59 AM PST by joanie-f (If you believe that God is your co-pilot, it might be time to switch seats ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: joanie-f

You can also mark this down: a physical barrier cannot simply be turned off when the public isn't looking - it will still perform the task of making it difficult to cross, buying time for offenders to be observed. OTOH, a barrier of the virtual type can be "turned off", ordered unmonitored, or simply abandoned as political pressure subsides.

The virtual fence is the US government's fence of choice.


75 posted on 01/06/2007 10:47:12 AM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: joanie-f
I'd like anyone who finds comfort in this law, and the funding allocation, to read both in their entirety and then get back to us regarding the odds that a fence will ever be built.

Well, I do, in a sort of back-handed way. No fence or wall, left unguarded, is going to accomplish anything by its existance alone. It'll have to be backed up, whether by the Border Patrol or a military force dedicated to the task, like Germany's Bundesgrenzeschutze, technically a police organization with arrest powers, but armed and equipped in military fashion, to include armoured vehicles.

Among our southern border there are 24 U.S. counties contiguous with Mexican territory, spread along four states. I'd suggest that the posting of a battalion of troops [circa 750 personnel] in each county, with each state providing a brigade headquarters and support elements, would be a good initial start; from there it can be determined where more troops are needed, or less. Similarly, major Army posts are available in Texas [Ft Hood, Ft Bliss, Ft Sam Houston] and Arizona [Fort Huachuca and the Yuma Proving Ground] and Marine installations in California, [MCAS Miramar/and MCRD San Diego, Camp Pendleton, 29 Palms and the Marine Coirps Logistics Base at Barstow] so those services might be better suited to operations in those states.

The required force would thereby be around 17,700 troops, about divisional strength, in normal practice run by a Major [2 stars] General. With or without a fence/wall, such a force would require only a Presidential Finding that the incursions from Mexico represent a clear and present danger to the stability and authority of the United States; US troops have been so tasked before.

ICE/Homeland Security/Customs/Immigration personnel thereby freed up could then be set to the task of internal security efforts in cleaning house of the 20-million illegal invaders now present.

In short: we need troops along our southern border as much or more than we need a fence, and we REALLY need a President capable of taking that kind of leadership action.


78 posted on 01/06/2007 11:08:25 AM PST by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson