Posted on 09/05/2011 4:50:33 AM PDT by JosephSmithNAW
They are against it because they know the wall, and only the wall, will dry up the flow of their precious illegals.
So, lots of *talk* about being tough about illegal immigration, but all boob bait for Bubba, that can be fudged. The wall can't be fudged.
The U.S. had a very successful guest worker program, called the Bracero program, that started in WWII and continued until the Kennedy election, after which he repaid the unions by closing it down.
At the time, most of the workers were agricultural workers.
The criteria for the Bracero program was that all workers were registered; there were supervisory contractor who were accountable for their workers and required to provide medical, housing and so on so they workers would not be a drain on the community where they worked.
You won’t stop free-enterprising illegal aliens with a fence. But you can regularize their entry and know who they are and where they work with a Bracero program.
There are places where a fence is good, but if you read his statement he’s talking about the the great, unpopulated desert all across Texas (as we have here in Arizona) where there is nothing to stop them and a fence is useless. We need live troops with live ammunition patrolling those areas, a fence is useless there. Just ask the ranchers here in my state how much good that fence has done. Almost none! You put the fences close to civilization, that’s where they will help, but the wide open desert, nope need troops and enforcing the law.
Neither Israel nor German has miles of nothingness (reference the Brownsville to El Paso portion of the statement). Fences make sense near civilization, but ask Robert Kranze's widow how much the fence helped down by his place.
I think he is talking about along the Rio Grande. In many ways different from NM and AZ.
Still, some sort of physical barrier(s) are required to be able to get troops to intercept in time. I'd suggest that Mexico provide a ~10 mi buffer zone except in the border towns. Not sure exactly what to do about Big Bend National Park, but a land buffer on the Mexican side might be the solution too.
I think that about covers it.
Maybe in Texas. I keep hearing they have the "good Mexicans" from the Texans I know.
Up here in Cascadia pretty much all the conservatives are outraged by the Mexifornication of Oregon and Washington. We have a endless illegal-fueled crime wave: constant drunk-driving fatalities (one motorcyclist last weekend), rapes, child molestation, drugs, gang banging (there is a war going on south of Seattle between rival "latino" gangs right now) etc.
The two local (to Portland, OR / Vancouver, WA) conservative talk show hosts, Lars Larson and Victoria Taft, both spend a lot of time every week on the illegal issue.
Among my small group of conservative friends we had a discussion about what the most important issue in 2012 was and there was agreement that immigration was at the top of the list.
I will campaign against another open-borders, amnesty promoting pseudo-conservative.
Here’s a question, Lonestar: would a fence have stopped the Apache or Comanche?
I lived in Texas for 10 years. With the exception of El Paso West Texas is scrub land. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing a wall being built there. Your wife a Mexican? What gives? Walls can be built anywhere. You are full of Shiite.
I don't have a clue or a care...but I don't think it would stop the Aztecs.
I don't have a clue or a care...but I don't think it would stop the Aztecs.
That is an advertisement for extreme ignorance!
Personally, I don’t think we need a fence, we need land mines and barbed wire and TROOPS.
Barbed wire is not a fence?
Not really, the sole purpose it to keep the livestock safe from the land mines. *grin*
A fence without troops and monitoring and patrols is nothing. Anyone could get over, under or through it.
A 1200 mile fence requires 1200 troops if you place just one every mile. Since that poor soul has to sleep and eat, you’d need at least 2, and since they can’t be on duty 365/24/7, you need 4. And since you need support for vehicles, ammo, food, etc, you need 6. And since one poor soul takes time to go from one end of his mile and back you’d need two,
Sounds like a very reinforced brigade and with a 1 to 2 year rotation you’re talking a division and.that means a billion bucks a year counting salaries, training, and operations.
And we haven’t talked about technology yet.
So, a no mans land without fence but with high tech monitoring would work as well as a fence.
And we haven’t talked yet of the impossibility of a reinforced brigade’s command and control of a 1200 mile sector.
I guess Minefields are the only answer.
When they hear a boom and see a cloud of dust, send a Helicopter to investigate.
That fence didn't protect us from hitting cow patties, but it did certainly slow us down to where a cowboy could have picked us off going through.
Mines are why we have experts at removing mines. They can make nice little IEDs in downtown LA or DC by didgruntled enemies.
Mines are an equal opportunity device. They don’t check age sex religion or nationality.
Yep, more like a barrier that said “this is mine”. I think if we ever enforced our laws that would be all that was needed. I grew up here in Arizona, a bit of barbed ware was all that was needed and it wasn’t to keep people out because that wasn’t necessary, it was to keep livestock in and safe. Everyone knew you didn’t cross the fence unless they were expecting you to come calling.
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.