Today they come as conquerors.
In 20 years we'll be electing a president for life who wants to be called "General".
Posted on 09/08/2011 3:24:28 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
You build your barriers based on the terrain and risk assessment. If it comes down to choosing between allowing hundreds of thousands of illegals to enter this country each year and water for cattle, I come down on securing the border whatever it takes. Illegals are costing this country hundreds of billions annually and they are killing and injuring tens of thousands of American citizens. Everyone knows we can secure the border if we choose to. It is a question of political will, not a matter of whether we can physically do it or not.
You mean a FEDERAL response to illegals. NOT under ANY DUMOCRAT.
No way will the Dums allow that. If they did, our troops wouldn’t be in Iraq and Afganistan but HOME protecting Americans.
I know the arguement about taking the fight to the enemy.
But Hizbollah is setting up cells in Cuba, you know they are already in Messico. When they launch an attack on gitmo, will Americans finally get it. We need our troops home.
It's nonsense to say that the economy will suffer if they are deported. The slaveholders of the Old South made the same argument. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
Perry is on the ground, living this nightmare. He knows first hand, what is realistic and what is just rhetoric.
Reagan also made this difficult choice. He went the Amnesty route. And the demagogues here condemn Perry mercilessly, when in reality, Perry does not approve of Amnesty. He said so himself. And he gets no credit for actually doing something about it, without the help of the Federal Government.
We’ve had guest worker programs before and they worked. I believe Perry favors another Bracero program, which requires them to return home.
Guest workers have documents, which reduces both their ability and the incentive to get fake documents which will also reduce voter fraud. They aren’t going to register to vote if they could lose their work visa if caught.
A fence isn’t a permanent solution, it’s just an expensive window dressing designed to look like the problem is being addressed. If they don’t man it and patrol it 24/7 it will quickly become a joke.
Also the illegals will go home rather quickly if the only place they can apply for and receive a work visa is in the American Embassy of their home country. Might even cause a mad scramble if they were assured it would take 6 weeks or less.
Eventually we’d have them sorted out between honest workers with visas and criminals without visas or with fake papers.
In 2007, the Congressional Research Service determined that the cost of building and maintaining just 700 miles of fencing would be approx. $49 Billion. If we extend that to the entire border, we are talking about close to $150 billion. If we accept your figure of $4.5 billion per year in refundable tax credits to illegals, it would take 33 years to recoup the cost of the fence (not counting patrolling and enforcing it) assuming we could totally eliminate those tax credits you mention.
Oddly, when I read the piece, I thought you were pro-perry, posting a pro-Perry piece to refute the wild claims that he wanted Open Borders, and supported Amnesty.
I still thank you for posting this piece, which does show those things, even though you clearly don’t think his position is strong enough.
Right, so let's just continue with the status quo and do next to nothing to stop these invaders. That's what you're saying.
To get a handle on illegal immigration, we've got to have an 'all of the above' approach. A fence is only one tool in our arsenal. There are many others, and we're going to have to use all of them to get a handle on this menace.
The argument against the fence is that it would cost $70 million to build EACH mile of fence?
Bull sh!t.
Some of us are opposed to any further immigration of Muslims or other Third Worlders. We should do what many countries do: you can't immigrate unless you have a skill which is not already found in the native population; warm bodies, illiterates, etc. are not wanted.
There are very few countries whose immigrants are likely to be anything but new socialist voters. Most countries have no tradition of limited self-government or even of the rule of law; you survive or get ahead by backing some corrupt tribal chieftain, emir, mullah, or commie. That makes their people perfect little Demonrats when they reach these shores.
The candidates need to develop a response regarding the separation of families that have anchor children. This is not an easy one to address but it must. Until the law is re-interpreted regarding anchor babies, this will continue to be a problem that the left skillfully exploits when this question comes up.
I didn't look at the CRS report itself, so I am not sure where they came up with the costs, but I am sure it included the costs of acquiring the land, environmental impact reports (can't affect any endangered species!), site preparation, getting the materials and equipment into the location (some places on the Texas border are very hard to reach by vehicle), etc. The costs also includes the maintenance of the fence for the next 25 years. If you don't maintain it, you may as well not build it. You have to figure that into the cost as well.
Well THAT kind of wall works. But can’t you hear the Dummies. That wall is a crime against the poor illegals. /S
I’ll just note that Palin doesn’t mean we should secure all our borders, just the Mexican one. There is no fence between Alaska and Canada.
And there is no fence between Alaska and Russia, separated by a distance small enough you can see Russia from Alaskan soil.
The reason for the first is that we don’t fear Canadians overrunning our country, because they have a solid economy. Until Mexico can develope a modern economy, we’ll spend billions on southern border security. If we could spend half of that and bring up their standard of living so they didn’t want to come to our country, that would be great, but we haven’t had much luck with such plans.
The reason for the second is because there are some borders where it is unlikely people will try to come in, so even though they are borders with our enemies, we don’t need to fence them.
Nobody calls for a fence along the gulf of Mexico, even though it would be a trivial thing for Mexicans to get into boats and take a 1-hour boat ride and come ashore. I note they don’t do this now, but that’s because it’s easier to cross the border, even through the desert.
But if you put up a wall that ends at the gulf of mexico, they are going to try to go around the edge of that wall. We’ll certainly need to defend that edge, and once they realise that boats work, and the rest is a wall, they’ll just use boats. And we’re back to having to patrol again.
Or, we could build a fence up the coast. Now, why wouldn’t we do that? Because we like our beaches, we like the access to the Gulf of Mexico. If you owned a beach house, would you want the government to put a wall in front of your house, cutting you off from the beach?
Well, that’s the problem in Texas. People own land that goes up to a lovely river. They like fishing the river, they like the view. The United States OWNS half of that river.
A border fence would cut off Americans from access to our own river. It would mean we couldn’t fish in the river, couldn’t boat in the river, we couldn’t swim in the river. Recreation areas built by the river would be closed down. We would essentially be ceding a national treasure to a foreign country.
It would also cut off wildlife from the river. There are many species who depend on river access for their livelyhood, and without water, their population could be decimated.
Anyway, my point is that nobody wants to fence in our entire border. So we understand and agree with the concept of strategic fencing. Nobody wants to fence off the beaches along the Gulf of Mexico, so again, we understand the idea that some borders can be secured without fences, and we understand that access to resources like a beach, or a river, trumps building a wall.
The real question isn’t “strategic” vs “full” fence, because nobody believes in a “full fence”. It’s just a question of how much strategic fence to we need. We are arguing over degrees, not principle.
AS I HAVE SAID AD NAUSEUM ON FR.
I want our troops home and on the southern border Period.
This is an invasion nothing less.
makeshift ladders to go over.
If the wall is high enough, no ladder will work.
Look at post #3.
******************************
How do you know that "nobody" wants to fence in our entire border? A poll? Intuition?
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.