[rintense]

Yep. As I've said before... we have some of the best engineering minds in the world living in the USA. We built a bridge to connect the Florida Keys. We built a dams to hold back millions of gallons of water. We even built a bridge to connect two peninsulas in Michigan.

Yet we CAN'T build a frickin fence in the middle of a river?

Another cop out by the Perry people.

[fight_truth_decay]

You seem very one dimensional in your thinking, but you do have company. What you say is not entirely wrong but only only the smallest factor in solving the problems of illegal immigration. I have several times above on that, if interested and I have only just touched on the problem.. ;)

If it were so simple to fix..like the war on drugs, like the war on terror..like the war on anything the Federal Government takes on or even the war on its own states... If states had the power to act for their own best interests without the Left in the federal government coming down on the states with suits, and bogus threats of such, boycotts etc--the problem would be not so in focus. Plus politics weighs heavy on it all.

You can't get in you can't get out..or in Iran you go to prison for illegal entry and not a soft cushy prison with TV, Internet, and a balanced diet.. The Border states have tried-- plenty of evidence of that should one really take the time to research.

But richer states mean more jobs..think of it as illegals wont come to the state by you if you have no one giving jobs to "anyone". That works! ;)

[LOC1]

As a Texas native of somewhat advanced years, I have to respectfully disagree with you about a fence along the border.

A fence is a barrier to entry. We already have a barrier, called the Rio Grande. Yes, it has some shallow places, but most of the length, it is pretty effective as a barrier. That is one reason you do not hear much about illegals wandering through Big Bend park, as you do about that park in Arizona. The shallow places on the Rio Grande are well known.

So why not add a fence? The notable fences along international borders, the Maginot Line, the Wall of China, the Israeli fence around the west bank, all have been less than effective when considered over a long period of history. The time periods when they were effective were the time periods when there were lots of boots enforcing the effectiveness of these barriers.

So, since we already have a barrier in the form of the Rio Grande, and we will need “boots on the ground” anyway, no matter what additional barrier we might add, why not just go for more “boots on the ground” right now?

Just take advantage of the barrier we already have. Dredge the shallow places in the Rio Grande, put up numerous observation towers (like we have for forest rangers in east Texas), use electronic surveillance, but most importantly, have lots of forces strategically placed along the border to respond to and apprehend anyone crossing the Rio Grande.
We could do all of that fairly quickly, and it would have a very big impact. We do not need to wait on a fence.

Why do I think this approach would work? We have had illegals cross our land 70 miles from the border, and make a mess. But the incidence of their crossing has decreased significantly in the past several years, including before the current economic downturn. The downturn in illegals on our land directly correlates with the increase in Border Patrol activities at Laguna, Bracketville, and Barksdale, all towns between our property and the border.

It seems to me that increase in boots on the ground has had an impact, at least in the area that I know something about.

If the above suggestions do not work, then spend the time and money to build another barrier. I just respectfully suggest we try something that seems to work first.