Replies

FK: "Once a wall is in place it's there. No one is going to spend the money to tear it down in the foreseeable future."

But, as you say, then we get a Democrat who will cut the funds and personnel needed, catering to special interest groups, and the wall will be as good as nothing.

In my opinion, that would be politically untenable. With an unmanned and unfunded wall there will certainly be several tunnels and workarounds, etc. However, conservative groups that care about border security such as the Minutemen will YouTube all the exit tunnels they can find and show America the waste of the money spent on the fence. That would leave the Democrat (or McCain) to either officially justify an open borders policy or shut up. Most Americans want a secure border, or else McCain-Kennedy-Bush would have passed.

In addition, just on technical terms I really do think an existing wall WOULD deter SOME of the traffic, even if it was unmanned. Gaping holes would form but video crews would be there too. It would be a nightmare for any disinterested President who inherited a wall.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's record is not very good when it comes to illegal immigration. He has sided with Democrats on that issue.

I totally agree.

But then seeing Guliani (who actually helped get a mafioso appointed to serve as Homeland Security chief for a couple of months before his shady past was made public), I am not very encouraged by the people McCain is surrounding himself with.

Kerik is a real wise guy? I didn't know there was a reasonable showing of that. I know he's in all kinds of hot water, but are any of the charges related to organized crime?

Here is the scoop: cut down the demand, and the supply will dwindle. In order to cut down the demands the unethical businesses that hire illegals must be punished by existing laws.

Yes, I think that is a large part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, none of Bush, McCain, Obama, or Clinton(s) have the slightest interest in doing that. :(

For that to happen, the president can exert pressure on local governments to enforce the law or face consequences. Immigration is a federal matter and those who break the immigration law, either by hiring or abetting those who hire illegal aliens, are subject to federal prosecution.

I'm not sure that a president really has the clout to pressure local law enforcement anymore. Possession of, sales of, and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet in a few states, most notably California, it is done "legally" in broad daylight under state law. How could any majority of any state legislature, with a Governor's signature, pass something in categorical contradiction to federal law? They must have correctly foreseen that any president would do nothing. Also in the same category I would include euthanasia and gay marriage laws (either already existing or likely in the future).

Never mind, in addition, risking potential epidemic outbreaks since the illegals are not checked for communicable diseases when they enter the country and could be carrying anything from the plague to the Ebola virus.

I agree that this is a very valid concern.

We are also sending a mixed, and hypocritical, if not schizophrenic message to the world, on the one hand ...

Yup. It is hard to justify defending the borders of other nations if we refuse to defend our own. It is a travesty.

It's time to hold someone accountable! When politicians become liable for their mistakes, like every other citizen, perhaps we will have responsible (better) politicians. Imagine that!

Absolutely. That's why I intend to vote for pure conservatives with any chance I get. :)

In addition, just on technical terms I really do think an existing wall WOULD deter SOME of the traffic, even if it was unmanned

Considering the cost and the "efficacy" in such case, it's not worth tax-payers' money.

I'm not sure that a president really has the clout to pressure local law enforcement anymore

Sure he does. One way to do it is through Congressional allocations of federal money. The President has a lot of clout, especially when it comes to homeland security. We are talking national borders here.

Possession of, sales of, and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet in a few states, most notably California, it is done "legally" in broad daylight under state law. How could any majority of any state legislature, with a Governor's signature, pass something in categorical contradiction to federal law?

Local laws can only be stricter than the federal law. It is the unwillingness of the federal authorities to pressure renegade States to comply. I would consider it an act of open rebellion for any State to thumb its nose at federal laws and go from there.

Sometimes confrontation is the only way; the last rest resort. But, let's make it clear that for confrontation there must exist two conditions: (1) the challenger and (2) willingness to confront. Apparently, in our case, there is plenty of challenge, but no willingness to confront. That's precisely how the Roman empire crumbled.