Posted on 04/06/2006 8:33:43 AM PDT by STARWISE
I never said give up - let's say we are at 29% "secure" right now - I am fine doubling that to 58%.
Then why did you say this about a border wall?
Even a 95% effective barrier would be.
You can't even keep your own talking points consistent within the same thread!
I am opposed to a fence that kept 95 percent out because of the cost, not in principle. The Senate bill(s) deal with those who are ALREADY here. It would also COST TO MUCH to deport 20 million. I would rather see those resources go to, you know, actually catching terrorists and real criminals.
P.S. You don;t get to pick today's talking points ; )
I have not been following this since the deal was announced yesterday and everyone was greatly pleased that the problem was over. Has anything important happened? BTW, any estimate of the percent of illegal aliens that actually walk across the border? Whatever happened to the term 'wetbacks'? Did the Rio Grande dry up or something? Questions for the end of the week.
With a few exceptions, today's immigration judges (who serve for life) are dedicated to enforcing the law, and they do a difficult job well. This bill forces all immigration judges to step down after serving seven years - and restricts replacements to attorneys with at least five years' experience practicing immigration law.Yeah, that makes me feel safe. Put MALDEF in charge of our security!Virtually the only lawyers who'll meet that requirement are attorneys who represent aliens in the immigration courts - who tend to be some of the nation's most liberal lawyers, and who are certainly unlikely as a class to be fond of enforcing immigration laws.
Hey, illegals cost us billions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies for services they consume. A fence would be cost-effective.
But cost really isn't the issue, is it? After all, you said you were for the Senate bill and against terrorists entering the country. A fence would help keep terrorists out and the Senate bill would make it easier for them to come in. So, once again, what you claim and what you debate are two very different things.
An $80 billion fence would NOT be cost-effective.
The cost would be minimal, as has already been explained to you.
Really?
Just how many 9-11's do you want to pay for?
"Minimal" because you are not factoring any other possible consequences from the wall.
I'm waiting. So far all I see are posts from a traitor who wants to reward lawbreaking.
I am 100% correct, despite your protestations. Even if the linkage is 20 steps, it is sill linkage.
The invasion from the south is killing people. Not only are the people themselves killing Americans, but the effects of their presense are killig people.
Support for illegal invasion is treason. Period.
Someone used that yesterday - even $8 billion is too much. We could catch THOUSANDS of terrorists the old fashioned way with $8 billion.
I don't want any more 9/11 attacks - which is why I am in favor of SPENDING OUR LIMITED RESOURCES WISELY in that regard.
The bill has stalled in the Senate.
BTW, any estimate of the percent of illegal aliens that actually walk across the border?
I don't have any numbers, but I know of no one on either side of the debate who's claimed that it's anything other than the vast majority of them. That's certainly the premise that everyone accepts.
And your evidence of this is? Israel's experience has shown that its fence is the most effective counterterrorism tool it's come up with to date.
If anything, the consequences would be cost savings, as our resources aren't stretched as thin to cover the costs the illegals incur in social services and crime. You've yet to show how it would increase costs beyond the cost of construction and routine maintenance.
LOL - just because 100% of PLO terrorists entered Israel illegally does not mean the same percentage entered the U.S. illegally! In fact, the 9/11 attackers entered LEGALLY!!!! The prudent action would be to spend resources directed toward where the actual problem is.
Not arguing that there is such a thing as 100 percent security. But are you saying that keeping the borders open because of the cost of securing them would be preferable than closing the borders and reducing the incident of terrorism?
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.