The good neighbor appears to be taking over our yard.
Posted on 09/08/2011 3:24:28 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
A famous poet once wrote that “good fences make good neighbors.” However, this author did not have to deal with the realities of homeland security where a wall is only as strong as it is fortified by law enforcement personal. Building a wall along the entire Texas-Mexico border would not only be cost prohibitive – in the range of billions of dollars – it would create a false sense of security. And unless the federal government is willing to put enforcement personnel all along such a barrier – something it has refused to do for decades along a border without fencing – it will be no more successful at keeping illegal immigrants out of Texas than the Rio Grande River.
Strategic fencing in high-population areas makes sense. But I would like to see the federal government invest resources in increased border security operations like Operation Rio Grande rather than build a 1,200-mile wall.
With joint law enforcement operations we have managed to reduce crime in areas patrolled by border sheriffs by up to 60 percent during surge operations. With fixed wing and rotary assets in the air, more law enforcement boots on the ground, and a stronger boat patrol presence along the Rio Grande, we have virtually shut down drug and human smuggling activity during intensive operations. The success of these operations is the reason I will be asking the legislature for $100 million to secure our border.
As I have said repeatedly, you can’t have homeland security without border security, and there is no sense in reforming immigration laws if we cannot enforce them. And I have said equally as often that immigration reform without border security is meaningless.
Divisive language on the subject of border security and immigration reform is simply not constructive or useful in solving the problem. We cannot be a nation that is anti-immigrant because we are in fact a nation of immigrants. In fact, foreign-born citizens are some of the strongest supporters of tougher border security measures. Clearly, something has to be done because our hospitals, schools, and other service providers are being flooded with illegal immigrants at a great cost to taxpayers.
But to me neither amnesty nor mass deportation is the answer. The first unfairly rewards those who broke our laws, and the latter is not only unrealistic and unenforceable, but it would devastate our economy. That’s why I support a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contributions without providing them citizenship status.
I would rather know who is crossing our border legally to work instead of not knowing who is crossing our border illegally to work. A guest worker program that provides foreign workers with an ID removes the incentive for millions of people to illegally enter our country. It also adds those workers to our tax base, generates revenue for needed social services and it can be done without providing citizenship.
Along with millions of Americans, I think it is wrong to reward those who broke our laws with citizenship ahead of those who have followed the law and are waiting to enter this country legally. And like millions of Americans I do not support amnesty.
With a more secure border and a reasonable guest worker program we can allow guest workers to help build our economy without offering citizenship. Many don’t even want to become citizens – they just want to provide for their families back home.
We just finished an election where the Washington politicians gave us a lot of rhetoric on immigration reform, but no real solutions. We need Washington to be a part of the solution. For us it is not just a subject of intense debate, it directly impacts how we live.
As Governor, I understand that I represent all the people of Texas, and not everyone sees eye to eye on this issue. But, I do promise that I will use reason and fact, not emotion and fear, to help us resolve this issue in a spirit of unity. We need to work toward solutions, not slogans. We need immigration reform that doesn’t compromise our security, and security that doesn’t compromise our economy. And I believe we can accomplish all of this with a guest worker program and real security measures that utilize our law enforcement tools to help secure our border.
Before I get attacked with ad hominems and ugly substanceless comments, let me say that I am not anti-Perry. I agree with him on most of his positions, some of them quite strongly.
The problem as I see it is that the illegal immigration issue is a game-changer. If we legalize the illegals, then the politics of much of the country will eventually come to resemble that of California.
As we saw in the last election, when most of the rest of the country punished the Democrats for Obama's abysmal performance as president, in California a socialist pig like Barbara Boxer and a moonbat like Jerry Brown skated to easy wins. The demographics in California have reached a point where policy debates are irrelevant. This is characteristic of much of Latin America.
When we reach that point, debates over debt limits and deficit spending and anti-free market policies and big government corruption and abuse of power will be meaningless. There will be a margin in favor of socialism and as soon as the socialists get a stranglehold on power, they will move to silence their political opponents as they have done everywhere else they gain power.
My specific points:
1. Perry is against building the fence. The American people strongly support building a fence. A fence would be a tremendous force multiplier in controlling the flow of illegals, drugs and terrorists across the southern border. Where we have built a well-designed triple fence, such as in San Diego County, it works to radically reduce crossings in that location.
Perry moans about the cost of a fence. But as we have just learned, in a country in which illegals receive $4.5 billion a year in refundable tax credits (i.e., free money) from the federal government, the cost of building a fence would be less than the annual cost of tax fraud by illegals.
A fence doesn't do away with the necessity of a border patrol or of other technological assistance such as cameras and sensors to assist in identifying breaches. These elements all work together to result in a secure border.
A fence doesn't mean we don't need mechanisms like e-verify and employer sanctions. Those are also elements of border security.
2. Perry uses the dishonest formulation of the Left that people opposed to illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant." No, we are simply in favor of a nation of laws. Those who are pro-illegal immigration are against the rule of law.
If for every illegal high-school dropout socialist who walks across the southern border we instead had an Indian software designer or Korean electrical engineer or Chinese chemist, our country would be much stronger and our future prospects much brighter.
3. Perry supports amnesty but dishonestly claims it is not amnesty. If the illegals are allowed to stay and live here legally, how is that NOT amnesty for breaking the laws?
This is no less dishonest than the claim by Bush, McCain and Kennedy that if the illegals were made to pay a small fine for their illegality then that would not be "amnesty." (And then we found out that their bill included large amounts of funding to organizations like La Raza, providing a source of funding for even this purported "penalty.")
I do not believe Americans will support Perry's "second-class citizen" proposal. If we decide that the illegals shall be considered legal residents, with the right to live and work in this country where they please and raise their families here, and we expect them to pay taxes (although in truth they will continue to be net takers, not net givers, with respect to our nation's fiscal and economic situation), then most Americans would feel that it is somehow contrary to our principles that they not also be allowed to vote.
A guest worker program under which workers who live in Mexico come to the US for a couple of months a year at harvest time might be enforceable with biometric IDs and enforcement of employers who fail to monitor.
But I do not believe the American people will stomach a "gastarbeiter" program like Germany has used for Turkish people, in which they are allowed to permanently live, work and raise their families in Germany but are assigned a second-class citizen status behind Germans.
Therefore, this guest worker program will inexorably evolve into citizenship status.
At the moment, Perry appears to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination. It is therefore of crucial importance that he reverse his positions on 1) physically securing the border with a fence and additional measures and 2) amnesty for those here illegally.
He is right about Border Security.
It is useless and will make Americans a laughing stock in Messico.
Only LEO’s on the Border can end this nightmare. Building a billion $$$ fence along the Tx border is a waste of time and money.
Here, here! Well said.
We have two problems regarding the border. One is the large number of illegal alien invaders. The other is common criminals traversing the border for completely nefarious reasons. Both of these problems need their own remedies.
We can stop the illegal invaders and cause millions of illegals already here to self-deport, simply by shutting off the magnet (work, welfare, etc.).
As to the the remaining criminals coming accross the border, we need boots and resources on the ground and certainly some strategic barriers, but most of all, we need to recognize and treat these people as enemies crossing our border to do us harm. We must find the will to produce rules of engagement that will keep these fols out.
Ping to Perry’s border security ideas. A typo (personal/personnel) in the first few sentences, the 2nd showing that the first was a gremlin.
The ideas make sense. If you don’t enforce a fence, then the fence makes no sense.
You need boots on the ground.
If you can’t win a war with air attacks, and you must have boots on the ground, then you certainly can’t control an unpatrolled border just because you have erected a fence.
So far as illegal immigration, I really think he’s right there. Amnesty is not the answer, and there is no way that deportation will EVER take place in this country. It just won’t happen.
Therefore, a worker program is the only thing that makes sense on the positive side. On the negative side, stiff penalties for hiring illegals and enforcement of our existing law would go a long way toward stemming the current tide of immigrants.
Other parts I am still undecided on. On massive deportations, I don't know of any politician who is ever going to pursue this, not Perry, not Sarah, probably not even Bachmann or Cain.
Plus, my guess is the Supreme Court would find a way to prevent mass deportations anyway. Therefor, my thought is we need to find the candidate with the best plan to truly secure the border and make sure this can never happen again.
People who claim he wants a completely open border with no restrictions are not to be taken seriously. At the same time, I do believe Perry needs to be more specific on HOW he wants to secure the border before I personally will be able to support him on that particular issue.
Patton once spoke of the sheer folly of static defences. I am not sure , however, what dynamic defences are possible. In any way, we are like the Romanbs after they allowed the barbarians inside of the limnes. All that is need is for the barbarians to find strong leadership, and you have problems.
Depends on the rules of engagement. If they're allowed to fire at will at anything with two legs coming over the border, then yes, that will work, provided there are enough LEOs to watch every linear inch of border between Brownsville and San Diego.
Any rules other than those aren't gonna change a damn thing.
Build the fence.
No matter who the candidate is. If they continue to use immigrant as the definition of illegal alien I will attack them.
Americans aren't anti-immigrant. They are against illegal aliens. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated.
Perry's choice of words further shows the problems we have with our 'elected'/selected leaders.
Here's a real plan.
Let's review what Palin has said:
From Great Van Susteren ON the Record, May 10, 2010
Then what did Palin say From the O"Reilly Factor Interview July 9, 2010And then they will start using boats in the Gulf to go AROUND the fence. They already dig tunnels to go under. and makeshift ladders to go over.
Waste of time and money!
Are you serious? That's why we have a Coast Guard and Navy.
The San Diego fence is only 14 miles long, and it is in an urban area. Perry says in the document you just posted that he supports fences in those types of areas, so I am not sure what your point is.
Another thing to consider is that the border between Texas and Mexico is a river. That is not true in California. In Texas, many ranchers and farmers have property that goes down to the river, and that is how their stock gets watered. Putting a triple fence along there would require the government taking a significant amount of private land, and would deprive the rancher's herds access to the river.
I’m sick of hearing the guest worker mantra because it really means open the door wider.
One of my oldest friends is someone I met as a child when his family came to work in onion and carrot farms near my home every summer and fall. They lived in the house across the road from us when they were here and eventually gained citizenship and actually bought the house from the farmer.
PALIN ISN’T RUNNING!
The least she could do is jump in and join Bachmann in the ring.
bachmann has been taking all the right hooks while Sarah sits in the tower contemplating her navel.
A double anti-climb fence with a road in between aided by sensors and other technology is a force multiplier. Physical barriers work. No one is suggesting that a fence be built along the entire border. That is a phony strawman. We need to secure our border. Physical barriers are part of any such effort. We build fences around military bases, airports, nuclear plants, the WH, etc. They are meant to reduce manpower requirements.
FYI: 40% of the illegals entered the US legally and overstayed their visas. Securing the border solves only part of the problem>
The Border Wall between San Diego and Tijuana
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.