Posted on 10/01/2011 8:55:43 AM PDT by Clairity
His aides believe that his decade of experience as a border-state governor bolsters his credibility on immigration and border security.
He said he vetoed a Texas bill that would have given illegal immigrants driver's licenses, helped pass a bill requiring voter identification at the polls, spent $400 million on security measures to help secure the state’s border with Mexico, and strongly opposed granting amnesty to people who illegally entered the United States.
"I'm a governor. I don't have the pleasure of standing on the stage and criticizing," Perry said. "I have to deal with these issues."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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.
You are making some wild assumptions there.
1. I wouldn’t invade another country because I was poor. I have integrity and honor and so do most Freepers and most foreigners for that matter don’t invade other countries because they are poor. Most Latin Americans stay home. Only the criminally minded and dishonorable have the entitlement mentality to invade the US and spit on our laws and sovereignty.
2. You weep and wring your hands for the children of foreign criminals, but you have no love and compassion for the American children who are prevented from taking the spots at Texas education institutions filled by illegals, and you don’t weep for the American taxpayer who has to subsidize and pay for them, because of the criminal conduct of the parents and the bleeding hearts like yourself.
“Yes, McCain was bad. Romney is in fact worse.”
I did not vote for John McCain. I despise John McCain. On a personal level. There is no one running in this primary that I despise on a personal level. However if your boy Rick keeps it up, he could get there.
I will vote for whomever wins the nomination. As of right now the only candidate that will get my vote, my money and my time in the primary is Herman Cain.
Of the candidates running who do you support?
I look at the field and see:
Santorum; good on social issues, but an establishment Pub who supported the party jumper over a conservative. Also, no executive experience as a Gov.
Cain; sharp businessman who is all over the place on the issues and seems to be like Romney for something before he's against it. Also, he's indicated that he would support obama over the Pub nominee, no executive experience as a Gov.
Gingrich; brilliant, good debater, can't help but put his foot in his mouth on occasion, questionable personal life, no executive experience as a Gov.
Paul; good economics, but a loon on foreign policy, no executive experience.
Romney; the quintessential rino, has been running for 10 yrs, has executive experience as a Gov.
Who do you support?
The increase in the illegal alien population in Texas is directly proportional to the decrease in job opportunities in the other states. The illegal aliens are moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are.
So you do your job as governor and free up regulations and make it am employer friendly state and then people like ritense will criticize you for making the place more hospitable to the illegal aliens who move there from other parts of the country.'
Maybe Perry should have turned Texas into another Michigan or Nevada or California. Then all the illegal aliens would have moved elsewhere.
We are going to find out. Who do you support that's running?
Didn’t John Kerry have a jacket similar to the one Perry has on?
You are a joke.
I have been following your posts on Perry and the illegals.
You are an apologist for illegals in the US.
You have attacked Freepers as being racist and xenophobic for not bowing down before you and your illegals.
You have pulled out that liberal race card too many times.
Instead of attacking me as being a newbie, you should apologize for being a traitor.
You have no clue as to who your friends and enemies are.
Maybe he should take a look at Mexico’s immigration law for pointers.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm
Bingo!
children who were brought here illegally by their parents and who have themselves broken no laws. Texas has been forced to give these children an education through high school and the law simply gives these children the same opportunities to continue their education that every other Texas High School Graduate receives. The Federal Government isn't going to deport these kids, so the choice is whether to allow them to continue their education or to become street urchins.
It's a no win situation for the States and it's a political minefield. If you run saying you will deport these children key swing votes will not support you. The primary cause of the problem ie., hiring illegals, does not get fixed and the problem continues.
The world is made up of the descendants of refugees from wars and from poverty. There are few, if any, living people on this planet who cannot trace their ancestry to some country which their ancestors fled to avoid war, starvation or disease.
If you lived in a hell hole and believed the only way to provide for your family was to bring them to America, and you refused to do that because there was some law in America that nobody enforced which said you ought not to come here unless you have bribed the government officials in your home country to grant you an exit visa, you would be worse than an infidel to refuse to escape.
Right, let your family die of war, famine, disease or starvation because you are too honorable to break some unenforced law in another country.
If your wife or children were dying and you had to get to the hospital which was 5 miles away within 5 minutes to save them, would you obey all the traffic laws on your way to the hospital? Are you so honorable that you would not break a few traffic laws to save your children?
Corrected for accuracy.
And I respectfully disagree with Perry's surrender of our homeland.
Say what?.
Actually, Ronald Reagan had a jacket like that.
At the moment Cain or Santorum are far above the rest.
Romney won't do anything either anymore than Perry. In 2005 he publicly supported Bush's guest worker/ammesty. Gingrich too started off his campaign talking about the need for amnesty as we'll never send then home.
This issue is the most important one facing the country right now because everything else is affected by it and all negative. The political process is becoming corrupted due to politicians pandering to all these criminals.
At this point I refuse to support anyone who won't do the right thing, close the borders and enforce the laws.
I'm with you!
I was initially interested in Cain, but then all the comments with "loopholes" started and I began to wonder. Now the comment about not supporting Perry if he were the nominee. I don't see why people can hate Perry so much when we look at who is in the White House, just about anyone would be better.
Cry me a river, lets take care of our own first, and that means Americans and legal immigrants. We cannot take care of the world, and if you want to do so why don’t we just open our borders and ports to anyone not just those favored by geography?
What limit would you place on illegal immigration for those fleeing their terrible homelands? Letting them come here is taking the pressure off their own countries to provide for them and we are getting their problems dumped on us.
Every dollar spent on an illegal is a dollar taken that should be properly used for an American or legal immigrant. Where are your tears for them? Try visiting LA and tell me what is the difference between there and Mexico. Mexicans do not care to assimilate unlike previous immigrants legal or otherwise.
That is Perry's position. He will close the borders and enforce the laws. He is committed to that goal.
The biggest problem is in enforcement and only the President can ensure that the laws are enforced. The Governor of a State cannot enforce the Federal laws. That is the sworn duty of the President of the United States. GWB was negligent in that duty. As was Clinton and George Bush I
I want a president who will faithfully execute the laws and who will defend the Constitution. Of all the candidates running, Perry is the one who appears most committed to both those goals.
Perry is the only one on that stage who is currently, daily handling border problems. The others are just spouting theory.
Thanks for proving to all and sundry that integrity is meaningless to you and that you use false and misleading analogies to defend foreign criminality in the United States.
The fact is poor is a relative term, and any fool can justify his plight and criminal by saying he is poor. This is how liberals justify their criminal behavior.
Should I go rob your house because I am poor? Should I stick up a bank because I a poor?
Maybe you should reflect on what separates humans from the animals, the civilized from the uncivilized, or are you one of these people who thinks anybody can do whatever he wants just because he feels like it and justifies his criminal and immoral behavior because of rough circumstances?
The Japanese just had a Tsunami and nuclear meltdown in their country and how many countries did the Japanese refugees invade?
That’s right, none.
People all over the globe suffer from a host of life’s miseries every single day and most people don’t chuck their honor and integrity out the door or blame their misfortune on others.
Only liberals in America and illegals seem to have the entitlement mentality that if things are tough abroad, make Americans responsible and make them pay.
By the way, Mexico is the 11th richest country in the world, has a rapidly growing economy, and is at full employment.
According to your logic, it should be opening its doors to America’s poor instead of dumping our social problems on our already strained economy and social system.
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.