Can I pick a subset of illegals that would be a great benefit to the United States?
...Mark me down however you think best represents what I just said.
Tell me if I got this right...
In
Out
Posted on 08/22/2002 7:04:53 AM PDT by Sabertooth
I agree but there is one group that Bush has totally divided out of the equation...Conservatives. I use to wince when Bush referred to his campaign as "Compassionate Conservatism" as if being conservative was some evil mean spirited thing.
Can I pick a subset of illegals that would be a great benefit to the United States?
...Mark me down however you think best represents what I just said.
Tell me if I got this right...
In
Out
Hi Gracey! Long time.
Did you know the Feds are currently holding an Naval Reservist from San Diego who is conected to Al Qaeda?
AL QAIDA IN THE RANKS?
Noncitizen (Naval) reservist
suspected of ties to terrorist network
Like an Al Qaida 'sleeper' couldn't enlist?
Would the military have signed up the 9/11, 19?
What if Osama had sent John Walker Lind home to enlist in the Marines?
This conversation still seems to be on the civil side. Well, maybe with one exception. Let's see, if we can carry the discussion of your post a little further.
The wall will actually be seen by a very small percentage of American citizens. I believe most citizens would be more concerned that they and their loved ones are safe in their own beds, from weapons of mass destruction, than with the overall aesthetics of walls they'll never see. Wouldn't you agree?
I also believe that most Americans would prefer that terrorists, smugglers of illegal aliens, weapons, drugs and other contraband, the Mexican military, members of foreign crime organizations and agents of foreign governments have to breach a wall in order to cross our land borders away from guarded crossings.
It's economically feasible for us to post a guard every 1,000 feet, at the top of 30-foot-tall-walls, for less than what it costs us to support all of the illegal aliens in our country. That means someone trying to breach the walls will never be more than 500 feet away from a guard. Back-up would then have a location to converge upon.
Isn't that a better way to spend that money?
Since you used the Berlin Wall as an example, we all have to agree it worked. Don't we?
Granted they were trying to keep people in and we'll be keeping people out, but the wall worked didn't it?
Ya, it only took him 17 post and 1 hour and 40 min. to call me a racist.
Yes I agree that a wall would work, but I don't want a wall around the United States. It's not about being able to see it, it's about it being there.
If we revamped out immigration system and let the Border Patrol do their jobs, we could control the border. There is enough high tek electronics and surveillance systems on the market, that the Border Patrol could control it with out a wall.
Just my opinion.
So do I. I would also support a moratorium on immigration until we get a grip on the mess that we currently have in the United States. I also have no problem with placing the military on the border until we can beef up the Border Patrol.
Thanks for the pings.
Fancy that.
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.