If your goal is to actually secure the country against terrorist threats, as you now claim...yeah, it makes no sense to not secure ALL of the borders.
If you're just trying to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, then you're saying that stopping terrorists is not an especially high priority.
Which one is it?
Christopher Shackleford, 19, was killed July 29, 2000, in Marietta,Georgia , by a drunk driver, an illegal alien whose blood alcohol was at twice the legal limit. Also killed were two other teenagers in the car — Julieanne Pascoe, 18, and Kelli Bourgeois, 19. Chris was an aspiring filmmaker, and was majoring in film at Georgia State University where he was a freshman.
Blame it on Boxer, blame it on California
Ah yes, Poohbah got his arse in a bind here, now he's hoping for reinforcements. What's the matter poor baby, can't you handle your own battles? The answer is obviously no.
I'm sure the people of San Antonio share your thoughts on this. Automobile thefts dropped over 50% when the border rules down there were enforced. You ask why bother. Well, the reason is that crime, illegitimate costs to education, illegitimate costs to healthcare and other illegitimate issues would roughly drop by 50% if only we'd enforce the laws on our books.
You on the otherhand suggest over and over that we not enforce the laws on our books. You advance the idea that we should give up and continue to pay tens of billions of dollars for non-citizens.
Great logic there fella.
So what you're saying is, in effect, if we can't close off ALL the entrances at once, but COULD close the most vulnerable one, we still have to leave them ALL open? What sense does that make? (Answer: as much sense as bringing up Boxer and FineSwine in each post of yours... which is to say, none whatsoever...)