Posted on 11/09/2007 3:31:11 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
It seems to me that if we’re giving foreign aid to Mexico, we should be able to do whatever we want with the border fence as long as we build it on our side of the border.
So we pay them a few dollars (call it foreign aid) for an access road on their side.
If the BP was empowered and staffed to guard the present border and enforce the laws already in the books ... well then, we wouldn't be talking about the damn fence in the first place.
A fence is not being built. The word "fence" implies that it would be a continuous barrier across the entire 1952 miles of our southern border. What the Secure Fence Act did was "authorize" the construction of 700 miles of what are essentially wall sections ... and it didn't provide funding directly tied to that construction. After the Secure Fence Act passed, Congress, in a separate piece of legislation, passed a separate funding bill that authorized the administration to distribute money for many things, not just the "fence". Included are projects for roads, technology and tactical infrastructure that support the Department of Homeland Security's "virtual fence".
The whole saga is nothing but a smoke screen to distract the hoi polloi from the fact that all that is needed to secure our borders is to enforce existing immigration laws.
Once that's being done Lady Liberty's golden lamp can still be lifted for all those among the tired , poor, huddled masses who choose to abide by the rule of law.
< / stepping down off my soapbox
lol... proper landscaping? You mean flower beds and ficus trees? How about a couple of rolls of razor wire and call it good?
BTW only our idiotic government would require two freaking miles for access roads and proper construction. Admit it. The fence doesn’t need to be set back from the river two miles. The government planners are doing it that way because they don’t give a damn. After all they aren’t spending their money or losing their land or homes.
“The fence through this area will mostly be built atop of existing levees, which is the logical place to put it. The river meanders wildly through this area and to put the fence directly on the river would increase the fence’s length at least three fold. Also if the fence were built along the river you have to figure in the additional cost that building it across every creek, arroyo and gully would add.”
If the cost is more than the cost of reimbursing these people for their lost land then pay them and do it. If not then build it on he river.
Yeah, plus the Rio Grande isn't like eastern rivers where the flow is pretty steady- it's flows can vary tremendously, from nearly dried up to ranging floods. A fence near the banks could be high and dry one season, and under water the next.
This is our country. I want to be proud of how it looks. Security must come first but there is nothing wrong with keeping America beautiful in the process. I’ve always thought the border edge wasn’t the best place. Half of this river is ours and to me , fencing at the edge is giving it to Mexico.
Yeah, well I can’t argue with a lot of that:’) Let’s get it built, where ever though. We have “check points “ about 50 miles in, all over the place. The other side still belongs to us though.
Who is this mysterious “the rest of us”.? Do you have a problem with a County or State condemning personal land to build a Lake or a shopping mall.? Some of my neighbors lost land that had been in their families for years. The County wanted a new lake and would have condemned the land if my neighbors had refused to sell for a much reduced price.
It's going to be costly but if they can build piers for bridges in rivers and bays they can build walls in rivers. Especially when it doens't go ACROSS the river but runs down the center of it.
I'm only being partially sarcastic here.
“Do you have a problem with a County or State condemning personal land to build a Lake or a shopping mall.? Some of my neighbors lost land that had been in their families for years. The County wanted a new lake and would have condemned the land if my neighbors had refused to sell for a much reduced price.”
Of course I do. It’s theft. Only communists and morons think theft of personal property by the state is a good thing.
LOL, of course not. I mean clearing away nearby trees and other vegetation that can be used for concealment or maybe can be climbed to get over the fence. Although tulip beds might give it a splash of color.
When it comes to this issue no amount of money will be enough. They will never let us access any fence from their side of the border.
The Interstate highway system resulted in tens of thousands of homes destroyed. So be it. Get the fence done and ignore this MSM whining.
lol... I don’t know how many billions fencing is going to cost, but landscaping around the fencing would cost much more. Just how many billions would you like to spend landscaping along a fence that will only be seen by the occasional wet back, border patrol agent, or farmer?
Remember we are going to have to install automatic sprinkler systems in order to keep the plants from dying in the hot desert heat. Then we will have to hire thousands of gardeners to weed, and keep the plants trimmed and looking good. Perhaps the border patrol could do that in their spare time? Think they would mind? lol
And they’ll turn down foreign aid ?
Unlikely - their ruling elite depends on it.
ping
So lets just give up and roll out the red carpet, right?
Makes no sense.
Fence? What fence? Oh, you mean th3 one that was supposed to be built a year or so ago (or, cough, maintained for the last couple hundred years) but funding had been slashed and man-power hasn’t been hired and the length has been shortened by about 99.99%?
If I were running things, I'd have gators in the middle of the river.
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.