Texas Gov. Rick Perry tries to deliver to Obama a letter expressing border security concerns. Photo by Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman/ Aug 9, 2010
His letter was handed to Valerie Jarrett (in pink suit).
Posted on 08/17/2011 10:42:50 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Texas Gov. Rick Perry tries to deliver to Obama a letter expressing border security concerns. Photo by Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman/ Aug 9, 2010
His letter was handed to Valerie Jarrett (in pink suit).
snip...
To some Texas folks, a border fence seemed like a good idea before it was built. As a solution toward preventing millions of illegal immigrants, Mexican and otherwise, from entering the United States, it appeared a simple answer, relieving pressure on overburdened American hospitals, prisons, and schools. It promised the added bonus of stopping the unstaunchable flow of illegal drugs and corresponding crime and violence from Mexico. The reality fell far from the speculation.
Most folks, quite reasonably, assume the fence is actually on the border. In some parts of Arizona, California, or New Mexico, where the border is “dirt to dirt,” that is true, but not in Texas. The fence does not follow the border, but was placed largely on a levee built to prevent flooding from the Rio Grande. The meandering river, area topography, the levee system, and political considerations combined to result in fence placement that is, in some places, as much as two miles from the border. As a national security tool it’s a bad joke — full of gaps and in some places non-existent. But it’s no joke to the Texans affected by it — namely those whose homes and businesses are trapped in a no-man’s land between the fence and the river/border. The people could leave, but their homes and businesses can’t. Where would they go?
snip...
The CAGOP decided who would win and they eliminated the conservative, Tom McClintock. He had a real shot at winning until he was torpedoed by the CAGOP and the “celebrity”.
I will give Arnold some credit, he made some efforts to correct some of the problems in Sacramento. But he couldn’t overcome the massive amounts of spending the unions and statists and his reforms were soundly defeated.
A true conservative stands a shot since there are many DTS and Independents in this state that can swing an election.
Not so pristine where they are crossing:
You might have a point if the fence at your house met the following criteria:
1) It enclosed the entirity of the house, including all doors and windows, not just the backyard/backdoor.
2) Your home’s fence was set up to keep intruders out.
Since neither scenario is likely, then your analogy (while you acknowledge sarcasm) is just silly.
The problem with a fence is four-fold:
Tunnels
Ladders
Coastline
Canada
With those four options existing, a fence will not shut down the border. And we dont need a fence. We need to protect border ranchers from violent gangs and we need to uphold the law in the interior.
It’s awful. Where are the environmentalists?!
Nice pictures of the trash the illegals leave...it’d be nice if you’d identify where that is. Doesn’t look like Texas.
I would say so.
He’s not the guy.
I’m sick and tired of these politicians deciding what parts of the Constitution they can pay attention to or ignore.
The Federal government is supposed to protect each state from invasion.
Doesn’t have to be a hostile invasion.
Doesn’t make a bit of difference if it’s a passive invasion.
ANY INVASION!!!!
[climb over, tunnel under or cut it]
What Perry says will secure the border will not secure the border unless he plans to have tens of thousands of troops on the border 24/7/365 and 366 during Leap Years.
Since that will never happen, the only thing that will secure the border is hundreds of miles of double fencing with adequate personnel and the use of drones and other electronic means. All around the world where nations are serious about stopping illegal border crossings, we see serious fences and walls and personnel used together.
Perry’s talk of border security is about as reliable as Juan McCain’s. And his babbling on this subject will hurt his chances significantly. And his supporters here make it seem even more ridiculous
Ping!
Lol, the politicians who authorized those puny fences had no real intention of stopping illegal immigration. Most parts of the border don't even have that much of a barrier.
Bump!
I think it’s southern AZ — where they have signs telling Americans it’s an unsafe no-go zone about 100 miles north of the Mexican border — even heard it reported that there are Mexican nationals in the AZ mountains working as lookouts for drug smuggling and human trafficking .
Perry in helicopter with Greta (TX-MX border is over 1250 miles)2007: [excerpt]
Some people thought that getting to the moon in 9 years was rediculous. Some people thgought that an anti-nuclear missile shield was rediculous.
Bush did not enforce this law that was passed by the Congress when he was President. Obama certainly never will.
It very clearly could be done...and it should be done. And then they could and should use the National Guard to patrol it.
A Comprehensive Plan to Secure the Southern Border of the United States
Have we ever seen eye to eye on anything JH?
Exactly.
No, but you must consider the "cost/benefit" ratio. In Cuba and Korea, the extremely difficult decision that a few American lives are "worth" the benefit has been made. More on that below.
I’ll bow to your first hand knowledge. I just wonder why we keep using them if they are so bad.
In Cuba and Korea, making the Cuban Army or the North Korean Army believe that they can just swiftly rumble into Guantanamo would make the loss of a few American lives pale by comparison. For example, in 1950, when a careless statement made the Communists believe that South Korea was outside the U.S. defense umbrella, that miscalculation cost the U.S. 36,516 combat deaths. Yes, losing a Marine here and losing 5 drunken sailors there is "bad" but not as bad as losing tens of thousands of lives if Cuba and North Korea think that they can just waltz in.
The Falklands War happened for the very reason. The Argentinians were able to "waltz right in" and it cost the British 258 killed and 8 sunken warships to recover the Islands.
It seems to me that if we use them to protect Guantanamo and Korea they would work to protect the homeland.
So, again to the "cost/benefit". Look how much longer the border is and what are the stakes. That much of a minefield would cost a fortune and maintenance would cost a steady number of deaths to American troops, lost hikers, lost tourists, cattle, cut off ranchers from their Rio Grande water supply ... a nightmare.
Then comes the PR nightmare ..... On the front page of every newspaper across the planet: A photo of dead children with their guts all over their barely recognizable faces. Some shattered bodies will even be American bodies. Maybe even American teenagers that took a wrong tun late at night.
Immigration control become synonymous with mass murder and guess who loses the war?
Anybody that dares mention "Border Control" of any kind will be labeled a "Baby Murderer".
So, all that for what?
To enable the politicians to escape the duty to come down hard on illegal employers and enforce existing laws?
Right now, in the Sate of Georgia, illegal aliens are deporting themselves out of Georgia because, this year, the Georgia politicians decided to get tough and start enforcing laws.
Illegal aliens are self-deporting from Georgia
So, we are, in effect asking American servicemen to die so that politicians don't have to make political choices that are unpopular with the employers that bribe them with campaign contributions.
The "cost/benefit" ratio is simply unjustifiable.
As I posted before, when illegals cannot get jobs, they deport themselves.
Better an ounce of political guts than truck loads of real guts scattered all over the American desert.
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.