Posted on 09/03/2011 1:35:22 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry says he opposes a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Speaking to hundreds of New Hampshire voters at a private reception Saturday afternoon, the Texas governor says a fence would be ineffective and take too long to build.
The comments, which produced one angry shout, expose a rift with some conservative voters over Perry's immigration record. Tea party activists in Texas have been particularly upset by his steady opposition to the fence. He also signed a law giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition for Texas universities.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Its not about Perry, Bob. Read it again.
The border is the river
Too haaaarrrd to understand then expect politicians to lie to you over and over and over again.
I won't either!!
Perry’s actions on border security while governor, as you requested. You also have to remember that securing the border is a Federal responsibility. Perry asked for additional National Guard troops from Obama, but got nothing.
http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/border/
Governing Principle
There can be no homeland security without border security, and there can be no higher priority than protecting our citizens.
While our focus begins with preventing the worst of the violence currently raging in northern Mexico from spilling over into the United States, the violence is only part of the destruction that can result from a porous border. The free flow of drugs, weapons and people resulting from inadequate security can undercut economic development, education and trade. As such, they can hurt Texas families in every way imaginable, from loss of jobs to the loss of family members to addiction, imprisonment or death.
Border security is a federal responsibility but a Texas problem, and Texas has invested hundreds of millions of state dollars in efforts to support and supplement security forces already in place. Still, this is a problem that will only be solved with more federal accountability and involvement.
Highlights
» Starting in 2005 with Operation Linebacker, the state has sought to provide funding, manpower and equipment to local law enforcement agencies operating along the Texas-Mexico border.
» The state’s latest operation, Border Star, builds on the successes of previous operations with unprecedented local, state and federal law enforcement coordination. With the assistance of the 80th and 81st Legislatures, the State of Texas has been able to appropriate more than $110 million each session to fund and amplify these efforts.
» In response to a rising tide of gang violence in Texas communities, the Governor allocated $4 million in criminal justice grants to cities across the state to increase patrols of gang hotspots. In 2009, Gov. Perry worked to secure more than $10 million in state funding for enhanced anti-gang efforts during the 2010-11 biennium.
» In September 2009, Gov. Perry announced the formation of highly-skilled Ranger Recon Teams — which include Texas Rangers, Texas National Guard Counterdrug forces, Highway Patrol and DPS Aviation assets — in order to address threats building in the unincorporated areas along the Texas-Mexico border.
» Since early 2009, Gov. Perry has repeatedly called on Washington to authorize the deployment of 1,000 Title 32 National Guard soldiers to the Texas-Mexico border to support border security operations currently underway. (see letter to President Obama, letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and request to Defense Secretary Gates)
» Gov. Perry has also recommended an expeditious deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles to provide real-time surveillance and intelligence to law enforcement on the ground.
Awful. AP Misleads Readers on Perry’s New Hampshire Speech
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45970
AP deliberately misquoted Perry, by leaving off part of his answer regarding border security.
“The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”
Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.
AND:
Perry revs up Republicans in Manchester back yard
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2773328/posts
Asked if he supports building a fence on the U.S. - Mexico border, the Texas governor said he does not. Instead, he said, “When I’m the President of the United States, you will see National Guard troops on the border doing what we want them to do, which is to stop the illegal activities and clearly send a message to the drug cartels.”
Why are you determined to have a fence that requires taking farm and ranch land out of production?
***
Temporarily. Besides, a double fence with razor/chicken wire at both tops is permanent. “Boots on the ground” can be withdrawn by the next administration.
” I will not vote for another ‘open border’ candidate running for POTUS. EVER again! “
Neither will I, Yorkie! Enough is enough!
No that would mean that I think he distances from a lot of voters that have absolutely had it with the idea of 10%+ of Mexican citizens living in the US.>For all of Perry's +s, his stance on illegals could lose the election for him. He's running a national campaign, every state, not eating ribs in Amarillo. He may feel that his tolerance of illegals is OK in TX but he will get torn up worse than McCain did.
Solving the illegal Mexican problem is the largest single issue in the coming campaign, they contribute enormously to the unemployment and drug problems. Perry should be well advised to watch out, amnesty bridge out ahead.
ya know what; lonestar? That is the lame-est damned excuse I have ever heard. Have you ever seen an interstate highway??
Go buy yourself a cheap roadmap and look for roadways marked with and “I”. Before the interstate system, there was the Pennsylvania Turnpike—— you want to talk about terrain? Somehow or other, that wasn’t a waste of money, still in use.
What’s wrong with an “all of the above” approach? If Perry wants “boots on the ground” he damned well better be talking about them carrying live loads.
I agree with you, whole heartedly!
He needs to wake up and realize that what got you to the barn dance in San Antone gets you thrown in the cattle tank in North Platte.
Then those stupid kids who accidentally cross into Nort Korea should have no trouble getting out.
Proof of your statement would be to show me 20 or 30 million NK's that have illegally immigrated to the South.
Doing nothing accomplishes exactly what your solution offers. Nothing.
I opposed the TTC. Babysat for one of the main lobbyists against, while she lobbied. Testified against some of the Bills this year, too.
PS. If you don't believe in barrier, siunce they aren't perfect stop locking your doors. In fact, take them off the hinges.
I did high order bill collecting for USPS ~ kinda' the same thing except much less personal and for much more money.
No wonder we don't get along.
In this case, however, we are talking National Defense. We need a closeable border. A fence is a start.
You guys who argue that a fence isn't perfect may be correct that it's not perfect, but not doing anything in a world full of shark like lawyers is IGNANT.
These are rare crimes with any other group. They are typical crimes of this particular group. Time for them to go join their friends and family back home.
The tech wasn’t high enough, and anyhow what do you do when you spot a crowd of crossers? Without the ability to get troops anywhere (which is the current situation) one might as well not have that fence, or any fence that it’s feasible to scale. It needs to be possible to get troops to any detected crossing before those who crossed can disappear. Roboguns operated by remote troops? Maybe, as long as they can accurately see what crossed (don’t want to be shooting buffalo and antelope) and are themselves vandalproof.
What works to control the border is men and women patrolling the border.
The portions of the fence that have been built are already being breached by trucks, ladders, human pyramids. (see previous pics http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2773201/posts?page=562#562
And more tunnels
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/29/20110829arizona-border-tunnels-drug-smuggling.html
The design seems to have been to build the fence where it’s cheaper and the builders just skipped places where it cost more than the average $1-$3 million dollars per mile.
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/18591087/detail.html
The original plan was to increase border patrol men and women by an additional 6000 agents. Only 3000 were added.
That did not happen due to Jumpin Jeffers (not to mention Collins and the 4 or 5 frank RINO’s in the Senate), the fuss over how much money New York City should get and then the turn over to Nancy Pelosi’s control in 2006.
http://www.jwtgovernment.com/pdf/border_patrol.pdf
When there are invasions or breaches, too often law enforcement can’t get there in time to catch them. If they do get there, they can’t catch them all.
I said nothing about winning the debate, I said wait for the debate to see what he said AT the debate, like gaffes, or falls flat. I don’t care who “wins” a debate.
This isn’t a Palin thread, so your complaint about “pimping palin threads” is misplaced.
The title caught my eye is the only reason I posted it.. no malicious intent was intended nor sought out.. and all the candidates aren't in the race yet, even.. altho I was disinclined a long time before he ever jumped in with both boots.. more based on a look back at how many state of Texas Presidents we have had and maybe we should try another big states pony for a change.
We still got a bit of a trail ride ahead., imho.
No. And in fact, the very premise of your claim is absurd. You are not "opting out" of taking a vaccine. You are opting out of the REQUIREMENT that you must show you have taken a vaccine in order to enter the public schools.
You could take every vaccine, and file an opt-out for Gardisil for religious reasons, or for philosophical reasons, which would include "I think it's crazy to risk my child's health for a vaccine that she doesn't need because she's not having sex".
They even put the opt-out online to make it easy for parents.
I don't support Perry's gardasil provision, and I fought the Gardisil vaccine in Virginia (even wrote about it twice in my column). But Perry's move was meant to make Gardisil available to people who wanted it, through health insurance and the state vaccination program; to do so, it had to be on the required list. His intentions were NOT to force parents to vaccinate their children -- he was convinced, maybe because of his relationship with Merck, that the vaccine was safe, effective, and most people would want to get it and needed coverage to do so. So while I see the Gardasil incident as showing poor judgement and innattention to the desires of constituents, I don't see it as a nanny-state issue.
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.