Posted on 09/26/2011 9:01:32 PM PDT by Mike10542
Right and the other point is that even if you can’t build it in some parts, you can in many others. I have no idea the percentage, but let’s build the fence where we can. Perry is against any fence, which I think is just plain dumb.
Might I suggest a new candidate to support?
Dime stores. How long ago was that.
Tho that is likely the real reason, I wonder what his ostensible argument against E-verify would be.
I hope this issue comes up at the next debate. Would love to hear what he would have to say.
Perry is a RINO. I will never vote for him...
Perry does concede a need for walls or fencing in urban areas, which already exists in many places. But if we're ever serious about controlling the border, double fencing will have to be built everywhere illegals are able to cross into the US. Unless there are natural barriers to illegal entries, fencing and personnel are needed.
I love Santorum; he was sandbagged on that stupid Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell question. But I worry about whether he could fight through the left wing hate machine and win the general election.
Can you read? He said to build the fence and establish a reliable legal immigrant identification program!
Did you even read ari’s post?
Cain flat-out said that the main reason the public wouldn’t support immigration reform is that none of the political wonks would ‘convincingly secure our border’.
I get you. This might help.
Read ari’s post #14.
There are many more things that can be done to physically secure the border beyond a fence.
*That* is what the American people are crying out for. Not just a fence, but for a secure border.
“I’m not for building a useless fence. I would be for placing armed military troops with the ability to actually stop illegals from entering”
They work hand in hand. I never heard of a prison without a fence. You have to slow people down before the tech can find them and guards to go after them. If you think it is hard to build a 700-2000 mile fence, imagine trying to get enough troops to cover that distance without one.
It’s “Welcome to the party, pal!”
Bruce Willis: Die Hard
Both are required: fencing and personnel, and also useful electronic devices, drones, etc.
And it's nothing but fanciful nonsense for anyone to pretend that our government would ever put enough personnel on the border to control it 24/7/365. And remember this: the personnel one president might put on the border, the next president can remove. Far better to have more permanent barriers such as double fencing.
New Zogby Poll, first National Poll since debate that uses GOP Primary voters an Likely Voters:
Cain 28%
Perry 18%
Romney 17%
“Dimestore cowboy”.
How do you say that in Tex-Mex?
A fence isn’t by itself enough, but doesn’t it help?? It makes it harder to get in.
I am as dead set as anybody against any open-borders person being the Republican nominee.
But even I have problems with the idea that the federal government should presume to mandate that every business in the country must run all prospective employees through a government database before they may be hired.
Obviously, all federal government agencies should be required to use it and each state should require its government agencies to use it.
As to the private sector, I think what might work is instead of making use of e-verify mandatory, it is made a “safe harbor” so that if a business uses it and the database tells them an employee is okay, they are protected if it turns out that employee is not okay.
Seriously, think outside the box. You just don’t build a fence in those areas and concentrate surveillance in those areas.
You make good points but something has to be done. You say these people are running for their lives. As cruel as it sounds if they have no where to run maybe they’ll fix their problems. They seem to be putting us in that situation.
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.