Posted on 09/26/2011 9:01:32 PM PDT by Mike10542
I don’t have a problem about his lack of support for a border fence. I think the logistical issue of a fence splitting the Rio Grande is a legitimate objection, agree with him or not.
I don’t know anything about him being against E-verify, so I am going to educate myself about that.
As for the in-state tuition for illegal aliens, I don’t support it. I think there are SOME honest reasons for supporting it, although I don’t agree with them. My big problem was his saying those not in agreement with him don’t have a heart. That was stupid, but also hostile, and I don’t like that.
I am not ready to throw in the towel on Perry, but I am in wait and watch mode.
I’m with you. I’m all for a fence, but I realize it’s one of many, many steps that must be taken to secure the border.
The left wing hate machine will be in overdrive no matter who we elect. Just look how fast they turned on McLame after playing footsie with him for decades. When it boils down to it, this election will be about the repudiation of the MSM’s whole worldview. Socialism. They won’t let it die without a fight.
My husband had to do an informative position paper as part of his sergeant majors course.
he chose illegal immigration. One of the things the infuriated him the most was that the EPA and the environmentalists were the main roadblocks on the fence issue.
They’re concerned that it’ll mess up migratory animals, but it turns out that there are only two animals that would be affected. One is plentiful and the other can fly. (I’ll have to ask him to remind me which ones they were.)
“Build it north of the river. “
Not a good solution; we lose access to the river.
Fanciful nonsense you say? The fence appears to be just that. Permanent barrier? What is presently in place has been shown to be nothing more than a joke. Between those climbing over, and those tunneling under, the flow has barely been slowed, if that.
Especially the latter. It's why most of them come up here in the first place -- free queso.
Does it? How? Have you not seen the video of the cockroaches climbing over the fence? Have you not seen the stories on the tunnels? IMO, there’s no fence that can be built to keep out people who are determined to cross that border. Dry up the reasons they want to come here, and not only will they stop, but those here will leave as well.
What do you find troublesome about it? Isn’t it the federal government’s job to regulate this per the constitution? (Your proposals sound reasonable, just curious what your objection is as you didn’t specify)
Santorum is the reason I learned what partial birth abortion was. For that I will be forever grateful. He is a good man. Unfortunately he will not win the GE.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 specified 700 miles of double fencing. Of course, almost none was actually built as a certain president from Texas had no intention of stemming illegal immigration.
But it is well known what type barriers would be effective and it’s double fencing with a patrol road between, and adequate, well equipped BP.
And you’re right, many of the walls are a joke, and the so called vehicle barriers don’t even rise to the level of a joke. But it is known what will work. There are simply those who don’t want effective border control.
I’m no expert, but I would think it would slow down the illegals crossing our border and give our border agents more time to catch them.
I was a half-hearted supporter at one time, but I don’t like too many of his positions. I’m moving on.
It doesn’t address the immigration problem completely, it cost the federal gov revenue (about 15-17billion) and it
is not perfectly accurate.
And many employers pay under the table.
Also, if it were mandatory for all US employers, it would put a huge burden (costs of billions) on Social Security Administration.
I'd bet most of those problems can be solved, but controlling the border for a nation of 300 million+ is more important than access to the river for border residents.
Thanks, I have to think about this, but I see your point.
Business killed it in the Texas legislature over, in part, cost overhead.
Hutchinson was for mandatory E-Verify, I don't know if Perry offered a specific reason other than saying it wouldn't make a difference to what's happening in the country but I think that was a reference to the porous border.
All good points Mike, but there is much more. The man literally encourage this violent illegal immigration lawless attack. You never reward those who have no respect.
“Not a good solution; we lose access to the river”
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Why are you so worried about access to the river? Except for Falcon lake and Big Bend national park it aint exactly a tourist mecca.
In most places it’s shallow, muddy and barely considered clean enough to eat fish from.
If ranchers and farmers need some water draw because they have adjacent land they can be allowed a pipe under the fence to pump water. Big deal.
He is for fences in metropolitan areas and strategic areas.
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.