Posted on 09/26/2011 9:01:32 PM PDT by Mike10542
I think if we ever have a president who is serious about controlling the border that the environmental concerns would be ignored. I remember reading articles about how that would be accomplished IF W had ever intended to comply with the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (he never intended to comply).
That’s a pretty ridiculous statement when you consider the drought that Texas is having right now.
The border actually runs down the middle of the river along much of the distance. Are you going to build a fence down the middle of the river?
“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. “
I disagree, I would not belittle the importance of river access for a myriad of reasons.
I don’t think the problem can’t be solved. There are many creative solutions; the main thing is the POLITICAL WILL to implement them, which we don’t have.
Perry’s argument that it’s the fed’s job to protect the border is true. What to do when they won’t do it? That’s the $64,000 question. There are a handful of reasonable responses. Giving up is not a good response.
Still, I don’t hold it against him for opposing a physical fence through the Rio Grande.
Actually he has stated he is for strategic fencing with National guard troops in between.
But then again I’m heartless so screw him.
You're exactly right, my concern is whether such a mandate would be constitutional.
I don't believe Congress can justify such a mandate under the Commerce Clause.
Congress does have the power to establish a uniform rule on matters relating to citizenship and to pass all laws necessary and proper to executing that power, but whether under this authority Congress has the power to order all business in the United States to use a government database before hiring any person is not clear to me.
In any event, whatever we do, has to pass muster under the Constitution.
I’m surprised that I don’t hear this explanation more often. Building a fence down the middle of a river, through several lakes and splitting a few dams would involve some very challenging engineering to say the least.
And to build the fence on our side of the river makes even less sense since it would cede full control of US territory and the entire waterway to the Mexicans. That would actually be treasonous if not specifically endorsed by legislation at both the state and federal level.
I don’t think a fence totally stops all illegal immigration. It just discourages it - but that is an important thing to do. It must be discouraged.
As per my other post, I don’t support building a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande.
However, I don’t like the “it won’t work perfectly so don’t do it” argument. Nothing works perfectly. Fences do however work well and are a hugely important tool and should be used where feasible, in addition to other reasonable border controls.
No fence will work. Waste of money, time. Others have expressed very well reasons why.
As for tuition, the kids already live in TX, require them to be residents in state 2-3 years, law. They get no special treatment, same as all who are residents. Pay their own way.
you have heard wrong, he is for strategic fencing, he wants the military to be sent to the border to protect the US Sovereignty along with real assets like drones. Texas and other border states are being invaded daily by Narco-Terrorist and corrupt Mexican Military units and our cops are being out manned and out gunned. For the illegals that are already here, he hasn't said what he will do and like you I want an answer from him because as President he will have the ability to actually win the war he is fighting in Texas.
how the hell he can be against E-Verify
Because he doesn't believe that it is the job of employers to secure the border, because any time you let the government in, you can never get them out, because it will hurt small business that employee 75% of the work force, because it will increase identity theft instead of preventing it.
RE: in-state tuition
He didn't give it to them our legislators did with a veto proof bill. But mainly because our fellow Americans have left us in the border states twisting in the wind to deal with the 1.1-1.2 million illegals in our state alone and are forcing us to feed them, shelter them and make sure they get medical treatment and educated on our dime. We had two choices, try to turn them into tax payers or let them to continue to have our tax dollars thrown at them with nothing in return.
These are two entirely different issues and people outside of border states don't seem to be getting it, securing the border and dealing with all the illegals. They are NOT the same thing and if you lived in a border state you would know that. Perry has done all he can legally do on the border and even that is getting Obama ticked at us. Obama cut the funding that sent home the National Guard that Bush sent, he cut the funding that stopped the fence on the New Mexico- Arizona-California border and turned off the "electronic frontier". Perry is the only person running that is in the fight and the base is wining about illegals stealing the "lawn mower jobs". Big deal, they are bleeding us dry and we are trying to protect the Sovereignty of the United States and it's not supposed to be our job!
And Please don't believe for one minute that Texans wanted to give illegals in-state tuition, we didn't, but we understood that we were out of options and this was the only way we had a shot at getting at least some of our money back. What we gave them, regardless of what Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann want you to believe, was a $151 discount at our Jr. Colleges. These illegals are here, there is nothing our Federal Government will allow us to do about, so don't judge him for the fight he can't fight, judge him for the fight his is fighting. There is a lot of information out there about the battles we are fighting on our border, judge him for that.
‘Why are you so worried about access to the river?”
I view a big river like the Rio Grande as a huge geographical asset that I wouldn’t not want to give up.
For security; for water rights; for mineral rights; for dominion; for irrigation; for control or at least input into its quality; for the property rights of the owners of said properties - I’d never cut off access by our nation to a substantial body of water. Lake, ocean, river, I don’t care. They are vital.
I don’t think we have to give up the Rio Grande to secure our national border. Our problem is the lack of national political will to do the basic elementary job of securing borders. Not the lack of a fence in a particular spot.
A fence is but one tool, useful in some areas but not in others. If we had a government that cared about securing our border it would be secure.
What are your ideas on how to secure the border?
Who cares what the reasons are? Ask the American people if they are more concerned about controlling the southern border, or providing unfettered access to the river for local residents, what do you think they'll choose?
And, it is the US/Mexico border. The security of the entire nation is more important than local concerns.
And I still bet most problems can be solved, but many here are making it totally clear why we do not need another president from the state of Texas.
Here’s my list...from best to worst.
1. Sarah Palin
2. Herman Cain
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rick Santorum
5. Michelle Bachman
6. Rick Perry
7. Mitt Romney
8. Ron Paul
9. Jon Huntsman
“providing unfettered access to the river for local residents, “
You are minimizing the impact of giving up the Rio Grande.
There is a lot more at stake than inner tubing and recreational fishing. Read my and previous posts. No need to belittle the cost of giving up a huge river.
I am not arguing for Perry. I am saying I understand the foolishness of cutting the U.S. off to all benefits of the Rio Grande when border control can be achieved other ways.
My suspicion is that those who are against a fence... “doth protest too much”.
In a lot of cases, but not all, these folks have a vested “profit interest” in cheap illegal labor and a continual free flow of it. Either they are employers or they are employed at companies that are habitual offenders like big restaurant chains, hotel chains, big agribusiness, cheap labor manufacturing, etc....
The free flow of illegals is important, because illegals are transient across the border. And a lot of them, from Texas, will go back at Xmas to visit family and etc..
A fence would complicate that greatly. Illegal alien employers know this very well, which is why they, and their house boy politicians are dead set against a fence.
“I think the logistical issue of a fence splitting the Rio Grande is a legitimate objection, agree with him or not.”
For what it’s worth, that was not the reason given by Perry when he explained to the New Hampshire GOP why he was against the fence.
Perry said: “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.”
The two objections he cites as explanation for being against the fence seem unpersuasive to me.
His first objection is it would take too long? What we are only permitted to use one crew to build the whole thing? Why couldn’t there be simultaneous construction at many points along the border? Why do we have to start at one end and then work our way to the other end?
The second objection, that people would just use taller ladders to get over it, is extremely weak. Where strong modern fencing techniques such as in San Diego County are used, it is very effective at reducing traffic or forcing traffic elsewhere.
There was an article in the news the other day about the new stretch of fence in Nogales frustrating drug traffickers. They are reduced to trying to throw packages of dope over the fence and police are on the other side collecting it.
“Lt. Carlos Jimenez of the Nogales Police Department said that due to the increased height and strength of the new barrier, smugglers are having a hard time climbing or cutting through it.”
Perry requested National Guard troops and electronic surveillance from the federal government. He is still waiting.
There are more modern security techniques available that would be more effective. Contrary to what is constantly said here, he is not for open borders.
And all the territory north of the river is US territory. More than enough room to build what fencing is needed.
And nothing is more ridiculous than you and others who want to claim that local concerns along the border should come before the security of the entire continental US.
Good night to this foolishness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfVENwfeGHw&feature=youtu.be
Does the Border Fence work?
Be prepared..It’s funny...though the subject is not.
Me too pardner.
and these otherwise fine Tejanos here defending him and his BUSH part II amnesty type talk
are a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT
I love some of them...can’t throw them under the bus..but it’s a damn shame....just let more and more Mexicans in and given how they vote we are damned done for
Welcome to CaudilloWorld Headquarters...
my kinfolks in Upshur county warned me off Perry two months ago when I was in Pritchett...I shoulda listened
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.