Why Gov. Rick Perry is Wrong about a Border Fence

Lodi News-Sentinel ^ | October 1, 2011 | Staff

[BarnacleCenturion]

Rick Perry can't get out of his own way. During the presidential debates, he has reviled three immigration issues that Republicans hold dear: passing mandatory E-Verify legislation, rejecting federal and state versions of the DREAM Act, and building a border fence.

About E-Verify, Perry foolishly claims that it would not make "a hill of beans" worth of difference. Regarding the DREAM Act, Perry said that those who disagree with his decision to enact it in 2001 "don't have a heart." As for the border fence, Perry insists that it is "idiocy" to build it.

The debates represented Perry's chance to moderate his immigration rhetoric, more in line with liberal Democrats than restrictionist Republicans, and reach out to skeptical conservatives. Instead, by performing his difficult-to-achieve hat trick, Perry has turned off most of the GOP and has dropped from the top of the candidates' list to also-ran status.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Water isn’t a fence, it’s a highway. Think Dunkirk.

[norwaypinesavage]

"I have stood next to the border fence in California."

You will never "stand next" to a fence in Texas. The entire 1200 mile long border is the Rio Grand River. Where would you propose putting the fence?

[JimRed]

He’s partly right, for the wrong reason. A fence is not effective enough; we need a WALL! And landmines, and troops and guntowers!

[JimRed]

If you allow someone to cross your boundaries without permission they lose respect for you and then they begin to mistreat you. They begin to assume that what is yours can be theirs for the taking.

A small edit, for clarity.

[Reagan Man]

I supported a full fence on the Tex-Mex border for years. Having serious second thoughts after listening to the rationale offered by some Texans on FR. There are some places where a fence or wall would work, but its probably not realistic to expect a barrier running the entire border. Aside from the big issue of private property rights how would you build a fence without infringing on the water rights of the US and Mexico when it comes to the Rio Grande river.

Gov Perry's call for strategic fencing in urban/metro ares, boots on the ground and the best high tech surveillance hardware money can buy sounds like the better solution.

[JimRed]

The entire 1200 mile long border is the Rio Grand River. Where would you propose putting the fence?

Right down the middle.

[Balding_Eagle]

As a heartless American, yeah, shoot to kill.

How much more can I be denigrated by those who claim to be on my side?

[ken21]

bump.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gov. Perry wants drones (works petty well in the Middle East) and in Israel (where Perry has gone to observe how they do it), boots on the ground and fencing where it works (in urban areas). Janet Napolatano wants drones to patrol our border with Canada — but not Mexico — why is that?? Hmmmm.... too good a political tool?

A 2000 mile long fence over terrain where it is not conducive to building a fence (like on a river) — the proposal of hiding behind a 25 foot wall for 2000 miles with razor wire and gun towers — this tells the world that the U.S. has failed.

Those who push for it don’t know what they’re talking about and if they do and continue to push for it because they think it’s a good political talking point are only causing harm. And by doing so show their low character.

Mexico is the number one trading partner with the U.S. They are not trying to drive us into the sea or refuse to recognize us as a country.

This has been a nice diversion from the issues but that’s what posts like yours are meant to do. You posted it to counter effective dissemination of information.

Rick Perry wants the border sealed. The Federal government won’t — Texas is spending hundreds of millions of dollars and sending Texas Rangers to patrol the 1250 border miles we share with Mexico. He’s the only primary candidate that understands this and wants to do something about it. He’s the only one credible on this issue.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Rick Perry: September 15, 2011 - " The bigger issue is that you’re never going to have a conversation that is anything more than an intellectual exercise about immigration until you secure the border. That is what we must focus on as a country. I do not agree that building a 1,800-mile barrier is thoughtful. It’s an easy answer. I think it’s a cop out for anyone who’s actually been on the border. It’s like building a wall from Bangor, Maine to Miami, Florida. What does work is strategic fencing in your metropolitan areas, having the boots on the ground. We are woefully understaffed on that border.

We have the technology. Predator drones are being flown in United States air space as we speak. Why not fly those from Brownsville, Texas, to El Paso and to Tijuana and back and use that real-time information for local law enforcement, our state law enforcement and our federal counterparts? That’s how you thoughtfully secure that border, and then you can have a discussion about what type of immigration reform we want to consider as a country. But not until then. Too many times, we’ve been told, if we’ll just pass this immigration reform then we’ll secure the border. And it hasn’t happened...."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gov. Perry Announces Deployment of Texas Military Forces Helicopters To Support Border Security EffortsThursday, March 18, 2010 • Austin, Texas

Gov. Perry: Federal Government Must Take Action To Prevent Spillover Violence from Mexico Requests Predator Drones and National Guard Troops along BorderMonday, March 15, 2010 •

"Feds say immigrants using torches and bungee cords on border fence"

Perry in helicopter with Greta VanSusteren

It is the Federal government's responsibility to secure the border. What is "non" border state politician Obama doing about it but turning his back on Rick Perry when he went to meet him on the tarmac in Austin with a letter -- after being denied a meeting?

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).

[Arizona Carolyn]

Well go down to Texas and talk to the ranchers who have property along the Rio Grande River, who would lose that water as the so-called fence would not be built down the center of the river, but on their land blocking access to the water for their cattle. Never mind two major lakes are shared by TX and Mexico -- they are not going to be fenced.

Look at the terrain; TX, NM and AZ borders are nothing like the areas of CA where the fence is built. Heck half of the AZ/MX border cannot even be patrolled by the Border Patrol, it is that fragile... Perry is right, you cannot fence the border, drones would be a far more efficient method of doing so...... but the only way to really affect illegal immigration is to target employers.

What a lot of anti-Perry people are missing in this is the education bill was passed ten years ago and had he vetoed it, they would have over-ridden his veto. Texas has over 40% Hispanic population, yet under his administration they have addressed voting regulations, drivers licenses, etc... given the state he governs he has walked a fine line and been pragmatic...

[Arizona Carolyn]

TX isn’t Alabama............and like it or not TX has a huge Hispanic population, which Perry got approx 40% to vote for him and we need their vote in the general to defeat Obama..... and if anyone thinks anyone else in the running is going to be any better on the border than Perry, when Perry has first-hand experience on the issues, then I have a bridge for sale.

[Arizona Carolyn]

No, liberals destroyed California, starting with the flower children in the 60’s; we used to think they were a joke, little did we know they would take over our educational system with the help of Jerry Brown the LAST time he was governor, Want to know the height of stupidity it was re-electing him knowing his history.... illegals had nothing to do with any of that... nope CA did it to itself and a lot of us bailed out of the state.

[Polybius]

I have stood next to the border fence in California. True, a determined person or organization can get over it. But it’s an important symbol. It’s like the six foot ornamental fence surrounding your property. It makes a statement. “This is my property, stay off.” Will that keep off someone determined to cross your property? No. But it will keep off the other 99% who would otherwise cross.

NEWS FLASH: The southern part of urban San Diego is not Rio Grande riverfront 50 miles from the nearest town.

Do you seriously believe that somebody that is prepared to march 50 miles through the Texas desert is not prepared to cut though a friggin' Fence?

VIDEO: See how easy it is for illegals to jump over, cut through or dig under Mitt Romney's Fence which costs Billions and cuts off Texas ranchers from the Rio Grande.

The sections of the California Fence are short segments strategically located in high population areas that affect no riverfront property rights.

Try proposing on a stage in San Diego, CA that the Border Fence be extended along the Pacific beaches of Imperial Beach and up the beaches of Coronado, Mission Beach and La Jolla, cutting off San Diego from it's beaches, and see how long it takes before the rotting tomatoes start flying straight at your head.

If you are a Texas Rio Grande riverfront PROPERTY OWNER, that Fence means that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has trampled all over your PROPERTY RIGHTS and HAS GIVEN AWAY YOUR RIVEFRONT TO MEXICO by putting it on Mexico's side of useless Fence and that the Federal Government has CUT OFF YOUR CATTLE FROM THE RIO GRANDE.

For what?

For a "symbol"?

A "symbol" of what?

The trampling of private property rights by the Federal Government?

You don't think that the friggin' RIO GRANDE RIVER is enough of a symbol for you?

You actually want to GIVE AWAY THE ENTIRE RIO GRANDE RIVEFRONT TO MEXICO?

Hey, why not?

Let's cut off American property owners from the Imperial Beach, Coronado, Mission Beack and La Jolla beaches by extending the Fence there in order to show those Mexicans how tough we REALLY are.

It's sure easy for a liberal from Massachusetts, a congresscritter from Minessotta and a talk show host from Georgia to give away Texas riverfront property to Mexico, isn't it?

How about this solution?

In order to compensate the Texas riverfront property owners, the Federal Government can confiscate private property in Romney's Massachessets, Bachmann's Minnesotta and Cain's Georgia and give it to the Texas Property owners. Let's see how eager Romney, Bachmann and Cain are about THAT plan.

I have stood next to the Fence Line at Guantanamo. In the 1980's, the "Fenceline" separating GTMO from Communist Cuba, along practically it's entire length, was nothing but barbed wire cattle fence, that was a lot less imposing than this one because the GTMO Fence only had there strings of wire.

What kept the Cuban Army on their side is BOOTS ON THE GROUND and that is exactly what Perry has always proposed.

"Border Leader"

"Border"

[RVN Airplane Driver]

My friend it’s useless to reply to the FR windbags here who have never been to Texas....frankly, they are dumbasses in the highest order talking about a fence. I don’t even reply because there are actually not that many...they just show up on very thread with the same nonsense. Most of them are Yankee’s who I would like to round up and march their ignorant azzes along the nearly 1400 miles from Brownsville to the Arizona border and see what they had to say about a fence then. Unfortunately you just can’t help stupid people and it seems that FR has bunches of them lately...

[Polybius]

Perry isn’t wrong about trying to build a 1200 mile fence along the Texas Mexico border. Just because some ill-informed say it, doesn’t make it so. The Perry policy is that fencing makes sense in some urban areas where it can be closely monitored and quickly accessed by border patrol. It’s the continuous fence across hundreds of miles of no mans land he called nonsensical.

I just saw where Cain endorsed Romney in 2008. There’s your ticket...Romney Cain. Oh joy.

Cain also just said that he could not support a Perry Presidency but that he WOULD support a Mitt Romney Presidency.

Can you say, "Stalking Horse"?

Some conservatives are being played like a cheap fiddle.

======================================

Herman Cain in 2011

Herman Cain said Wednesday that he would be unable to support Rick Perry for president if the Texas governor were to eventually win the party's nomination. .... The former businessman said, for instance, that he could support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney....

======================================

Herman Cain in 2008

HERMAN CAIN'S ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY PUBLISHED IN THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION PRIOR TO SUPER TUESDAY, 2008

Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,

By HERMAN CAIN

Published on: 02/03/08

The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.

My vote is for Mitt Romney.

History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.

Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.

That's what leaders do.

Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.

Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.

On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.

He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.

That's not leadership.

I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.

Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.

Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.

This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.

Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.

But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.

[Polybius]

Yeah, history shows that border fences never keep unwanted foreigners out of your country because: - it's too hard to build them in remote places - people will just climb over or dig under them - We've tried it already and it didn't work: (Picture of Israeli Wall then posted)

The Israeli Fence, like the current U.S. Fence has been built in and near HIGH POPULATION AREAS.

Look at the map of the Southern Israeli Fence. The Israelis did not waste money fencing off the Egyptian Sinai Desert from the Israeli Negev Desert.

Building a Fence in San Diego, CA is equivalent to building a Fence in the high population areas in Israel. Look at the Arab civilian in your photo taking a stroll on the road right next to the Fence and notice all the urban grafitti. Your photo is the Israeli equivalent of the existing San Diego Fence.

Building a Fence in the "middle of nowhere" areas of the Texas desert is equivalent to building a Fence in the "middle of nowhere" area of the Sinai Desert/Negev Desert border.

If the Israelis were not dumb enough to do that, why should the U.S. be dumb enough to do that?

[af_vet_rr]

It wasn’t just Hispanics and illegals turning CA left, it was the Hollyweird types and Flower Children. Texas doesn’t have much of the latter.

LMAO, Dallas elected a lesbian sheriff, Houston elected a lesbian mayor, and Texas has been inundated with people moving here from California and New England. The Dems made gains in Texas from 2004 - 2008 and Texas is already a minority-majority state. Things are changing fast, a little too fast for my tastes.

[af_vet_rr]

Nice try, but Perry didn’t RUN for governor, it was handed to him when Bush-43 became president. Since then he has NEVER been challenged from the right. Conservatives here in Texas have spend a DECADE having to hold our nose when we vote for governor (something I literally did the last time I voted).

People outside of Texas do not understand this. Perry had no Republican competition in 2002. In 2006, his biggest Republican rival was a secessionist who didn't even break double digits. In 2010, his biggest rival was Kay Bailey Hutchison and she only made him sweat a little.