Posted on 11/03/2011 8:46:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
....PERRY: Well, let me just put it this way. The federal government's complete and absolute failure to secure our border put a lot of pressure on governors no matter where they might be to have to deal with issues. You are required to give health care, you are required to give education. And Texans made a decision -- are we going to kick these people to the side of the road and they are going to become tax wasters? Or are we going to require that they become citizens of the United States and become taxpayers? We chose the latter. I would still do that today, considering the barriers that if you will, the arena that we have to work in.
As the president of the United States, I am against the DREAM Act. I will shut that border down because I have had to deal with it for 10 years. I understand. I am putting Texas Rangers and National Guard, I am putting Texas citizens on the line over there, they are being fired at. Thank God none of them have been killed yet. But the fact is, I know how to secure that border. When I am the president, that border will be secure. And these issues that we have been forced to deal with as governors, will start being alleviated. And then we can have a decent, a thoughtful and economically focused conversation about immigration policy.
HANNITY: So you think you could secure the border in what period of time if you're president?
PERRY: I think you can do it within a year. I mean, seriously, within a year --
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Do you understand that a veto can’t override those numbers??”
A principled chief executative would have vetoed the legislation and told why he was doing it. Let the legislature override his veto if they must.
Your point is false though, because Perry supported the legislation and had no qualms about signing it into law.........signing it to save time????? LOLOLOLOL That’s so weak as to be a pure nonsence of a reason......
Part of the problem with what they did in Yuma is that it was not done in Tuscon, so we don't know if the illegals who would have crossed over in the Yuma sector simply went further east.
Oh, and BTW, there also is a triple wall in the Yuma sector now. Thanks for making my point for me.
Fence in heavy traffic areas
Boot on the ground
Preditor drones
There is no point in only a fence and there is no point in attempting to put a fence in a river. There is also no way on earth you are going to get Texans to give over their water rights to Mexico by putting a fence on the Texas side of the river, and no way the Mexicans are going to let you put a fence on their side of the border.
That approach has been shown to shift the traffic where there is no fence. Not sure why you demand that we fail to learn from that.
There is also no way on earth you are going to get Texans to give over their water rights to Mexico by putting a fence on the Texas side of the river, and no way the Mexicans are going to let you put a fence on their side of the border.
As part of the Texas fence, the construction could include pipes, pumps and tanks every mile where the fence is on a ranch.
That would be about 1200 miles of pipes and pumps.
As opposed to the cost of welfare and education for newly-arrived illegals?
In several important respects, the Rio Grande is comparable to the River Jordan.
Both are easily fordable.
Both flow through a semi-arid landscape.
Both serve as a border that is subject to transgression.
Given that the Israelis pretty well wrote the book on border security and obviously ascribe to the idea of "good fences make good neighbors", their methods of securing the border on the River Jordan might be worth examining.
On the 14-mile border immediately below the Sea of Galilee, where Israel and Jordan face each other across the river, there is a fence. It's not much of a fence, though -- looks like 4 ft of hogwire topped by three strands of barbed wire. It also appears to be well back from the river (1/4 to 1/2 mile) with cultivated land and residences between the fence and the river. Which suggests there are also openings in the fence to allow access.
Presumably, this section is patrolled regularly.
Over the next 40 miles -- on either side of the Allenby Bridge, down to the Dead Sea -- there is no fence on the border between the West Bank and Jordan. Instead, there are armed outposts at regular intervals, connected by a gravel road.
Evidently, the Israelis have recognized that a river flowing thru a semi-arid landscape is just too valuable an asset to either block access for your citizens...or to cede to the other side.
The same is arguably true for West and South Texas.
Is the object of the exercise to a.) build a fence or is it b.) secure the border?
I submit that a continuous fence from San Ysidro, CA to El Paso, TX makes all the sense in the world -- if it's adequately monitored, maintained and patroled. We're dealing with undifferentiated desert all the way. I'm all for it.
But, if border security from El Paso to Brownsville means a series of armed outposts, a gravel road and a network of remote monitoring devices, I'm willing to support the cost of that, too.
I do think there needs to be some kind of fencing. It can be adapted to the specific needs of the region. I just don't buy many of the arguments being put forth about the fence in Texas. We have seen too many lessons elsewhere - that fencing in urban areas simply shifts foot traffic elsewhere, that technology is no substitute, and the desert is no deterrent, either.
It would be a LOT cheaper to use the military (stationed ALREADY in both Arizona and Texas) to stop them. We’re already paying for the bases, already paying for the military and using them on the border would be great training. I’m beginning to think the people who are shouting so much about fences are actually fence contractors and suppliers.
Sorry, but there is just too much evidence around the world that fences work - the American Southwest, India, and other locations. Trying to impugn the motives of those pointing out such as you did here is pretty lame.
There was a fence right there where Rob Krantz was killed, didn’t stop them a bit, they just climbed right over and through his property. You guys seem to think these people will just go “oh, a fence, we must not trespass there”. Fence is great in SOME places but without boots on the ground and without drone and aircraft in the air spotting for them, you have barely a blip in the road for the illegals and their coyotes (and that doesn’t even begin to mention the drug cartels)
I'm done with you, you can't debate this honestly as you have an agenda of defending Perry's misguided stance on a fence.
According to DHS the border south of the Krentz ranch is fenced off. Not so. The fence is really a vehicle barrier that is easily crossed by foot and vehicle ramp.
I live on a ranch in Cochise County. My house is ½ mile from the border. Smugglers used to cross my property all the time, but stopped after a real fence was installed. While the National Guard may help somewhat, the real solution to the border problem would be to complete the 700-mile double-layered fence authorized by Congress in 2006.
LOL, any fence is easily crossed with a ramp. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. What are you afraid of about having the military guard the border?
You're an ass. I want both the military and the fence, troll, and have never said otherwise.
Only patently dishonest posters pull the kind of crap you have in your most recent posts on this thread - impugning motives, not telling all of the facts, and putting words in the mouths of other posters. You're hardly helping Perry with that kind of crapola.
Whatever it takes to maintain effective security -- while retaining access for farmers, ranchers, livestock and wildlife -- is what we should be about.
However, so many "fencers" (did I just invent a term?) are so adamantly impractical about the issue as to render it undiscussable. What the hell good is a fence going to be in Mariscal Canyon, for cryin' out loud? How the hell is a rancher going to water his livestock if the only fresh water within twenty miles is unavailable to him? Pumps and pipes and tanks aren't really a very good answer -- they're a whole new maintenance problem, especially if you've got no access to the pump (and either have to pay for it...or don't own it). How are the antelope and whitetails going to get to water?
And why would we block off the Rio Grande from our own people...and leave sole access to the Mexicans?
Where it works -- or where it's necessary -- a fence is fine. That mostly applies to El Paso west, however. Along the Texas border, a fence could have its place -- but it wouldn't be the primary means of security.
Are you even aware that some of that land in Arizona is soverign indian land?
You don't know the landscape, you don't know the problems, you don't know anything about it and yet you spout all that crap about a fence. Why don't you educate youself before you make a complete fool of yourself talking about stuff you know nothing about.
I have lived in Texas on three occasions, my parents have lived there for the last 30 years, I have been out as far west as the Big Bend and all along the Rio Grande down to the Valley.
You're just a jackass who thinks that because I currently live in PA, well, I don't know Texas geography. I am quite aware of it.
Regarding the Indian reservations, well, if they don't want a federal fence across their border with Mexico, then place the fence on the American side of their reservation.
Fences work. That is why La Raza is opposed to them.
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.