Posted on 04/15/2005 6:49:37 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility
Of course because on 9/10/2001 AL-Qaeda was already here you. We should have down a crack down on our immigration policy along time ago.
But if you can inhibit terrorism by attacking its source, then that should be priority #1, not by buying MORE donut eating border patrols.
The donut eating border patrol is just a sterotype. The vast majority of border patrol agents are hardworking and dedicated by have their hands tied behind their backs. As I saw before it is not quantity of the border patrol but more quality that matters, and they can not attain that quality due to political correctness.
There should be smart (read quality) improvements in border security, not wholesale mindless build-a-fence quantity spending.
You mark both ends of my concern----there should'a been a crackdown internally to ferret out the terrorists before 9/11, -and- there should be smarter not just more spending on border security.
Where border security diverges from preventing terrorism is that the 9/11 hijackers would not have been stopped by any amount of INS action, but only by better FBI action which I think we all agree s0cked bigtime.
Hence my position is counter to all the raving about "closed borders."
"Closed borders" means less money spent on "internal terror prevention" which means MORE TERRORISM THREAT.
I like Tom. Have met him a couple of times. I was in his district in Colorado when he first ran for Congress. I know he is pro military and of course, his stance on our pathetic border security is well known. Having said that, I'm not sure he is even interested, but if so, he does need visibility, and above all, a well rounded platform of positions. It will be hard for him to gain the name recognition of some of the front runners, like Jeb, Bill Owens, Condie Rice, Bill Fritz and a few more. Nonetheless, if he decides he is interested, I would support him.
'Basement' issues? Ok, whatever. Like anybody knows what the heck you're talking about.
Ditto! Also, why don't we enforce existing immigration laws to the Nth degree. The "wading across the Rio Grande" issue is being addressed by the Minutemen - volunteers who want to help their country resolve this problem. Passports, by the way, are good for 10 years and are an impecable source of identification.
It's a perverse joke that we have "Homeland Security" while the Republicans including Bush AND the Demonrats for that matter do NOTHING about the porous borders.
I don't think it's gonna go that way. I think the parties are going to be more polarized than ever. It will be the party that doesn't "go squishy" on their issues that will win.
Moderates. Bah! ESPECIALLY no squishiness on the borders.
I have always used my passport between Canada-US, mexic0-US and Cayman-US... No big deal... Sped things up really...
I agree with you.
It costs about $100 (plus costs of photos) and a bunch of time to get one passport. 15 bucks less for children. So if a family of five just wants to drive through for a minute to get to a state, or just go across to go to a restaurant or visit the Falls, that's nearly $500 extra and a lot of hassle. And you have to wait six weeks to get it.
WHY? WHEN ILLEGALS ARE FREELY STREAMING ACROSS THE SOUTHERN BORDER? WHEN PEOPLE COME HERE LEGALLY AND DECIDE TO STAY ILLEGALLY, AND NO ONE GOES AFTER THEM?
The lack of a passport requirement has precious little to do with the illegal immigrant problem or terrorism. I'm with Bush on this one, it's a silly hassle.
I agree that not everyone is as intelligent as I am.
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.