This is bullshit.

Indy Conservative on April 24, 2008 at 7:54 AM

You do have a way of boiling thinks down to their essence. All the best criminal investigators do that. You should go far in this world, as long as some politician doesn’t have you assassinated anyway, so be careful.

Holmes on April 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Got ya! :-)

Do you really think that a physical fence is going to deeply impact those numbers? Because I don’t. What about the Gulf of Mexico? All you’re doing is making it a little more inconvenient.

You just admitted that a fence would be effective.

The feds have tried for decades to block the importation of literally tons of illegal drugs at a time, how’s that working out?

Perhaps that’s because our border is so easily crossed?

Put simply, I don’t want the symbol of my country to be a 2,000 mile long fence. Just don’t want it. Put it up and that’s what it will be, make no mistake about it. Ugly, abhorrent, the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

Does your yard have a fence? Is it really that offensive? Is it a symbol of totalitarianism in your neighborhood?

A border should be by its definition be a barrier. I don’t have a problem with people who want to propagandize that as a symbol of hatred or fear. The truth will prevail, and the truth is that it would be constructed to ENSURE liberty and freedom to all those within and those who cross it legally.

I want the states and localities to perform these functions, NOT the feds. The feds can barely get out of their own way, the only thing the feds do that works well is the military and that’s because it’s not exclusively controlled by boneheaded federal employees.

Besides, the states and the localities know the employers. The feds aren’t going to know who’s hiring illegals in an area of a million square miles are so but the locals do.

Your reference to the states changing admins could just as well apply to the feds. Every time we get a Democrat in the White House or a Democrat Congress, fence maintenance and upkeep will not be funded.

Whereas the states and localities that care about keeping out illegal immigrants, will care about it no matter who is voted into office. With how far left California is, does anyone truly think that Democrats in the state won’t continue to roll out the welcome mat for illegals anyway, no matter what the feds do? Much of this is a matter of jurisdiction anyway. If California law enforcement won’t turn over Mexican criminals to ICE, then what good is a fence going to do?

And if California elected officials don’t care about illegal immigrants and paying for their upkeep, why should I pay for the feds to do something that the state residents don’t want? Why should feds be chasing around the illegals that California state politicians welcome and will continue to welcome, fence or no fence.

I would support legislation to cut of federal funds to states that would go to support the upkeep of illegals? Of course. And unless actions like that are taken, it won’t matter how many fences are built.

The fence idea is doomed to failure and I don’t want a failed, costly fence to become the symbol of my country. There are legislative methods within reach to deal with the problem and there is an opportunity cost attached to all of this ultimately fruitless effort aimed at building a physical fence.

NoDonkey on April 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I don’t know where you get totalitarianism from this.

pecan pie on April 24, 2008 at 3:22 PM

It comes from what I call “The believing six impossible things before breakfast” syndrome. That’s where it comes from. So now you know.

Now see, the problem with arguing with you on this is that you are being illogical about it.

On the one hand, when discussing the one item that will be the most effective border control feature with the least effort and cost, i.e., a sturdy physical barrier to crossing the border, you say the Feds are notoriously inept.

But, on the other hand say, you want them to perform it in the at the lowest level which also happens to be the most complicated, time intensive way that has highest ongoing yearly budget, i.e., constant monitoring of every major aspect of our lives, including the associated paper work, and most likely a need for an national identity card. And you want to do that because they feds are, what, notoriously inept? Shouldn’t we apply the “feds are notoriously inept” to employer crackdowns as well as “they can’t get welfare? Should we apply it to overstayed tourist visas whether there is a virtual fence or not and “They’ll just come through Canada”, too?

Or should I infer from this last comment, you prefer the individual states to spend state taxpayers’ money on a federal responsibility, like let’s say, Oklahoma and Louisiana or Arizona and Oregon having to do it because Texans and Californians either don’t want to or some or their residents think it smacks of totalitarianism. What do you do if individual states change administrations from ‘law and order’ to ’sanctuary state’ from time to time.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by having more faith in a private contractor. To do what? Build the fence? Manage related enforcement by the states? Secure the border?

It seems to me your big concern is the necessity of building the fence on private property and which is the least intrusive to those property owners, not which is the most effective in preventing illegal border crossings. Leastways that is how it appears to from the structure and persuasiveness of your arguments.

It has nothing to do with the founding principles of this country and what sets us apart as a nation from the Islamic troglodyte states and the Chinese communists, etc.

“The biggest problem is the millions of poor, unskilled, uneducated, many times criminal people who WALK into this country.”

Do you really think that a physical fence is going to deeply impact those numbers? Because I don’t. What about the Gulf of Mexico? All you’re doing is making it a little more inconvenient.

The feds have tried for decades to block the importation of literally tons of illegal drugs at a time, how’s that working out? Crack cocaine is no longer a big problem, only because it’s so cheap that it’s not worth anyone fighting over turf any longer. A vile of crack is cheaper than a gallon of gas.

I’m with you on enforcing existing laws regarding employment and criminals, etc., and getting tougher with the Mexican government.

But a physical fence, I cannot support that. The huge amount of resources and political capital it will take to build it could be better used elsewhere. The reason Republican Party politicians don’t embrace it because they know it makes no sense whatsoever, but they don’t have the guts to tell it to their base.

NoDonkey on April 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM

I don’t know where you get totalitarianism from this. Where in building a border fence is the government imposing complete control over ALL aspects of our lives? …or any aspect for that matter? Actually, I think an argument could be made for the opposite. In letting the uncontrolled flow continue AND THEN TAXING ME TO SUBSIDIZE the welfare of these people, that smacks more of an authoritarian state than building a fence to keep our economy strong and our people safe from criminals.

Believe it or not I agree with you on many points. I agree that the Government is highly inept. I also agree that a crackdown at the local level is necessary to turn off the magnet. I further agree that terrorists will find other means to enter the country. The biggest difference I suppose is that I won’t call you a faux-conservative for disagreeing with me.

But, you have remember the scale of this problem. We are talking about millions of people and allowing the uncontrolled entry of burglars, thiefs, rapists, human slave traders, drug traffickers, etc. Our prisons are crowded with illegal aliens that shouldn’t even BE here. You can’t just attack this at the employment site or welfare office, although it should include that.

In order to practically address a problem you must define it. The biggest problem is the millions of poor, unskilled, uneducated, many times criminal people who WALK into this country. Most of these are not people who are just going to go around to Canada. If they find other means, then we’ll have to address that then, won’t we.

In the meantime, lets stick with the obvious solution that has been proven to work everywhere it has been implemented – a fence.

To me, you solve this problem at the lowest level. I like how states are cracking down on employers, etc. If they can’t get jobs here and they can’t get welfare/etc. here, then they won’t come here. As long as they can get those things, they will get in, fence or not.

Same with terrorists. They’ll just come through Canada, on a boat or overstay some phony tourist visa.

The feds are notoriously inept and any fence will be wildly overpriced and sadly ineffective.

I have more faith in a virtual fence and a private contractor.

The problem here in Texas is that the same politicians that are arguing against the fence using the eminent domain argument are the same ones that are all for the Trans-Texas corridor, which would steal alot more land than the border fence strictly for business purposes. I am torn on the eminent domain issues along the border so I would like to see a patchwork fence where those that allow it would build a real fence and the others would have the criminal aliens funneled across their land until they gave up and let the government build across their land. The Israelis have a virtual fence that works pretty well along most of their borders. The main difference is that they can have the military there in under 5 minutes to capture the intruders. We don’t have enough border agents to cover the whole border that way. Where the real fence has been tried, it worked. Part of that is there are easier place to cross so they went to the easier places. If we can get most of the border covered without taking property by eminent domain then we should. Then cover the gaps with either virtual fence or with more patrols. But having the real fence will funnel the criminals to these choke points. But even with the fence we need to crack down on businesses that are hiring these people.

Yes sir, Colonel Jessup. I need you on that wall.

NoDonkey on April 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM

More than you know.

Yes sir, Colonel Jessup. I need you on that wall.

Because they owned the land there before it became the border. The birder wasn’t established until 1848 (later for the Gadsden purchase). Land ownership goes back long before that time. People defended their land from Indians and bandits before the Rio Grande became the border.

juliesa on April 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I understand that people owned land there before it became the border, but I don’t understand why Congress didn’t establish a mile wide easement along said border when it was established.

So I guess to be a “conservative” I have to support:

1) The building of a border fence complete w/machine gun towers

I think sniper rifles would be better don’t you?

This is bullshit.

Indy Conservative on April 24, 2008 at 7:54 AM

You do have a way of boiling thinks down to their essence. All the best criminal investigators do that. You should go far in this world, as long as some politician doesn’t have you assassinated anyway, so be careful.

1) The building of a border fence complete w/machine gun towers
2) The confiscation of private property for the building of said border fence
3) The election of a Democrat to the White House

Check. Since 1-3 are pretty much linear, I’m wondering what steps 4 and 5 are?

Rounding up the Trotskyites and the forced collectivization of agriculture seem to be the logical follow-ons, but I’m new at this and could use some help. I want to be a team player here.

How did private land owners EVER have ownership rights to the right-of-way along the border?

Because they owned the land there before it became the border. The birder wasn’t established until 1848 (later for the Gadsden purchase). Land ownership goes back long before that time. People defended their land from Indians and bandits before the Rio Grande became the border.

The fence is not a government program, it’s a project that’s part of a program, the program being controlling access to the country to further our policy of securing the nation by upholding our laws so we may maintain our liberty.

I drive carefully, so why should our totalitarian government impose traffic lights on me. Or closer to home, why do they impose building construction standards on me and require me to get permits or make me put numbers on my house. Why do they make us provide storm water drainage easements or instigate takings so as to widen roads?

I’d rather argue with leftists than utopian style libertarians, because the former, like conservatives, at least, believe in the societal responsibilities which, by the way, is the basis of “We the People ….” That said, I do understand there are issues and problems border property owners have that need to be mitigated, but I haven’t seen any as yet that can’t be.

one thing I’ve learned on government contracts…it’s usually the customers fault that a product is less than exemplary.

pecan pie on

Either Chertoff is a stupid and incompetent idiot to not identify exactly what he is studying, or he knew exactly what it was with all of its limitations and went with it in order to frustrate concerned Americans in hopes of making those concerned give up, give in, quit demanding CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.
maverick

There is no one in our government that wants us to have a protected southern border. An effective fence and immigration policy that remove the illegals from among us would cost too many companies more than they are willing to pay in labor costs. Chertoff would throw away ten million away any day of the week if it would keep up the flow of cheap labor. I’m sure enough AQ types have gotten in by now to make another major terror attack inevetible. When that happens there will be a distinguished panel, who don’t care why it happened, that will try to figure out why it happened. And once again we’ll have a lot of dead people and a fat, meaningless report. And our elected representatives will continue to get the vast majority of their pay from K Street. And K Street will continue to get all the cheap, illegal labor they want. And maybe after four or five successful attacks Congress will get serious about defense. But they won’t rush into it because they don’t care about Americans dying. They’re worried about the people who sign their checks. And those checks come from K Street. And your blogisphere can cover all kinds of news that doesn’t usually get covered but K Street is news to the blogisphere.

Sure it will be effective. Just like every other government program.

And it will come in under budget too, right?

This really is like arguing with leftists.

Call it what you will, but there’s nothing “conservative” or even American about a physical fence across the Mexican border.

It’s a totalitarian in method and in practice.

If you want wildlife crossing areas, it’s called a 250′ opening with a patrol station in the middle either manned or with video.

If you worry about tunnels, put seismic monitors at points of concern; it’s not like those things can be dug in a week. I’d note that half the border has a river on it and tunnels are not going to be a big issue there.

There are all sorts of mitigation measures for addressing the one very effective method for stopping illegal immigration. Just build the fence.

Oh, and if you want scenic beauty, you can either walk down to the fence and look north or save some money so you can visit China to see the Great Wall, it’s absolutely marvelous.

NoDonkey on April 24, 2008 at 11:15 AM
When the Canadians begin bankrupting our hospitals I’ll be all for that Canadian fence.

Limerick on April 24, 2008 at 11:21 AM

And when the Asians (or whoever) flood uncontrollably across our Pacific coast by the tens of millions and march down our streets waving their flags in our faces and demanding free government services, I’ll be for that one too.

Let us please talk in realities.

I am sensitive the point that has been raised about land owners livelihoods on the border, but I propose that this national security interest trumps that – sorry. I know, easy for me to say when it doesn’t affect me, right….it does affect me, that’s the problem. It has an effect on all of us. And don’t be fooled, many of those landowners share allegiance with Mexico and have political motives in this debate, they’re not just Joe-average-constitutionalists down there. Same with elected officials in the towns, counties and districts in Southern Texas. It’s highly corrupt, so you may read an article that people are opposed, but don’t forget to ask why.

I have said it before… People who advocate a “Virtual Fence” will inevitably say that there is “too much” illegal immigration. This means that there is another, lower, level of illegal immigration that is “just right”.

What a Virtual Fence allows you to do is let a certain number of illegal immigrants cross over a period of time, and then make efforts to stop any additional crossers. This means the government can then dial in the “just right” level of illegal immigration, so we can avoid having too much.

Of course, this is stupid and unfair and unjust, but what about the Federal Government is not? If your typical MS-13 gangbanger is the fifth crosser in his sector this month, he would be home free, while the illegal immigrant who is returning to his taxpaying job he has held for the last ten years as a citizen in all but name would be stopped because he happened to cross after the quota has been filled.

Fences, on the other hand, are designed to eliminate illegal crossing. They are an all or nothing thing. That is why they are better. There is no “just right” level of illegal immigration above zero.

We HAVE a system in place that allows every single person in Mexico to come here, work here, live here WITH OUR HARDY WELCOME ABOARD attached to it.

What do we get? ‘Screw-that’ is what we get.

As for the eminent domain argument…good luck keeping those property rights you fought so hard for when land redistribution comes to town on the back of a reform candidate. Democracy trumps all those rights….right?