Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Up until a few years ago I was pretty broad-minded on the subject of immigration--but it's pretty clear the situation has gotten way out of hand. I have heard many proposals for securing the Border. Some are downright perposterous, others are just words that SOUND like something is being done but merely distract from the fact NOTHING is being done and then there is the Virtual Fence that doesn't work because sand gets inside and messes up the electronic components.
There is one option that will work:
Put 250,000 soldiers on the Border.
The symbolic value alone would give one pause to reconsider crossing the Border without permission. But beyond that, no system will work unless there are boots on the ground backing it up. 250,000 is not an arbitrary figue, it comes down to about one platoon for 8 hours for every mile. Some would give the soldiers orders to shoot anything that moves. That's a bit extreme, don't you think? And while the Border may be pretty clear to the rest of the country, to the people who live there it's just the next town down the road and they're accustomed to going back and forth all the time, thinking no more about it than the rest of us do crossing state, county, or municipal boundaries. Unlike most other systems, soldiers are human beings and get to know who the locals are and who is just visiting their Aunt Maria or their cousin Jose.
While other systems will take years to build we can have 250,000 men on the Border in 90 days. Would Mexico move its Army up to the Border? Oh I imagine they would; they've got to show some bluster, you know, but that doesn't mean either country is insane enough to start a war. In fact, the experience of many centuries from all over the world says that after trading a few insults the soldiers of both sides will become quite friendly toward one another, arrange a few informal passes back and forth, and come to see that they have more in common with one another than with the politicians who ordered them there. But they will understand their mission: secure the Border. Each will direct their own civilians to the proper Border crossings because, "you don't know what those guys over there might do to you if they catch you crossing here" and so the Border will be secured.
For some reason the border is the only place they refuse to put a good fence. They have fences everywhere else, around prisons, schools, parks, the White House, our backyards.
Deportation and the cutting off of all welfare handouts to illegals would also go along way. In reality illegals with no education or ability to learn English cannot make it in this country with our very high costs of living. They "make" it because they aren't having to pay our high taxes, and they aren't having to pay for their health care, and they aren't having to pay for the feeding of their children.
We could get rid of the bulk of the problem by deporting the problem illegals, all those who rely on food stamps would be easily found and could be easily deported. Word would get out that the USA is enforcing it's laws and fewer would be showing up.
Big fines for those who hire illegals would be another important step -- but many illegals aren't even working but instead living off government handouts.
We can save a lot of money by simply eliminating the ability of illegals to make a living in this country. Hammer the greedy employers and include jail time. Most will opt to not take the risk. The small time subs will fall in line as they see others fined into bankruptcy and jailed.
Seize the assets of any illegal caught. Hit illegals where it hurts. Take that ill begotten cash away from them and see how fast others run for the border to avoid the same fate.
People talk about employers. They should be talking about laws with no teeth.
Millions of uneducated/non-English speaking/run to the front of the free line stuff as soon as they become citizens equals a doomed country.
No country in history has survived without securing its borders.
We can't even find work for Americans but in some peoples "wonder world" we can just keep taking in every third world citizen. This country needs to start a major education drive in these countries.
Up until a few years ago I was pretty broad-minded on the subject of immigration--but it's pretty clear the situation has gotten way out of hand. I have heard many proposals for securing the Border. Some are downright perposterous, others are just words that SOUND like something is being done but merely distract from the fact NOTHING is being done and then there is the Virtual Fence that doesn't work because sand gets inside and messes up the electronic components.
There is one option that will work:
Put 250,000 soldiers on the Border.
I don't think this would work. Can you imagine the uproar that would happen if a video came out showing a US Military person, in full combat gear, using their automatic rifle to push a 5 year old girl back into the river after she crosses into America ! What would happen if the girl is left on the US side of the river when the boat leaves ?
I think the better solution would be a wall the entire length of the US-Mexico border. The illegals on the Mexico side would see the wall and know there is no way around it. Remove as much human contact between the illegals and Americans as possible. Building the wall would create hundreds of jobs, allow for the reduction of the Border Patrol and ICE, cut off drug and human smuggling routes, and would pay for itself in a few years.
If it were feasible, I'd support the national guard/military linking arms to span the southern USA border to prevent/deter people crossing into the USA without permission. I don't know how many soldiers it would take or how much money it would cost, though.
Consider this: The border is 1,933 mi. in length. There are 5,280 ft. per mi. 10,206,240 ft. If we deploy 250,000 soldiers along the border, as suggested, that would result in 1 soldier every 41 feet. We'd need, however, 250,000 x 3 to provide 24-hour coverage. Particularly so in the harsh border-zone environment. That would bring the force requirement to 750,000 soldiers - not counting the logistical support to house/feed/transport, etc. such a large force: equivalent to the entire regular Army and most of the National Guard. Or, equivalent to the entire Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Such a deployment would require the US to pull throops from current assignements world-wide and almost certainly undermine the long-established mission of the military forces and create concern amongst our allies abroad. The cost would likely be in the billions of US$.
I just don't see how it would work. Maybe someone has figured this differently.
As for building a wall: I'm for it. I don't know if it can be effectively managed/monitored once erected ... but I'd be for trying it.
If it were feasible, I'd support the national guard/military linking arms to span the southern USA border to prevent/deter people crossing into the USA without permission. I don't know how many soldiers it would take or how much money it would cost, though.
Consider this: The border is 1,933 mi. in length. There are 5,280 ft. per mi. 10,206,240 ft. If we deploy 250,000 soldiers along the border, as suggested, that would result in 1 soldier every 41 feet. We'd need, however, 250,000 x 3 to provide 24-hour coverage. Particularly so in the harsh border-zone environment. That would bring the force requirement to 750,000 soldiers - not counting the logistical support to house/feed/transport, etc. such a large force: equivalent to the entire regular Army and most of the National Guard. Or, equivalent to the entire Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Such a deployment would require the US to pull throops from current assignements world-wide and almost certainly undermine the long-established mission of the military forces and create concern amongst our allies abroad. The cost would likely be in the billions of US$.
I just don't see how it would work. Maybe someone has figured this differently.
As for building a wall: I'm for it. I don't know if it can be effectively managed/monitored once erected ... but I'd be for trying it.
Soldiers have legs and can walk, in fact, it is normal for guards to walk a beat. They also have eyes and can see. One soldier can reasonably patrol 400 hundred feet of Border. 400 feet is the maximum range soldiers worldwide will engage the enemy with rifle fire. This has to do with the ability of the human eye to resolve a target. The M-16 is quite accurate to 400 feet, less accurate beyond that. Our forces are already being withdrawn from overseas--or haven't you heard that? If they're being brought back here they may as well be put on the Border.
I think the better solution would be a wall the entire length of the US-Mexico border. The illegals on the Mexico side would see the wall and know there is no way around it. Remove as much human contact between the illegals and Americans as possible. Building the wall would create hundreds of jobs, allow for the reduction of the Border Patrol and ICE, cut off drug and human smuggling routes, and would pay for itself in a few years.
Was is not our dear vice President that just stated "we need a constant stream" and you can guess where the gov stands. Obama just said that "this is our future" and I guess we can see how dismal our future is now...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
