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.
Yes. It would be an enormous mistake. But that's neither here nor there, because it's likely not going to happen. Folks who think that technology can magically solve a massive social issue have their heads in the clouds. All a wall would be is a false security blanket and a huge waste of resources.
I can't believe people are now holding up the behavior of the former GDR as an example of what the US should do.
Mind-boggling.
If it were proposed in Congress and supported by voters, the leaders of the two countries would begin to negotiate -- take the problem seriously -- the US could help Mexico in more constructive ways than what's going on now.
You know how you could instantaneously solve the cartel problems? Legalization of Drugs.
We wouldn't have to be buying from the cartels (because people in Arizonaand the rest of the southwest clearly love their drugs) and they wouldn't have this mutli-billion dollar industry dropped into their laps.
Without true sources of finances, the cartels would evaporate overnight. Pfizer and The Altria Group would pick up the slack and provide all the American Addicts with their Meth, Heroin, Cocaine and Ecstasy. It sounds insane, but instead of spending billions in continuing this moronic drug war that does nothing to stop the flow of narcotics into the country, we could tax the heck out of them, send addicts to rehab and use the savings and tax revenue to educate people better on the dangers of those drugs.
Or we can continue the Status Quo, or even better, become a police state where all freedoms are taken away because some idiots cannot seem to connect the failure of alcohol prohibition to the massive failure that has been drug prohibition.
I honestly wanted to read all the way through this thread before I replied, but this post stopped me dead in my tracks.
Legalizing drugs is equal to what is the subject of the OP:
Give up our laws, give up our land, and cave in to criminals.
Folks, this isn't Arizona land we're talking about, here.
It is federal government land. It's a National Forest.
It's been pointed out, on numerous occasions, that it's the fed's responsibility to enforce immigration law.
So......here we have a glaring example of how our federal government intends on enforcing our immigration laws.
Just cordon off a little area and let them have their way.
Our government is not acting in our best interest.
They are allowing a foreign occupational force to take up residence on federal lands.
While not Mexico's army (or another government's), they are not American and are invading our sovereign soil.
How long do you think they'll be happy with that little piece of real estate?
How long before they take more?
How much will our government let them take?
The only logical response is immediate military action.
We can't get complacent about this one, people.
Time to light up some phones and fax machines, and fill up some in-boxes.
Explain how a similar barrier as used along the German border would not work...
By the way,why do you find it mind boggling to take a cue from the Germans??
Ever noticed the helmet US forces use???
Even if we could be as effective as people who had shoot to kill orders and 50,000 personnel, which we cannot, there are massive political ramifications to consider. There are wildlife migration issues. There are a whole host of issues.
Unless you just don't give a damn what other countries think or our natural resources. In that case, we will have to disagree and end the conversation.
I don't think I need to explain why using the GDR as an example is not a good thing. I can't think of anything that goes more against the spirit of our nation than erecting a GDR type fence. We criticized that wall, in case you have forgotten -- both sides of the aisle -- including Patron GOP Saint Ronald. No thank you.
Even if we could be as effective as people who had shoot to kill orders and 50,000 personnel, which we cannot, there are massive political ramifications to consider.
Why not?
What is more important than 10-20 million people invading this nation?
Quote:
Unless you just don't give a damn what other countries think. In that case, we will have to disagree and end the conversation.
What would Mexico do?Stop letting millions of it's people come here and be leeches?
Quote:
I don't think I need to explain why using the GDR as an example is not a good thing. I can't think of anything that goes more against the spirit of our nation than erecting a GDR type fence. We criticized that wall, in case you have forgotten -- both sides of the aisle -- including Patron GOP Saint Ronald. No thank you.
We criticised it because it was used to keep people IN...not illegal invaders OUT...
It worked,it would work again and be even better considering technological advances...so the idea that a barrier won't work is a lie.
As to the cost,it is cheaper than the alternative.
Or we could do something similar to the Israelis,another successful barrier.
If it were proposed in Congress and supported by voters, the leaders of the two countries would begin to negotiate -- take the problem seriously -- the US could help Mexico in more constructive ways than what's going on now.
Well, different strokes and all that. I don't see erecting a wall as taking the problem seriously. It doesn't adress the root causes for the issue. it;s just reactionary, like slapping together more prisons to house drug offenders.
I find the notion of such an edifice to be completely repulsive. I doubt I am alone, and that's probably why proposals such as that one have never made it very far.
Well, different strokes and all that. I don't see erecting a wall as taking the problem seriously. It doesn't adress the root causes for the issue. it;s just reactionary, like slapping together more prisons to house drug offenders.
The root causes are Mexico's problem,and should stay there...
Why not?
What is more important than 10-20 million people invading this nation?
What would Mexico do?Stop letting millions of it's people come here and be leeches?
We criticised it because it was used to keep people IN...not illegal invaders OUT...
It worked,it would work again and be even better considering technological advances...so the idea that a barrier won't work is a lie.
As to the cost,it is cheaper than the alternative.
Or we could do something similar to the Israelis,another successful barrier.
Success is in the eye of the beholder. We'll just have to disagree.
The wall in Germany wasn't exactly an open invite to Westerners to come visit, you know. So it did impact outsiders too. Especially those who were displaced into West Germany but were from East Germany.
Also, "invasions" are generally organized. Mexicans coming here is not an "invasion". It's bad, yes, but hardly qualifies as an invasion, though using such terminology sure gets emotionally people fired up, as evidenced on this forum, every day.
Success is in the eye of the beholder. We'll just have to disagree.
Well yes,you will have to as by the standard definition of success it WAS successful...
Quote:
The wall in Germany wasn't exactly an open invite to Westerners to come visit, you know. So it did impact outsiders too. Especially those who were displaced into West Germany but were from East Germany.
Totally different situation...and if Mexicans stop coming to the USA for vacation...we will survive.
Quote:
Also, "invasions" are generally organized. Mexicans coming here is not an "invasion". It's bad, yes, but hardly qualifies as an invasion, though using such terminology sure gets emotionally people fired up, as evidenced on this forum, every day.
Success is in the eye of the beholder. We'll just have to disagree.
The wall in Germany wasn't exactly an open invite to Westerners to come visit, you know. So it did impact outsiders too. Especially those who were displaced into West Germany but were from East Germany.
Also, "invasions" are generally organized. Mexicans coming here is not an "invasion". It's bad, yes, but hardly qualifies as an invasion, though using such terminology sure gets emotionally people fired up, as evidenced on this forum, every day.
The cartel crossed our border illegally, and now occupy thousands of square acres of American land.
Quote:
in·vade (n-vd)v.in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith). 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson). 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
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.
We've been invaded
n-v
d
)v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades 
