George W Bush and Ted Kennedy and his cronies don't feel a fence is a good idea on our borders,despite the influx of illegals,drugs, criminals and other unchecked disease carrying persons into this country,but yet their taxpayed government offices are well guarded,by fences,police officers,military officers and undercover agents,I guess in Washington it's do as I say not as I do
2006-09-02 07:56:59 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
The fences in DC are meant to keep the inmates IN.
2006-09-02 08:02:53 · answer #1 · answered by Duncarin 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the fences in DC are designed to actually keep people out. The efforts at the border are designed to appease people that something is being done. The Right want the illegals in to drive down labor costs and the left want the illegals as a potential block of voters. Wake up, neither side really wants to get rid of the illegals.
2006-09-02 08:25:37 · answer #2 · answered by Pete D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A fence or wall around a building is a function tool within a city. An unguarded fence or wall in the middle of nowhere is just asking to be broken down. What the border needs is more people watching it with the ability to thwart would-be immigrants entering illegally.
2006-09-02 08:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by tjjone 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the cost of a fence would pay for its self in savings to the US tax payer,then build it .But its not very practical.its a lot of border to fence and keep maintained,repairs etc.
The best solutions is to end the war in Iraq as fast as possible ,then bring the military home and place them on the border.They can maintain control and put a little fear into illegal immigrants.A deterrent, a stationary warning of sorts that we just cant take any more of the blatant law breaking and abuse of our system and so it stops at the border .
2006-09-02 08:40:15 · answer #4 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
very few could desire to have examine this questions and extremely few responded it even with the undeniable fact that i'm additionally between them a citizen of u.s. in the previous an Indian as we won't be able to stay a citizen of two international locations because of the fact being American resident we're not from now on Indian yet we can visit our mom land for ever and are loose to stay there too loosing all reward if we live longer i think of , each and every physique loves peace and hate a place the place there is not any risk-free practices . as quickly as I see terrorism is a international undertaking each and every physique could play his or her place . while Malala a muslim female can combat for practise of ladies folk ,while a new child needs his or her freedom a terrorist lives in terror and not loose from its outcomes ,an afternoon might come while human beings might come forward to wipe it from human minds besides the indisputable fact that that's merely too previous due already , there are maximum of ability of destruction to wipe total humanity if mandatory action isn't taken faster . i'm too small to take any action ,yet all style of violent movies could be far off from media so as that we've not got get entry to to them by any ability . human beings can lease merely about all those video clips for couple greenbacks and upward thrust as much as combat with relatives then to next neighbor then at paintings then someplace at procuring mall ,then everywhere he does no longer think of precise brought about by media and components he can get entry to from cafes and celebrity greenback who supply this freedom so actually . Then we try to calm the ideas that's already bombarded with lots adverse advice around the international .
2016-09-30 06:52:09 · answer #5 · answered by wheelwright 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You answered you own question. Bush and Kennedy and every other politician are hypocrites.
Yes we do need fences and armed guards to protect our southern border.
2006-09-02 08:27:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Self-preservation.
2006-09-02 08:56:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I think they should take down the fences around the White House.
2006-09-02 08:33:00 · answer #8 · answered by catarina 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To understand this sort of thing, first you gotta' be smarter than a rock.
The fences in Washington are not put there to keep out mostly harmless people who want to do their ****work really cheap.
In those protected offices with the fences, anyone with business there can walk up, be searched, and enter on his or her business.
The fences are to keep out cars loaded with high explosives; people with guns and bombs; and lots of other nasty stuff.
At the border we do not admit anyone who is willing to be searched, and who has legitimate business here. Mothers can't come across to visit their children who are here legally. Wives of Americans have to wait several years to get permission to come across to be with their citizen husbands. ( I have personal knowledge of this.)
So, the harmless people we don't let come in legally, go where there is no fence and walk across.
Next time you eat a tomato or eat at a restaurant or use a clean restroom, think of those folks and what they risked walking across the desert up to 5 nights, just to give you that tomato or wash the dishes in the restaurant, or to clean the restoom you dirtied up.
2006-09-02 08:10:39 · answer #9 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
might as well ask why congress wont allow vouchers so the poor can send their children to private school, yet the vast majority of the children of those in congress attend private schools.
2006-09-02 08:18:50 · answer #10 · answered by TLJaguar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋