This, from an LA Times article foaming against the fence.
Which raises a good concern for those in favor of border security as well, although to the LA Times it is the one saving grace:
"At last, the good news. Four months ago, the Senate voted to build a border fence. Two months ago, it voted against paying for it. For the moment, there's $1.8 billion in an entirely different bill for a fence, but even that money may wind up being spent on something else.
Everyone who votes for this photo-op law now gets to go home and campaign on how tough he is on homeland security, voting for a monster fence, never mind that there may never be any money to build it. That's the beauty of it, after all — a 700-mile fence made of ink and paper and hot air. It could be the best bargain Congress ever gave us."
What do you think? Will they put their money where their mouths are?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-morrison21sep21,0,2104216.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
2006-09-21 15:51:15 · 14 answers · asked by DAR 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Yes your half-condom reference is very appropriate. I feel labor pains coming on.
Don't trust everything people tell you about prevention. I want proof.
2006-09-21 16:30:44 · answer #1 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your half-condom reference is very appropriate, but it goes far beyond that. Bush has claimed...and acted upon...the belief that illegal immigration is good for business. He wants illegal immigration to continue to help out his business buddies!
If someone wanted to end illegal immigration effectively and quickly, they would pass legislation making it a felony carrying a penalty of 20+ years in prison for all executives, hiring managers, and human resources personnel of any company that is caught hiring illegals, and institude random inspections of all companies in the US (where the inspectors don't even know where they are going next...just an address given to them before they leave to go there). It would only take a couple of convictions, and no company would ever do it again, thus immediately stopping the demand. With no potential of getting a job here, noone would bother trying to come here illegally. No fence needed, and a cost that would be a fraction of that of a fence, which would be ineffective in the first place. A great example of the effectiveness of fences is the Berlin Wall. People got across that lots of times!
2006-09-21 16:01:36 · answer #2 · answered by corwynwulfhund 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fence is on the places the place they often enter easily. There heavily isn't many coming in at foreign places, maximum may well be coming in at places they are able to get meals and components least perplexing. that's the place they have placed the fence. no longer out interior the process nowhere, the place there are no longer any roads. those would be caught on the roads or seen with the aid of air surveillance. those fences have already decrease the unlawful immigrant get admission to immensely. it gets greater effective, the greater fence we placed up.we can possibly no longer get the completed 2000 miles 'fenced' yet we are able to truly placed some hardships on every physique who tries to return in. No pastime, no housing, no scientific, no rights, no existence. they could to boot stay in Mexico.
2016-10-15 07:02:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
2000 miles of 20 foot concrete wall (constructed like sound barriers along the highways) would cost between 3 and 5 billion dollars. A small price to pay for true border security.
The US pisses away more than that on nonsense like farm subsidies to international conglomerates.
2006-09-21 15:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Seems like it.
House Al Qaedacrats voted in lock step in defiance of the American people to require a picture ID when voting. H.R.4844 seeks to prevent fraud in the election process by requiring photo identification for voters in federal elections. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 81% of those surveyed favored an ID requirement for voting. In another poll conducted by Rasmussen, 77% of likely voters across the country agree that displaying a photo ID should be required to cast a vote.
A vote for Al Qaedacrats is a vote for surrender, appeasement, amnesty, voter fraud and no border security,
2006-09-21 15:53:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
All we seem to be getting for our government is lip service , we have to make it known we are not satisfied with the job there doing, they need to get off there knees from big business and start running the country . Grant it most of our huge corporations aren't even owned by Americans , but we can no longer take lightly what is being taken away .
2006-09-21 16:36:39 · answer #6 · answered by Kitten,Doc 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We need a real fence and real enforcement. The people that hire these people should be treated like drug dealers. Worse they are doing more damage than drug dealers. I bet if we did that the issue would disappear.
2006-09-21 15:53:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like the value's worth of a judgment summary, not the worth the paper it's written on by the courts, hmmmmm.
2006-09-21 16:25:53 · answer #8 · answered by ~^~^~^~^ 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
now that i think about it, that's a pretty good analogy. i wouldn't count on the fence completely putting an end to illegal immigration the same way i wouldn't count on a condom that was torn in half to stop me from getting my gf pregnant :\
2006-09-21 15:56:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Russian Roulette!!
2006-09-21 15:58:28 · answer #10 · answered by Carol R 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋