2007-07-30 02:36:36 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If there are National Guard at the border there certainly aren't enough. I wasn't aware of their presence there though.
2007-07-30 02:41:10 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Here is a good answer to the immigration problem as answered by the late Nobel Award winning economist Milton Friedman.
Q: Dr. Friedman should the U.S.A. open its borders to all immigrants? What is your opinion on that?
A: Unfortunately no. You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.
Q: Do you oppose a unilateral reduction of tariffs and if not how can you oppose open immigration until the welfare state is eliminated?
A: I am in favor of the unilateral reduction of tariffs, but the movement of goods is a substitute for the movement of people. As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves. On the other hand, the welfare state does not prevent unilateral free trade. I believe that they are in different categories.
Q: Instead of a green card [resident alien status], can the USA issue a blue card which does not give welfare?
A: If you could do that, that would be fine. But I don't believe you can do that. It's not only that it is not politically feasible, I don't think that it is desirable to have two classes of citizens in a society. We want a free society. We want a society in which every individual is treated as an end in themselves. We don't want a society in which some people are in there under blue conditions, others are in there under red conditions, others are in there under black conditions. We want a free society. So I don't believe such ....
As Dr. Friedman saw it, having open borders would be advantagious in a society which did not support those who couldn't support themselves, as was the case prior to the New Deal in the United States. With the current welfare-state, however, this becomes unfeasable because people will come to take adavantage of the conditions, and end up bankrupting the public treasury.
Nobody can argue that under a system such as that of the United States of the 19th Century open doors immigration policy would be a bad thing... after all the boom of immigrants during that time period is what transformed the United States from a backwards, largely agrarian nation, to the greatest industrial, financial, and military powerhouse the world has ever known. However, if we continue to allow anybody who comes to America to enjoy the same payments from the public treasury as all other citizens you are clearly creating a recipee for disaster.
As it stands, I would much prefer to see the welfare-state disapear all together, and thus allow anybody to come to America who meets a very minimum requirement of not being a criminal, or mental disease, or being on a terrorist watch list... in the future, the commodity that will be of the most value will be that of human capital... and as India and China are way ahead of us in that respect, the benifit of more people will allow the United States to remain the superpower we are.
As the system is currently set up, however, it is necessary to keep out those who are coming illegally... and if it is necessary to put troops on the border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, then so be it...
2007-07-30 03:12:33 · answer #2 · answered by Schaufel 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only when replaced with Border Patrol agents....like is has been. I thought all the National Guard was in Iraq, according to the libs.
2007-07-30 04:15:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should be.
They're not protecting anything down there.
There are still people getting into this country, illegally, on a daily basis, in hoardes.
I, in Los Angeles, see it everyday.
The Chinese nationals buy up all the apartment buildings, that they never see, hire a Taiwanese manager, and then they fill their buildings with illegal immigrants.
They don't have to maintain the buildings, up to code, because who's going to complain?
All they do is sit back, and collect the rent, and since there are 25 guys in one one-bedroom apartment the rent is split up and is always paid.
Heck! There's even money left over to send to their families back in Mexico, and then there's wads of beer money to keep them on the bottle.
Such is life in Los Angeles.
Thanks arnold !!!
2007-07-30 02:45:21 · answer #4 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
There are times that I think everyone should move back from the border about 2,000 meters and the vacant real estate used as a range for live fire exercises.
2007-07-30 02:50:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they should.
That's not what the National Guard is for.
The illegal immigration PROBLEM begins and ends with BIG BUSINESS. Cheap labor with no benefits.
Dry up the jobs and the mass influx of illegals will dry up.
2007-07-30 02:49:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope
If anything they should be arm to the teeth and defend the boarder from the illegals coming across the boarder.
If they are being shot at they should be able to return with over whelming fire.
A pistol should be meet with a M-60.
A rifle should be meet with a Vulcan
2007-07-30 02:41:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
And replaced with the military? and increased 4 times, yes.
2007-07-30 02:39:29 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No, I believe we need to bring home our armed forces from Iraq, and put all of them on the border.
2007-07-30 02:43:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Absolutely...just as soon as they've installed a three mile wide mine field along the entire border.
2007-07-30 02:40:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋