| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Dems attempting to scrap border security fence |
| 2006-11-16 |
| Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority. He said that the high technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBI Net -- essentially a set of monitors, cameras and other integrated surveillance systems to monitor the border -- was a viable alternative. "We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net," he said, "A virtual fence rather than a real one." Virtual Fence to keep out virtual illegals. Problem is it requires real fences to keep out the real illegals. Fences are cheap compared to nebulous tech solutions, so less money available for porkers to distribute except along the border - with a virtual fences they can steer funding and kickbacks easier to "virtual" companies on the "virtual" fence in their home districts, like say, San Fran, or NY. Sad thing is the bureaucracy in DC, including |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #20 Whoo hoo! Glese Angins5695|, you have a sneaky mind! Are you perchance related to the legal profession in some capacity? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-16 23:37 |
| #19 Has somebody hi-jacked the "Perfesser" nym? Doesn't sound like our Perfesser. Lou's never faced concertina, or likely anything else, before. Troll. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-16 23:22 |
| #18 If you need a example of how a wall works look at Israel's use of them to keep the palieo mass murderers out. Work great. Doesn't stop absolutely all of them but it greatly reduces them. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-11-16 22:39 |
| #17 Get a group shot. The Donks want to revisit the minimum wage. Considering that the unlimited labor provided by the uncontrolled border means that the natural aspect of wages rising by limited manpower has been trashed by government ignoring its responsibility to maintain the border, let us, indeed address the minimum wage. It is already tiered into non-agricultural and agricultural, let there be a new level for illegals. Make it three, hey, why not four times that of employing an American. Of course it is not expected the government to enforce it, so contract it out to torte lawyers to do the work. Triple damages for the individual and full legal costs, to include the torte lawyers hours, where the employer is found to have failed to pay to government established rate. Sic a dog on a dog. Donks should be happy cause they get to deliver a minimum wage increase. The Trucks are happy cause they donÂ’t need to add more government for enforcement. And torte lawyers are happy just to stick it to someone. |
| Posted by: Glese Angins5695 2006-11-16 22:32 |
| #16 Someone here mentioned this before and I think it bears repeating: We need to make the system of financial remittance back to Mexico unavailable to illegals. If illegal aliens are unable to support those that they have left behind, it creates a strong disincentive for them to come here in the first place. We face a similar but different problem with the Islamic halawah network. Both of these monetary export tools need to be choked off in order to improve our national security. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-16 22:09 |
| #15 Leigh -that's the other half of the problem> the FBI *must* start hitting the Home Depots and construction sited, and carting them back to Mexico. Once the fence it up, the return will not be so laughably easy. And the employers, who are knowingly breaking the laws and endangering the nation, MUST be punished the way all criminals are. You cannot have border security without internal enforcement, nor vice versa. That being said, we must find a way to let honest, hard working people into the country if they have an intent to become citizens and assimilate. If my immigrant forebears had to face the stunningly stupid array of paperwork, bureaucracy, and huge costs that now face those who wish to come in, they never would have made it. there has to be some accounting for justice in the immigration policy. It must be firm: do not break the law, do not be a burden on the social systems in the nation, earn and contribute to our nation (pay taxes, serve in the military, etc), learn English, and assimilate. but it also must be fair: anyone willing and able to do such a thing should be allowed in as long as they can demonstrate all of the above and have a sponsor - and agree to tracking to make sure they are keeping their side of the deal. But before that happens, we must secure the border and enforce the laws. Otherwise all the "justice" is meaningless - those playing by the rules will get screwed by the cheaters who sneak across the open borders. That's why its broken now - it rewards lawbreakers, and punishes the lawful. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-16 21:49 |
| #14 As I pointed out, the funds for the fence must include patrols and reaction forces. They have already jumped up the funding for that, and for increased number of holding beds for those the catch prior to tossing them back over the fence. I disagree with your position regarding detterence and the ilelgal's determination to cross. The risks incurred in getting to the border are not comprarable to those involved in forcing an illegal crossing of a secured fenced patrolled border. Riding rails against lax and corrupt Mexican police is laughable compared to getting through a properly engineered fence line. They have already proven their worth as a deterrent around several areas, including San Diego. They will be most effective in urban and suburban areas, and in completely isolated flat wilderness areas (oddly enough). Rocky areas, and rural areas will be the last place these fences woudl go. And in some places, a sensor-line backed up by QRF and patrols will be enough. Reduction of numbers crossing caused by the fences will make those remaining crossing "light up" far more - essentially lowering the background noise so that the signal (illegals) are more isolated and stand out. The fence has a dual purpose: deterrence and obstruction. If there is enough of it, it can serve both functions well. Think of it in terms of the way the military uses a minefield. Its not there to blow up the bad guys so much as it is to slow them down and force their advances into avenues and terrain where we can better handle them. Fences allow us to channel and chop, and make for very good economies of force. Kinda like Leonidas used the terrain around Thermopylae to channel and chop Xerxes' Persians. Hopefully not with the same costs the 300 Spartans (and the attached Thespians) incurred. Fences like these will shape the battlefield (border) into something that can be secured and managed. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-16 21:42 |
| #13 Insisting on "enforcement" on employers to resolve the employment of illegals is just fantasy. Just drive past any home depot in the morning. You think the FBI is going to arrest the guys that show up in trucks to hire them. Build a fence. Deport them. Illegal means that they are breaking the law to be here. Take their illegal gains while you are at it. Send them home pennyless. |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-11-16 21:39 |
| #12 Lou's right - we shouldn't even try to stop the flood. Welcome our new 3rd world overlords idiot |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-16 21:36 |
| #11 Lou, people with guns kill people, fences don't. wink wink |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-16 20:52 |
| #10 Watch out Rex, Lou tends to be sweaty when laughed at. |
| Posted by: Rhoda 2006-11-16 20:07 |
| #9 You want to stop illegals, fine employers that hire them. The fence is a dumb, expensive idea. Take the money and put it into airport infrastructure, or better yet, rail. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-11-16 18:42 |
| #8 Thanks OldSpook. A couple of observations: An illegal's arduous journey to El Norte sometimes involves riding the rails. If you can survive that, you will not be detered by a fence. Considering that there are millions of illegals on the inside, I'm sure that a determination of that magnitude will create some breaches somewhere, even if it is a slow process. Which brings up the second point. Does this fence come with an increased border security presence and the funds to maintain it? We are not talking about stopping two or three people from getting through. If the shit hits the fans in Mexico even further, not even a triple decker super duper califragilisticexpialidocious fence will stop that wave. Rex Mundi, if only we were as smart as you...one can only dream. Why didn't you run for office? I would've voted for ya!! |
| Posted by: Lou 2006-11-16 18:17 |
| #7 LOL Rex! A fine hand with the teaching moment there. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-11-16 17:49 |
| #6 Lou: It works. You need to study WHY fences exist. They are barriers to slow and channel people away from where you do not want them to go. This isn't you mom's back yard picket fence. They are made from metal slats, which are nothing at all like the chain-link fences you see in most places. They have "tanglefoot" barbed wire around the bases, and razor-wire concertina along the tops. They have concrete posts and barriers that extend for yards underground to prevent digging under then. On top of that, there a set of 3 fences, separated by space and observation areas. So you have to breach *3* obstacles. Now if you are determined enough, you can get thru/over/under eventually. But the problem for you as the intruder is that this takes time, and it disturbs the area. Which brings me to the last point: these fences are sensor-ed and patrolled. So not only do you have to beat the fences, you have to beat them before the patrols show up, or before the reaction force shows up because they got an alarm on the sensors. Furthermore, in most areas of the border, there are large open spaces to be crossed after you breach. So you'll be vulnerable to the patrols and reaction forces IR detection gear. The primary function of this fences is to make it so hard to cross in these places that you try to find another way - you get "deflected" into areas where your chances of getting busted are higher (border checkpoints), or else the terrain and countryside are so hostile as to put you life at severe risk, or so difficult that your progress is very slow, and more likely to be detected (and then caught). In all cases, it definitely deters and slows down illegals in both directions. I suggest you ask your local Army combat engineer about barriers, breaching and security. And there's your education for the day. You have no excuses now. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-16 17:27 |
| #5 Here's a demonstration you can take part in: Choose a wall - any wall; run straight at it until impact. Report your observations back to us here at the 'burg. Thanks for playing. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-11-16 17:09 |
| #4 Could someone explain to me how a fence will stop illegals from getting through? |
| Posted by: Lou 2006-11-16 16:51 |
| #3 One word, traitors. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-11-16 15:58 |
| #2 Might be able to make a dent in the budget deficit by charging a tag fee (no limit) on hunting licenses. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-11-16 15:43 |
| #1 I would be willing to compromise if by virtual they mean mine fields, hellfire missiles, and remote-controlled machine guns. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-11-16 15:23 |