Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Obama on Immigration
Obama on Immigration
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
Note the complete lack of detail on border security while the emphasis
on anchor babies and keeping families intact
and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
detailed.
He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
discontinue raids.
His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
in society to fend as best they can.
ScottW
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
Note the complete lack of detail on border security while the emphasis
on anchor babies and keeping families intact
and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
detailed.
He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
discontinue raids.
His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
in society to fend as best they can.
ScottW
Re: Obama on Immigration
And Stephen's favorite site lists the known associates of Obama
of questionable moral integrity...
* littlegreenfootballs . com /article/29934 The Skeletons of Obama
ScottW
And Stephen's favorite site lists the known associates of Obama
of questionable moral integrity...
* littlegreenfootballs . com /article/29934 The Skeletons of Obama
ScottW
Re: Obama on Immigration
In article
<d2e747c5-5354-4628-9fcc-91f3788fab2e@q27g2000prf.googlegroups . com >,
ScottW <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote:
> And Stephen's favorite site lists the known associates of Obama
> of questionable moral integrity...
>
> * littlegreenfootballs . com /article/29934_The_Skeletons_of_Obama
No, don't see the Keating Five or lobbyists for foreign dictators
anywhere on the list.
Stephen
In article
<d2e747c5-5354-4628-9fcc-91f3788fab2e@q27g2000prf.googlegroups . com >,
ScottW <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote:
> And Stephen's favorite site lists the known associates of Obama
> of questionable moral integrity...
>
> * littlegreenfootballs . com /article/29934_The_Skeletons_of_Obama
No, don't see the Keating Five or lobbyists for foreign dictators
anywhere on the list.
Stephen
Re: Obama on Immigration
On 14 Mai, 16:04, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr . com > wrote:
>
> No, don't see the Keating Five or lobbyists for foreign dictators
> anywhere on the list.
Yep, no Bill Clinton
On 14 Mai, 16:04, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr . com > wrote:
>
> No, don't see the Keating Five or lobbyists for foreign dictators
> anywhere on the list.
Yep, no Bill Clinton
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> Note the complete lack of detail on border security
Obama:
"He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
technology and real-time intelligence."
McCain:
"As president, I will secure the border."
* w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416=
efa.htm
Now *there's* some detail!
> while the emphasis on anchor babies
Part of the US Constitution
> and keeping families intact
Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
aware that you are for breaking up families?
> and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> detailed.
Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
> He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> discontinue raids.
I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
> His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> in society to fend as best they can.
Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid? Cut off the ability
to rent or own homes or motor vehicles, cut off any aid, cut off
access to medical, cut off access to employment, and so on? If this
was true, I'd think you'd be a solid Obama supporter.
Anyway, I don't see where it says that either. Given your well-known
inability to think, your extrapolations are worthless.
On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> Note the complete lack of detail on border security
Obama:
"He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
technology and real-time intelligence."
McCain:
"As president, I will secure the border."
* w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416=
efa.htm
Now *there's* some detail!
> while the emphasis on anchor babies
Part of the US Constitution
> and keeping families intact
Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
aware that you are for breaking up families?
> and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> detailed.
Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
> He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> discontinue raids.
I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
> His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> in society to fend as best they can.
Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid? Cut off the ability
to rent or own homes or motor vehicles, cut off any aid, cut off
access to medical, cut off access to employment, and so on? If this
was true, I'd think you'd be a solid Obama supporter.
Anyway, I don't see where it says that either. Given your well-known
inability to think, your extrapolations are worthless.
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> Obama:
> "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> technology and real-time intelligence."
No mention of a fence?
McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
border, and have border states governors certify the result.
Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
thinks.
But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
American people must base their decision.
Bring back Tancredo!
>
> McCain:
> "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7...
>
> Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> Part of the US Constitution
>
> > and keeping families intact
>
> Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
> aware that you are for breaking up families?
I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
locked down.
BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
shores.
>
> > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > detailed.
>
> Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> > discontinue raids.
>
> I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
line for the opportunity to become citizens.
(the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> > His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> > in society to fend as best they can.
>
> Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid?
Actually No. I advocate border security and deportation of
criminals.
Employer enforcement on "new" hires is ok I suppose.
Policies that result in millions unable to work is ludicrous.
How about a enforcing permanent employment sanctions, but giving
everyone an automatic 1 year guest worker permit.
After that the employer is responsible for all costs associated with
staying or leaving. Give people a fixed and reasonable time to come
to deal with the reality, you don't get citizenship or even permanent
legal status.
ScottW
On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> Obama:
> "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> technology and real-time intelligence."
No mention of a fence?
McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
border, and have border states governors certify the result.
Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
thinks.
But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
American people must base their decision.
Bring back Tancredo!
>
> McCain:
> "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7...
>
> Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> Part of the US Constitution
>
> > and keeping families intact
>
> Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
> aware that you are for breaking up families?
I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
locked down.
BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
shores.
>
> > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > detailed.
>
> Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> > discontinue raids.
>
> I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
line for the opportunity to become citizens.
(the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> > His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> > in society to fend as best they can.
>
> Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid?
Actually No. I advocate border security and deportation of
criminals.
Employer enforcement on "new" hires is ok I suppose.
Policies that result in millions unable to work is ludicrous.
How about a enforcing permanent employment sanctions, but giving
everyone an automatic 1 year guest worker permit.
After that the employer is responsible for all costs associated with
staying or leaving. Give people a fixed and reasonable time to come
to deal with the reality, you don't get citizenship or even permanent
legal status.
ScottW
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > Obama:
> > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> No mention of a fence?
Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
and more high-tech solutions.
Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech. Obstacles have to be
reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
> McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> thinks.
As I said, feel-good solutions.
> But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> American people must base their decision.
> Bring back Tancredo!
So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
other. Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
than McCain's.
> > McCain:
> > "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> > * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7...
>
> > Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> > Part of the US Constitution
>
> > > and keeping families intact
>
> > Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
> > aware that you are for breaking up families?
>
> I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
> temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
> provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
> wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
> But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
> locked down.
> BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> shores.
The coast is a natural fence.
It, like boats, is low-tech. ;-)
> > > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > > detailed.
>
> > Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> > > discontinue raids.
>
> > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
>
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
but also wants to discontinue raids."
> Improve Our Immigration System
> Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
> and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
> and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
>
> Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
> cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
>
> Bring People Out of the Shadows
> Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
> good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
> line for the opportunity to become citizens.
> (the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
>
> Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
What conflict? Increase the numbers of those legally admitted. Fine
employers who hire those not here legally (didn't Obama sponsor a
federal ID bill?). Have those here now illegally pay a fine and wait
their turn to become citizens under the increased quotas listed above.
They are only conflicted when viewed through a very biased filter,
2pid.
> > > His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> > > in society to fend as best they can.
>
> > Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid?
>
> Actually No. I advocate border security and deportation of
> criminals.
> Employer enforcement on "new" hires is ok I suppose.
> Policies that result in millions unable to work is ludicrous.
> How about a enforcing permanent employment sanctions, but giving
> everyone an automatic 1 year guest worker permit.
> After that the employer is responsible for all costs associated with
> staying or leaving. Give people a fixed and reasonable time to come
> to deal with the reality, you don't get citizenship or even permanent
> legal status.
What happened to "Go, Escondido!" as far as them passing a law
concerning housing?
On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > Obama:
> > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> No mention of a fence?
Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
and more high-tech solutions.
Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech. Obstacles have to be
reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
> McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> thinks.
As I said, feel-good solutions.
> But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> American people must base their decision.
> Bring back Tancredo!
So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
other. Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
than McCain's.
> > McCain:
> > "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> > * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7...
>
> > Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> > Part of the US Constitution
>
> > > and keeping families intact
>
> > Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
> > aware that you are for breaking up families?
>
> I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
> temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
> provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
> wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
> But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
> locked down.
> BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> shores.
The coast is a natural fence.
It, like boats, is low-tech. ;-)
> > > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > > detailed.
>
> > Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> > > discontinue raids.
>
> > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
>
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
but also wants to discontinue raids."
> Improve Our Immigration System
> Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
> and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
> and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
>
> Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
> cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
>
> Bring People Out of the Shadows
> Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
> good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
> line for the opportunity to become citizens.
> (the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
>
> Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
What conflict? Increase the numbers of those legally admitted. Fine
employers who hire those not here legally (didn't Obama sponsor a
federal ID bill?). Have those here now illegally pay a fine and wait
their turn to become citizens under the increased quotas listed above.
They are only conflicted when viewed through a very biased filter,
2pid.
> > > His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal immigrants
> > > in society to fend as best they can.
>
> > Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid?
>
> Actually No. I advocate border security and deportation of
> criminals.
> Employer enforcement on "new" hires is ok I suppose.
> Policies that result in millions unable to work is ludicrous.
> How about a enforcing permanent employment sanctions, but giving
> everyone an automatic 1 year guest worker permit.
> After that the employer is responsible for all costs associated with
> staying or leaving. Give people a fixed and reasonable time to come
> to deal with the reality, you don't get citizenship or even permanent
> legal status.
What happened to "Go, Escondido!" as far as them passing a law
concerning housing?
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > Obama:
> > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > No mention of a fence?
>
> Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
> and more high-tech solutions.
2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can do
shit on an open border.
>
> Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower required
to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
> Obstacles have to be
> reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
> Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > thinks.
>
> As I said, feel-good solutions.
You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
It in combination with patrols are required.
Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> > But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> > American people must base their decision.
> > Bring back Tancredo!
>
> So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
> other.
> Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
> than McCain's.
If Obama doesn't build the fence he'll have to put an army on the
border.
Even Armies put up obstacles when they want to secure a position.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > McCain:
> > > "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> > > * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7..=
.
>
> > > Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > > > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> > > Part of the US Constitution
>
> > > > and keeping families intact
>
> > > Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts=
> > > aware that you are for breaking up families?
>
> > I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
> > temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
> > provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
> > wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
> > But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
> > locked down.
> > BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> > shores.
>
> The coast is a natural fence.
Boats don't over fences.
>
> It, like boats, is low-tech. ;-)
>
> > > > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > > > detailed.
>
> > > Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to=
> > > > discontinue raids.
>
> > > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
>
> > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
>
> I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
> but also wants to discontinue raids."
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/
Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in
recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and
have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant
families.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Improve Our Immigration System
> > Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
> > and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
> > and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
>
> > Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> > Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
> > cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
>
> > Bring People Out of the Shadows
> > Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
> > good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
> > line for the opportunity to become citizens.
> > (the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
>
> > Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> What conflict?
How do you crack down on employers AND bring people out of the
shadows
at the same time?
ScottW
On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > Obama:
> > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > No mention of a fence?
>
> Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
> and more high-tech solutions.
2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can do
shit on an open border.
>
> Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower required
to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
> Obstacles have to be
> reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
> Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > thinks.
>
> As I said, feel-good solutions.
You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
It in combination with patrols are required.
Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> > But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> > American people must base their decision.
> > Bring back Tancredo!
>
> So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
> other.
> Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
> than McCain's.
If Obama doesn't build the fence he'll have to put an army on the
border.
Even Armies put up obstacles when they want to secure a position.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > McCain:
> > > "As president, I will secure the border."
>
> > > * w w w .johnmccain . com /Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7..=
.
>
> > > Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > > > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> > > Part of the US Constitution
>
> > > > and keeping families intact
>
> > > Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts=
> > > aware that you are for breaking up families?
>
> > I support giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
> > temporary legal status. I don't think any illegal entry should
> > provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
> > wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
> > But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
> > locked down.
> > BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> > shores.
>
> The coast is a natural fence.
Boats don't over fences.
>
> It, like boats, is low-tech. ;-)
>
> > > > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > > > detailed.
>
> > > Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to=
> > > > discontinue raids.
>
> > > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
>
> > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
>
> I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
> but also wants to discontinue raids."
* w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/
Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in
recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and
have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant
families.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Improve Our Immigration System
> > Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
> > and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
> > and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
>
> > Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> > Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
> > cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
>
> > Bring People Out of the Shadows
> > Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
> > good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
> > line for the opportunity to become citizens.
> > (the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
>
> > Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> What conflict?
How do you crack down on employers AND bring people out of the
shadows
at the same time?
ScottW
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > Obama:
> > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better=
> > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
> > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can do
> shit on an open border.
No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
can't do shit.
I'm sure that's what you meant.
> > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower required=
> to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
Nobody said "open border".
> > Obstacles have to be
> > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
>
> Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
> tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
thousand miles here.
> > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > thinks.
>
> > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> It in combination with patrols are required.
> Failure to do both will be ineffective.
Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
spend its money differently.
"It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
A guest worker program would reduce the illegal traffic at the border,
he also said, and free up the Border Patrol to focus on keeping out
drug smugglers and potential terrorists.
* w w w .sfgate . com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG6RNEJJG1.DT=
L
> > > But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> > > American people must base their decision.
> > > Bring back Tancredo!
>
> > So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
> > other.
> > Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
> > than McCain's.
>
> If Obama doesn't build the fence he'll have to put an army on the
> border.
> Even Armies put up obstacles when they want to secure a position.
No, armies put up obstacles when they want to delay an opponent to
gain time to react.
Military obstacles are covered by field artillery, armed aircraft,
defensive firing positions, a large amount of observers and
minefields, which was my point. Obstacles slow things down, they do
not deny access or "secure" anything. Do you know what a "sapper" is?
Look it up. Oh, here. You wouldn't find the right defintion anyway:
sapper
n. A military engineer who does sapping (digging trenches or
undermining fortifications)
* dictionary.die . net /sapper
They specialize in defeating obstacles. The point is, any obstacle can
be, and will be, defeated if there's a motivation to do so.
There is no need for an expensive fence. I was not implying NO fence,
just that is it not a very effective first-line defense. It's a feel-
good solution. Nothing more.
A few bands of concertina wire and a chain-link fence would work just
as well.
> > > BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> > > shores.
>
> > The coast is a natural fence.
>
> Boats don't over fences.
The point is obstacles will always be overcome if there's a motivation
to do so.
> > > > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants =
to
> > > > > discontinue raids.
>
> > > > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that=
?
>
> > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
>
> > I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
> > but also wants to discontinue raids."
>
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/
>
> Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in
> recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and
> have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant
> families.
But you said Obama said that "he wants to crack down on employers but
also wants to discontinue raids." I don't see where.
> > > Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> > What conflict?
>
> How do you crack down on employers AND bring people out of the
> shadows
> at the same time?
By offering a path to citizenship, which is the only thing that makes
sense.
On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > Obama:
> > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better=
> > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
> > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can do
> shit on an open border.
No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
can't do shit.
I'm sure that's what you meant.
> > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower required=
> to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
Nobody said "open border".
> > Obstacles have to be
> > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
>
> Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
> tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
thousand miles here.
> > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > thinks.
>
> > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> It in combination with patrols are required.
> Failure to do both will be ineffective.
Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
spend its money differently.
"It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
A guest worker program would reduce the illegal traffic at the border,
he also said, and free up the Border Patrol to focus on keeping out
drug smugglers and potential terrorists.
* w w w .sfgate . com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG6RNEJJG1.DT=
L
> > > But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> > > American people must base their decision.
> > > Bring back Tancredo!
>
> > So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
> > other.
> > Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
> > than McCain's.
>
> If Obama doesn't build the fence he'll have to put an army on the
> border.
> Even Armies put up obstacles when they want to secure a position.
No, armies put up obstacles when they want to delay an opponent to
gain time to react.
Military obstacles are covered by field artillery, armed aircraft,
defensive firing positions, a large amount of observers and
minefields, which was my point. Obstacles slow things down, they do
not deny access or "secure" anything. Do you know what a "sapper" is?
Look it up. Oh, here. You wouldn't find the right defintion anyway:
sapper
n. A military engineer who does sapping (digging trenches or
undermining fortifications)
* dictionary.die . net /sapper
They specialize in defeating obstacles. The point is, any obstacle can
be, and will be, defeated if there's a motivation to do so.
There is no need for an expensive fence. I was not implying NO fence,
just that is it not a very effective first-line defense. It's a feel-
good solution. Nothing more.
A few bands of concertina wire and a chain-link fence would work just
as well.
> > > BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> > > shores.
>
> > The coast is a natural fence.
>
> Boats don't over fences.
The point is obstacles will always be overcome if there's a motivation
to do so.
> > > > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants =
to
> > > > > discontinue raids.
>
> > > > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that=
?
>
> > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
>
> > I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
> > but also wants to discontinue raids."
>
> * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/immigration/
>
> Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in
> recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and
> have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant
> families.
But you said Obama said that "he wants to crack down on employers but
also wants to discontinue raids." I don't see where.
> > > Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
>
> > What conflict?
>
> How do you crack down on employers AND bring people out of the
> shadows
> at the same time?
By offering a path to citizenship, which is the only thing that makes
sense.
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 12:35 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > > Obama:
> > > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology o=
n
> > > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with bett=
er
> > > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground=
> > > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> > 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can d=
o
> > shit on an open border.
>
> No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
> can't do shit.
Think we might give 'em some radio and have some backup ready?
>
> I'm sure that's what you meant.
You aren't sure where your head it.
>
> > > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> > and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower requir=
ed
> > to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
>
> Nobody said "open border".
How do you plan to secure it? A man every 50'?
>
> > > Obstacles have to be
> > > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.=
>
> > Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
> > tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
>
> In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
> thousand miles here.
It's still more efficient than by manpower alone.
Large stretches of fence can be patrolled by air.
You can't secure the border by air.
>
> > > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > > thinks.
>
> > > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> > You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> > It in combination with patrols are required.
> > Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
> studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
> spend its money differently.
>
> "It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
> better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
> If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
> would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
A million opinions. I agree that ultimately we have to eliminate
the lure of jobs as well as securing the border.
ScottW
On May 15, 12:35 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > > Obama:
> > > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology o=
n
> > > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with bett=
er
> > > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground=
> > > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> > 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can d=
o
> > shit on an open border.
>
> No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
> can't do shit.
Think we might give 'em some radio and have some backup ready?
>
> I'm sure that's what you meant.
You aren't sure where your head it.
>
> > > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> > and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower requir=
ed
> > to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
>
> Nobody said "open border".
How do you plan to secure it? A man every 50'?
>
> > > Obstacles have to be
> > > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.=
>
> > Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that
> > tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
>
> In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
> thousand miles here.
It's still more efficient than by manpower alone.
Large stretches of fence can be patrolled by air.
You can't secure the border by air.
>
> > > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > > thinks.
>
> > > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> > You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> > It in combination with patrols are required.
> > Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
> studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
> spend its money differently.
>
> "It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
> better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
> If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
> would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
A million opinions. I agree that ultimately we have to eliminate
the lure of jobs as well as securing the border.
ScottW
Re: Obama on Immigration
On May 15, 3:10 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:35 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > > > Obama:
> > > > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology=
on
> > > > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with be=
tter
> > > > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > > > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the grou=
nd
> > > > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> > > 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can=
do
> > > shit on an open border.
>
> > No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
> > can't do shit.
>
> Think we might give 'em some radio and have some backup ready?
So your solution is: have a couple guys out on ATVs. If they happen to
see something, they "call 'em in" (you try to sound so manly, yet you
end up sounding only dumb). These reinforcements, however far away
they are, are on-call to scramble on a moment's notice and are near
enough to get there in time to make a difference. They arrive in
plenty of time to "secure" the area.
LOL!
> > I'm sure that's what you meant.
>
> You aren't sure where your head it.
A new sentence structure. Meaningless as always, but new.
> > > > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> > > and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower requ=
ired
> > > to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
>
> > Nobody said "open border".
>
> How do you plan to secure it? A man every 50'?
If you want to "secure" the border, it's going to take one hell of a
lot of manpower. If you knew jack shit, you'd know that. Aircraft,
sensors, and everything else will only detect. To *secure* you need
manpower. End of that discussion.
Don't forget, if it is one man every 50 feet, it's actually three men
every 50 feet (you do, I presume, want operations to go 24/7) plus
support and supervisory people.
Get it yet, 2pid? It's going to take one hell of a lot of people. And
that's the only way to "secure" the border. Otherwise it's all just
bullshit and eyewash. You know, "feel-good" stuff like fences.
> > > > Obstacles have to be
> > > > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successfu=
l.
>
> > > Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that=
> > > tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
>
> > In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
> > thousand miles here.
>
> It's still more efficient than by manpower alone.
> Large stretches of fence can be patrolled by air.
> You can't secure the border by air.
As I said, throw some concertina and some chain link fence up. Add
some sensors and a *lot* of manpower and you *might* have a chance.
Aircraft can only *detect*. What happens after they detect something?
A call goes in to a platoon in Sand Diego, they get airdropped in and
make the arrest? LOL! Nope. You need people in large enough numbers
and close enough to wherever something was detected and to react
quickly to do any good whatsoever.
> > > > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > > > thinks.
>
> > > > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> > > You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> > > It in combination with patrols are required.
> > > Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> > Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
> > studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
> > spend its money differently.
>
> > "It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
> > better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
> > If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
> > would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
>
> A million opinions. I agree that ultimately we have to eliminate
> the lure of jobs as well as securing the border.
To paraphrase the professor's intent: If we lower our wages to their
level, the flow will stop. ;-)
On May 15, 3:10 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 15, 12:35 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 15, 2:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 12:12 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 15, 8:27 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 14, 2:39 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > * w w w .barackobama . com /issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > > > > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > > > > > Obama:
> > > > > > "He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology=
on
> > > > > > the border and at our ports of entry. Obama believes we need
> > > > > > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with be=
tter
> > > > > > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> > > > > No mention of a fence?
>
> > > > Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the grou=
nd
> > > > and more high-tech solutions.
>
> > > 2 guys with ATVs can effectively police lots of fence. Then can=
do
> > > shit on an open border.
>
> > No, two guys can look at lots of fence. If they see something two guys
> > can't do shit.
>
> Think we might give 'em some radio and have some backup ready?
So your solution is: have a couple guys out on ATVs. If they happen to
see something, they "call 'em in" (you try to sound so manly, yet you
end up sounding only dumb). These reinforcements, however far away
they are, are on-call to scramble on a moment's notice and are near
enough to get there in time to make a difference. They arrive in
plenty of time to "secure" the area.
LOL!
> > I'm sure that's what you meant.
>
> You aren't sure where your head it.
A new sentence structure. Meaningless as always, but new.
> > > > Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech.
>
> > > and effective. They do need to be manned, but the manpower requ=
ired
> > > to police an open border is orders of magnitude greater.
>
> > Nobody said "open border".
>
> How do you plan to secure it? A man every 50'?
If you want to "secure" the border, it's going to take one hell of a
lot of manpower. If you knew jack shit, you'd know that. Aircraft,
sensors, and everything else will only detect. To *secure* you need
manpower. End of that discussion.
Don't forget, if it is one man every 50 feet, it's actually three men
every 50 feet (you do, I presume, want operations to go 24/7) plus
support and supervisory people.
Get it yet, 2pid? It's going to take one hell of a lot of people. And
that's the only way to "secure" the border. Otherwise it's all just
bullshit and eyewash. You know, "feel-good" stuff like fences.
> > > > Obstacles have to be
> > > > reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successfu=
l.
>
> > > Obstacles have to be patrolled. Every institution I know of that=
> > > tries to keep people in or out employs obstacles.
>
> > In small, defined areas like prisons, sure. You're talking a couple of
> > thousand miles here.
>
> It's still more efficient than by manpower alone.
> Large stretches of fence can be patrolled by air.
> You can't secure the border by air.
As I said, throw some concertina and some chain link fence up. Add
some sensors and a *lot* of manpower and you *might* have a chance.
Aircraft can only *detect*. What happens after they detect something?
A call goes in to a platoon in Sand Diego, they get airdropped in and
make the arrest? LOL! Nope. You need people in large enough numbers
and close enough to wherever something was detected and to react
quickly to do any good whatsoever.
> > > > Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
>
> > > > > McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> > > > > border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> > > > > Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> > > > > thinks.
>
> > > > As I said, feel-good solutions.
>
> > > You don't put a fence out there and walk away.
> > > It in combination with patrols are required.
> > > Failure to do both will be ineffective.
>
> > Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology at Princeton University who
> > studies the border and illegal immigration, said the government should
> > spend its money differently.
>
> > "It's a waste of money," he said. "If you want to increase security,
> > better to use some of that money for ports and transportation systems.
> > If you want to lower the rate of Mexican immigration to the U.S., I
> > would spend it on development assistance for Mexico."
>
> A million opinions. I agree that ultimately we have to eliminate
> the lure of jobs as well as securing the border.
To paraphrase the professor's intent: If we lower our wages to their
level, the flow will stop. ;-)
