Jump to content

Fences Don't Work?


smitty

Recommended Posts

I had recently posed a question:  Why did obama stop building the fence on our southern border?  Some replied that fences do not work.  Well, let me ask those that feel this:  If fences don not work -- then why doesn't obama take the fense down around the White House??  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

protect the borders by ANY MEANS NECESSARY will decrease the ILLEGALs from coming over.

 

do any of the left know what ILLEGAL means....we have dictionaries available on the web

 

the left like to be taken advantage of because that is how they get votes and power....sad sad sad.

 

Saying "NO" to people/countries is a good thing.  Just like children learning the word 'NO'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, just go read about the problems with the virtual fence.   It didn't work and it was mucho expensive.   Fort Knox gold is not protected by a virtual fence.  Have you ever been there?

I applaud your your new-found fiscal conservatism.  But, as we have taught on this forum, protection is a Constitutional responsibility of the Feds.  So, here's a novel approach:  Let's shift some money around to pay for it.  Again, an actual fence does work.  Again, the White House example.  How about we start with the obama phones?  There's 2 Billion dollars right there.  2 Billion could build a lot of fence.  Need more money?  I know there's many, many other areas that money is spent that's not Constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, just go read about the problems with the virtual fence. It didn't work and it was mucho expensive. Fort Knox gold is not protected by a virtual fence. Have you ever been there?


Been there 3 times, how about you? You ever been there? The gold depository sits in the middle of an open field, it has a small fence around it, and is loaded with motion sensors. It is protected by a virtual fence! When the sensors go off, it triggers a response from the guards stationed at the base. Just like the border sensors do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. if we had the money. Plus, you would have to convince the ranchers who rely on water from the Rio Grande.


In most places the Rio Grande is less than a foot deep along the Texas border. Very few ranchers get water from the river. Most of them are restricted from using the water at all, because we have to guarantee Mexico a certain water flow. The ranchers already have fences up to keep their animals out of the river, otherwise they would not have any cattle left. They would all be in Mexico!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need a fence. We need a system in place that properly taxes immigrants and does not reward them with freebies and handouts when they get here. If someone wants to move to the US and become a productive, taxpaying member of society, great! All of us on here come from families of immigrants, unless we have some pure native Americans on here I don't know about. But their being here should be at a benefit to our country, not a detriment. We should be making tax dollars off of them, not spending tax dollars on them. An aside to that, criminals need to be deported. You want to live here, you get one chance to follow the rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need a fence. We need a system in place that properly taxes immigrants and does not reward them with freebies and handouts when they get here. If someone wants to move to the US and become a productive, taxpaying member of society, great! All of us on here come from families of immigrants, unless we have some pure native Americans on here I don't know about. But their being here should be at a benefit to our country, not a detriment. We should be making tax dollars off of them, not spending tax dollars on them. An aside to that, criminals need to be deported. You want to live here, you get one chance to follow the rules.

The best post you have ever posted.....

 

I would add one thing to this....severe punishment (fines, loss of drivers license, and/or any other state or federal assisance, including prison if multiple offenses) to those who hire the illegals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,201
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


  • Posts

    • I don’t benefit from it, that’s not my area.  But the average cost to imprison someone is around $15k per year (on average in the US) and capital cases cost somewhere between $1.5-$3M with over half being overturned or reduced to life in prison anyway.  These numbers may be inflated since the last report I read but I’m sure it would be on both sides and higher on the DP side if anything. So what’s the point?  We feel better because we got to return the favor on someone (hopefully) who committed a heinous crime?  And I don’t know I can say we have “complicated” it. Which appeal should we cut out?  Our justice system has a pecking order and we have higher courts for a reason. When we are about to impose the ultimate judgment, should we cut steps that other cases have to save a buck?  Or do we not pay for an indigent person’s experts at the trial court level because it’s too expensive? Or do we just lock them up and throw away the key (unless we later find out they weren’t actually guilty, in which case we have a key and a life we haven’t unjustly ended) and save a ton of money?  Seems to me to be an easy and obvious solution but I’m more of a pragmatist.
    • 1 thing for certain. Coach Earned 3 more years to figure it out lol
    • @CIS_org National Security Senior Fellow @BensmanTodd tells Steve Bannon how the U.S. State Department and USAID have been sending American taxpayer funds to religious nonprofits to facilitate mass immigration to our southern border. Bensman says 248 nonprofits are participating in the United Nations’ 2024 agenda to distribute $1.6 billion in cash, transportation, food, and shelter to U.S.-bound immigrants across Mexico and Latin America.
    • 👍 Oh. I was thinking most thought Wrong Place Wrong Time. Lol. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...