Ron Paul on border security
"...real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked." - Ron Paul
On a related note, I really can't understand why this "compromise" bill seems to not address securing our borders.
And for anyone who doesn't know me particularly well, I lived in Vietnam from 1995 to 1998. I made lots of friends while living and working there. So the issue of illegal immigration hits home for me as I have personal friends who are waiting in line to come here.
Regardless of that though... it makes no sense to me why there is any compromise involving the securing of our borders. I mean... you may want to have tens of millions of immigrants come here this year... but I would think that all Americans would agree that the borders should be secure and all immigrants should come here legally. Right?
Tim White
5 comments:
Not physically securing the borders is like not locking your door at night. Don't be surprised if you wake up in the morning and find that a crowd of uninvited guests has taken up residence in your home.
Here's a video by environmentalists arguing why the U.S. cannot become the world's homeless shelter:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069
It's over 10 minutes, but makes a compelling case in factual and graphic terms.
Come on! How the heck are we supposed to "secure our borders?" A big wall? Thousand of cameras and guards? Trillions of dollars? Gosh, wouldn't it be so much better if we could help poor countries improve their standard of living so that millions would be glad to stay home?
Funny how we don't see advocates of open borders opening up their own homes as homeless shelters.
Yes, build a fence, use cameras, and hire extra patrols. It won't cost "trillions" -- more like billions. We can pay for it just by shifting the billions we're already spending for illegals to get welfare, free health care, the extra costs of crime, etc.
Sure, the U.S. should encourage more equitable economic development in the Third World. But their own governments have to decide to do this. In the meanwhile, the U.S. just can't become the world's homeless shelter. The results will be catastrophic.
Whar Bush wants to spend on border security is roughly what DOT has proposed for the Waterbury Mixmaster
Big Business wants a limitless supply of cheap labor. Liberals want a limitless supply of poor people to vote Democrat. Everyone else gets screwed
I still don't get why this isn't framed as an 'illegal employer' problem. If I shuffled off to Canada illegally I'd be denied work and I'd have to shuffle back home.
I'm not at all in favor of guest worker programs that supply cheap labor to u.s. companies or enforcement agencies that turn their backs on employer violations. On the other hand, I think legal immigration should be encouraged. So long as we're on an equal footing, I welcome the company.
Post a Comment