Border Patrol Controls Just 44 Percent of South

[CARLHAYDEN]

Border Patrol Controls Just 44 Percent of South

A new report says only 15 percent of the southern border is air tight

By Paul Bedard

Posted: February 16, 2011

While they've made strides in arresting illegals and building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico line, the Border Patrol only has "operational control" of 44 percent of the southern border, and of that only 15 percent is air tight, according to new General Accountability Office report.

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/02/16/border-patrol-controls-just-44-percent-of-south

[CARLHAYDEN]

That's disgraceful. There should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border occupied by marksmen armed with high calibre sniper rifles taking pot shot at any and every Mexican crossing the border. They're all drug dealers, murderers and rapists anyway. America is not a country of immigrants who left poverty in search of a better life. That ship sailed from Europe a century ago. America is now closed for business.

Hmm.

"America is now closed for business."

According to the federal government (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm) in 2009, the size of the legal permanent resident population was 12,450,000.  Are you suggesting they have all disappeared?

Oh, and how many legal aliens reside in the United Kingdom?  Please provide url.

As to your statement that "That ship sailed from Europe a century ago."

Not too many legal residents (proportionately) from Europe, and doubt many of them "sailed."  Of the ten nations with the largest proportion of the Legal Permanent Resident Population (2008) only one, (the tenth) was European (see table 4, previous cited url)

As to your assertion that "They're all drug dealers, murderers and rapists anyway" I must inquire if you are asserting that comprises the totality of illegal entrants?  Do you really mean to say their are NO child molesters, thieves, rapists?

Turning next to you statement that "There should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border occupied by marksmen armed with high calibre sniper rifles taking pot shot at any and every Mexican crossing the border," I have several questions.

First, are "pot shot(s)" to be taken only at "any and every Mexican crossing the border."   Are you advocating discriminating against other nationalities?

Second, you suggestion that "(t)here should be watchtowers every half a mile across the entire border" is a new one to me.  Would you please cite your technical qualifications for this assertion?  Oh, and once you have done that, would you be so kind as to provide hard cost estimates for construction of those watchtowers?  And, how long it would take to put all of them in place (schedule).

Third, please provide your definition of "marksman."

Fourth, please specify the "high calibre sniper rifles" you advocate being used.  Make, model, caliber and costs.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You're a strange man, Carl.

So, not qualifications and no specifics.

Not surprised.

Oh, and I believe that a few of your suggestions were a little "strange," but hesitated to use that term as the moderators tend to be a little politically correct (i.e. biased).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ideally, they would control zero percent of the border.
That was my troll post for the day. =P

Got to save this one!

[CARLHAYDEN]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

Hmm.

The old Nixon argument of attributing something to others.

I never advocated a 'wall,' but, please tell me just what is the altitude of "pretty high"? 

[CARLHAYDEN]

How high a wall would you need to make the border air-tight? Air extends pretty high up!

We should just put a dome over the US. That'll work, right?

Another one which needs to be saved.

Please keep up the absurd posts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I agree with you Carl, this really is disgraceful. Forty-four per cent is much too high!

The posts on this thread by the left have been a gold mine.

Thanks fellas for finally coming clean and admitting your opposition to border security.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well in all seriousness then, what can be done about it? There is seemingly an iron law on this issue involving the affordability of security measures, their effectiveness, and how much freedom our people get to retain. You can enhance two at a time at the expense of whichever is left out. Or might I looking at this from a badly flawed perspective?

The U.S. apparently has 19,924 km of coastline along three oceans and 12,034 km of land borders if one doesn't count the edges of Gitmo in Cuba. Up north, the US-Canadian border is more than two and a half times longer than the one down south with Mexico. There are many seaports, more airports here than any other country in the world, and amongst the population of 308+ million there are mixed, conflicting signals about what they do and do not want.

It would be great if something could be done about it, but what exactly? Are we not stuck with having a porous border and imperfect security? Is it even worthwhile provided illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy? It would be great to hear your ideas if you have some and discuss the matter but at least from my standpoint right now securing the borders ranks high up there in terms of futility beside winning the War on Drugs or getting me to eat mayonnaise.

Redalgo,

You are new to this forum and are thefore presumably unaware of the proposals I have advanced in the past with respect to border security.  As others can tell you, I have been quite specific.

Now, lets examine your assertions.

First, I am under no illusions that we can win "the War on Drugs," have no interest whatsoever in whether you consume mayonnaise, but do believe there are a number of rather specific steps which can be taken which will dramatically decrease illegal entry into the United States by foreign nationals. 

Second, as to your presumption that "illegal immigration has some benefits for the economy," I notice you omitted the critical word 'net.'  While certain businesses may profit from illegal, the economy as a whole is NOT benefited (and yes, some liberal economists have come to that conclusion after considerable study).

Third, you fall into the definitional chimera that an Illegal alien is an 'immigrant,' which simply is NOT the case.  Approximately half of the illegal aliens in the United States have no desire to remain permanent in the United States, and are more properly termed 'sojourners.'

Fourth, you are quite correct that the borders of the United States are very porous around the entire periphery.  So, yes, we need improvements just about everywhere.  However, practicality suggests that we should devote our efforts first to areas experiencing massive illegal entry now, which means the southern border.

Fifth, you are quite correct that there is a cost effectiveness issue in border security.  As I have tried to make it clear (repeatedly), I do NOT favor a wall, but rather a more cost effective (and integrated) security system, incorporating a ditch and berm system, backed by access roads for Border Patrol use paved with pea gravel (asphalt is too expensive), reliable communications systems for Border Patrol personnel, adequate number of trained personnel armed with necessary weapons.

Next, we need to reduce the incentives for illegal entry, which means enforcing existing laws on employing illegal aliens.  This can be done in many ways by the quick, and inexpensive use of the enhanced E-verify system.

I can go on, and on with further specifics.

However, the question raised by the article is whether the existing border security is sufficient (I think not) and whether we should take steps to improve it (which I support),

If you review many of the posts on this thread you will see that many other are opposed to border security per se.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think we should form a 'border patrol' patrol. We round up border patrols and ship them off to Siberia, deep in the Amazon, the Sahara, or Wales.

Another keeper.

Yup, try your proposal out on the general public.

[CARLHAYDEN]

When I get new information which corrects prior posts, I add that information.

Federal Auditor: Border Patrol Can Stop Illegal Entries Along Only 129 Miles of 1,954-Mile Mexican Border

Thursday, March 31, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey


(CNSNews.com) - Richard M. Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues at the Government Accountability Office (which is responsible for “auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively”), told the Senate Homeland Security Committee yesterday that the federal government can actually prevent or stop illegal entries into the United States along only 129 miles of the 1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-auditor-border-patrol-can-stop-i

[CARLHAYDEN]

*Joe Miller mode on* If East Germany has done it, America can as well! *Joe Miller mode off*

Just what non-citizens of East Germany wanted to illegally enter East Germany?

[CARLHAYDEN]

*Joe Miller mode on* If East Germany has done it, America can as well! *Joe Miller mode off*

Just what non-citizens of East Germany wanted to illegally enter East Germany?

Ask Joe Miller.

So, you have no idea of what you posted?!?

If you are asserting the quote to Mr. Miller, would you please be so good as to provide the url?

Is it possible it is not an exact quotation, but just your interpretation?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/more-trouble-for-joe-miller-east-germany-and-ethics/64795/

I think Andy Barr put it well in Politico when he stated that:

“Miller did not note that the purpose of the Berlin Wall and East German security was to keep large numbers of people from emigrating to the West.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43820.html#ixzz1IGS1aLU8

Oh well, Miller said a number of stupid things after getting the Republican nomination.

[CARLHAYDEN]

And I very much doubt that Joe Miller cares whether it is about keeping people in or keeping people out. That's beside the point. The point was that a general "shoot to kill" order is an effective measure for ensuring border security.

And I return to my original point relative to your initial post on this thread.

Aside from demonstrating that Joe Miller said stupid things, what the heck does it have to do with the substance of the thread?

Or are you trying to suggest that you agree with Mr. Miller on how to approach border matters?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Or are you trying to suggest that you agree with Mr. Miller on how to approach border matters?

Playing dumb now, I see.

I agree with Joe Miller insofar that "border patrols" like East Germany once had are probably the only way to ensure a 100% or even 90% border security.

I disagree with him insofar that this kind of border security would be a desirable thing.

So, you would maintain that only rather bizzare methods can achieve border security, and that since you oppose such methods you are therefor opposed to border security?

Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Or are you trying to suggest that you agree with Mr. Miller on how to approach border matters?

Playing dumb now, I see.

I agree with Joe Miller insofar that "border patrols" like East Germany once had are probably the only way to ensure a 100% or even 90% border security.

I disagree with him insofar that this kind of border security would be a desirable thing.

So, you would maintain that only rather bizzare methods can achieve border security, and that since you oppose such methods you are therefor opposed to border security?

Hmm.

I would maintain what I was just saying. Any further interpretations/distortions on your part are not my primary concern.

I am seeking clarification, and you insist on ducking simple questions.