Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You do know that they run drones along the border, right?

Even with the UCAVs in the air--it's still a buttload of border to patrol, and drones do require refueling, etc.

So what? Its still cheaper then the constant killings going on in Arizona.

Here's an idea. Lets rescind all Homeland security expenditures related to North Carolina. If you're fine with an open border here, I'm fine with an open border there. Thats about fair.

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think this sums up a lot of the frustration on the border.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

The Big Alienation
Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
By PEGGY NOONAN
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

That sums it up pretty damn good. +1!

+10. My thoughts exactly on the situation.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Eyes in the sky are more cost effective than planting thousands of agents/troops. You dont have to put a couple infantry battalions on the ground to patrol it.

Guitardian wrote:They are coming over here for work at jobs that need to be done. United Statesians take their citizenship for granted, and like to scapegoat those who weren't born here with their economic failings, poor life decisions, or perhaps just general laziness.

focusedfire wrote:@Fateweaver-

Hey, there are a lot of Texas rednecks that do not want the border closed.

We know that borders are not made soley to keep people out but are just as often made to keep people in.

We also realize what would happen to the economy should every illegal suddenly be deported.

Edit for poster notification

Frazzled wrote:1. Except for the criminals of course, the ones robbing, killing, kidnapping, and raping, but yea other than those guys you're right.
2. Those jobs used to be worked by US citizens. Again, you cannot on the one hand argue for a minimum wage, while on the other hand having an open border.

Fateweaver wrote:
Seriously, the ones not over here to work are a drain on the economy. Hell, the ones working over here are a drain on the economy because of how they abuse the system. Stop providing social programs for illegals and that money could go back into medicare or medicaid or use it to help fund the border patrol.

Law enforcement officials and even innocent civilians have been killed by illegals trying to sneak into Arizona. Close the damn border I say. Again, I'll do border patrol for beer and tex-mex and ammo reimbursement.

Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.

If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.

The best way to prevent the problems that come with letting illegals into the country is to cut the problem off at it's source. Tighten border security and keep them out, NOT change the laws of the US to accommodate the people breaking US laws.

Fateweaver wrote:
I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Fateweaver wrote:International opinion wasn't a huge concern to the conservative Presidents (Both Dubyas and RR didn't give a gak what the world thought of our policies).

It's only been Clinton and the big O who have started sucking the man-poles of other countries.

Fateweaver wrote:
Human rights, sadly enough, are abused in regards to citizens of the US. It doesn't last long for obvious reasons but it does exist.

Fateweaver wrote:
The problem with an open border is that not while everyone coming into the country would be unlawful enough of them would to still cause problems.

I mean you could leave your house unlocked while at work and while you might not have a problem with thieves you are also encouraging thieves to take advantage of your generosity and kindness.

That is what attracts illegals in the first place to the US. A huge part of the attraction is the jobs and the social programs that ensure they live an alright life even though they have no business being here.

Fateweaver wrote:
The one critique I have of Bush is that he had the same attitude about immigration as Billy Boy. He did nothing about it.