How, exactly, is Campbell a RINO?

Sigh.

Did I do it again?

"Republicans can expect their base of support to be seriously compromised in the future."

In the list of things most Republicans are concerned about, illegal immigration is towards the bottom. If it was higher Bush wouldn't have been reelected. Also, while we're on the subject, if anybody here thinks our borders can be 'secured' they are seriously mistaken. Too much border, too few people.

Hey, it was not that many months ago that Campbell and his cheerleader Hewitt didn't give a shit about the border. Anyone who dared to broach the subject was ridiculed. So, I don't give a damn that he and Hewitt are paying some lipservice to it now. They are only doing it because the are scared of losing power.

There has to be a way to secure the border.

Is this like the politics of pork, everybody hates it, everybody protects it?

"if anybody here thinks our borders can be 'secured' they are seriously mistaken. Too much border, too few people."

Hmmm, maybe not 100% protection, but more than 0% is certainly possible. to say otherwise is idiotic. to claim that the borders cannot be secured to a much, much, much larger than they currently are is foolish. And to claim that we can't take away incentives for illegal immigration (education, health care, welfare, etc.), is also foolish.

Hmmm, maybe not 100% protection, but more than 0% is certainly possible. to say otherwise is idiotic.

To think that our border protection is anywhere close to 0% is what is idiotic. Do some research.

Hmmm, maybe not 100% protection, but more than 0% is certainly possible. to say otherwise is idiotic.

I didn't say 'otherwise', dumbass

to claim that the borders cannot be secured to a much, much, much larger than they currently are is foolish.

I didn't say that either, dumbass. B

And to claim that we can't take away incentives for illegal immigration (education, health care, welfare, etc.), is also foolish.

I didn't say that either, dumbass

If you gave one minute of rational thought to this, you'd realize that if you can't secure the borders completely, if you leave just one hole, then you're not achieving anything with regard to homeland security. With regard to illegal immigration, which is primarily an economic issue with you Buchananites, the economic impact of growing government to such a size as to secure our borders physically would be much worse then illegal immigration would ever be. The solution to illegal immigration lies in things like NAFTA and promoting reform in Mexican government so the country can develop a modern economy.

Too much border, too few people."

5,000 volunteers watchers equipped with some NV/IR gear could cover the whole southern border pretty well.

"5,000 volunteers watchers equipped with some NV/IR gear could cover the whole southern border pretty well.

Unless you're kidding, theres just nothing to say to this.

Do the math. ~2000 miles. That gives you better than a 2-man OP spaced one per mile of border.

"If you gave one minute of rational thought to this, you'd realize that if you can't secure the borders completely, if you leave just one hole, then you're not achieving anything with regard to homeland security."

...

...
....

Okay, I've given it TWO minutes of rational (if i do say so myself) thought to it. Still not sure those words mean what you think they a-mean.

It would be worthwhile for the R's to come up with a plan _anyway_.

If they won't, then the conservative bloggers should.

You can meet the needs of National Security, Agribusiness, small business, and most center-to-right people without breaking the bank, deporting 10,000,000, or jailing 10,000,000.

The question is how much of the 'INS' do you shred in the process. My personal answer is 'a heck of a lot'. Doing in depth background checks of paperwork sent by the Mexican government is pretty pointless - the Matricular Consulate cards are easier to get than school ID in the name of your choice. Having people peer through these papers for 10+ years is insane - demand a finger print and hair sample (taken _at_ the new INS) and run that through the FBI/CIA/et al. That had better not be taking decades, or even years or months. It had better be weeks, or the criminologists need to be excoriated and reorganized.

Do the math...

I did. Thats what shot your premise out of the water. I figured you might be assuming that every point along the border has a line-of-sight of a half-mile in either direction. Then there's the little problem of 24/7/365. Then there's the little problem of not only spotting them but interdicting them. Then there's the problem of the coast line. Now what do you do? Then there's the problem of our northern border. What about that? See the problem here?

Still not sure those words mean what you think they a-mean.

That makes two of us then.

BrewFan - you wouldn't be achieving *anything*? That's assuming the baddies know where the hole in your coverage is ... and that you keep the hole the same, instead of shifting people around occasionally.

BrewFan, your stance is ridiculous. Illegal immigration is a massive problem here in California and almost entirely because we've gone beyond merely having a porous border to actively encouraging the growth of the illegal population. Republicans have allowed their loyalty to business interests to blind them to activity that is intensely against the nation's best interests.

To blame it on NAFTA is really silly. The intent of NAFTA was to create jobs in countries like Mexico so that the citizens there wouldn't have reason to come here. The problem is that the job growth was short lived in the face of surging Asian productivity with a far better educated workforce. Even without Asia those nations to our South had immense underclasses far too large for any economic growth to improve the lives of most. NAFTA didn't create the problem, it just failed to deliver on its promise to the extent needed.

The existence of these impoverished populations is tragic but it doesn't obligate us to commit suicide by trying to absorb them into this country. It just provides an escape valve to keep pressure off of the corrupt Mexican government. Why should we care if Mexico collapses? We should just let it happen and try help put something better in its place. (This would have been a far better place to do it than Iraq for having direct effect on our national security.)

Right now the consumption of public services by Mexican nationals illegally in the US is adding $billions to the deficit of California alone. A few $billion spent on a major deportation effort for five years while tightening the border would mean a massive amount of money saved in the long term. The border doesn't have to be 100%. It just has to be tight enough that the flow of illegals reduces the standing population within the US to manageable size. Then we can start talking about guest worker programs when the need for such workers can be realistically evaluated as compared to the insane conditions that exist now.

For the most part, the problem is not the border. It is that once a person crosses the border their chance of being deported is almost nil. Instead they'll an active network of supporters who will help them get started consuming more tax payer funded services than their own labor can ever offset. And if they manage to produce offspring while they're here then the baby becomes an anchor insuring they need never fear rightful deportation since they are supporting an American citizen.

The anchor baby decision by the Supreme Court several decades ago really needs to be revisited. If a child is born in the US as the result of knowing and willing lawbreaking by the parents, why should citizen be granted to that child at great taxpayer expense?

Ok. I see what you meant. I tried to make my point through bad exaggeration but I stand by assertion (re homeland security) you could never keep a determined smuggler from getting a WMD into this country no matter how many people you had patrolling the borders.

To blame it on NAFTA is really silly

I'd appreciate it if you read my comment before you flamed me.

I figured you might be assuming that every point along the border has a line-of-sight of a half-mile in either direction. Then there's the little problem of 24/7/365. Then there's the little problem of not only spotting them but interdicting them.

Some areas have line of sight to the horizon. I'm not sure I'd waste a station every mile there.

You assume we fire all existing border patrol agents - I don't. They would do the collections.

I still maintain that 5,000 on the line at any given point in time is sufficient to watch the southern border from TX to CA.

In fact I'll make an even bolder claim - less than 1,000 could do the job if they're equipped with small UAV's with look down IR and GPS capability.

I make no claims what so ever about coastline. That is a different issue.

Purple,

Seriously, check out what a typical area of operations is for an Army infantry Division. I'd help you with some links but I'm at work (I didn't say I was working!). You're going to find out that securing a 2k mile long border is going to take more people then you ever imagined.

" you could never keep a determined smuggler from getting a WMD into this country no matter how many people you had patrolling the borders."

Oh definitely. Even NoKo probably can't keep *everybody* out.

Our border security in Iraq is working really well with the suggestions you guys have made.

You're going to find out that securing a 2k mile long border is going to take more people then you ever imagined.

Not once have I used the term "secure" WRT volunteers.

In fact it would be retarded and obscenely wasteful of personel and money to try and "secure" the physical line of the border itself. The east germans tried -- people still got through.

I don't expect volunteers to perform law enforcement duties. I expect them to free up law enforcement to do law enforcement duties.

Our border security in Iraq is working really well with the suggestions you guys have made.

A half dozen AC130's could secure the Syrian border.

But then people like you would complain about the mess they make.

A half dozen AC130's could secure the Syrian border.

Ok. Its getting silly now. I'm going back to the bad poetry thread.

But then people like you would complain about the mess they make.

tough guy who speaks of killing but likely never has.

tough guy who speaks of killing but likely never has.

Thus proving my point.

"tough guy who speaks of killing but likely never has."

You mean Raybin? Or Raybird? Or whatever that loon's name was?

Some responses to Brewfan:

"In the list of things most Republicans are concerned about, illegal immigration is towards the bottom. If it was higher Bush wouldn't have been reelected."

When the alternative was Kerry, who didn't seem to give a darn about the issue, people made their decisions on other issues. But if some other Democrat decides to pretend to care about the issue (say, the junior Senator from New York) there might be a significant number of votes on the margin that could be flipped. Also, a number of conservative and Republican organizations are having their fundraising reduced by people who say they won't give until something is done about illegal immigration.

"Seriously, check out what a typical area of operations is for an Army infantry Division. "

There is a bit of a difference between the manpower required to stop an assault by a hostile military force and that necessary to identify unarmed infiltrators and vector law enforcement personnel to the relevant sector.

Rudy's also vulnerable on this issue. Which is a shame, because I really like Rudy. Have I mentioned lately that Rudy Can't Fail?

Also, a number of conservative and Republican organizations are having their fundraising reduced by people who say they won't give until something is done about illegal immigration.

I like your name. It sounds very impressive. Be that as it may however, your assertion requires some proof because according to the FEC, Republican Party contributions have increased. Now, I know some Republicans are concerned about the issue but my assertion was there wasn't enough concern party wide to affect the reelection of a president who didn't share the same priorities as them.

There is a bit of a difference between the manpower required to stop an assault by a hostile military force and that necessary to identify unarmed infiltrators and vector law enforcement personnel to the relevant sector.

Please share those differences you cite but fail to enumerate. I know its always fun to tell somebody they're wrong but its better to tell them why. I'll stipulate the obvious; you don't need artillery to patrol the border.

SOL has a good point. This is one of the issues on which Hillary! has been trying to position herself to the right of the GOP and burnish her counterfiet "moderate" credentials.

And Rudy can't win unless the Dems run a loon like Dean. He hasn't got the social conservative creds to carry the South. (The Dem influence there is a little complicated.) Tough for the northeastern and major urban fans to swallow, but I think it's true all the same.