Land of the Free solves the Easy Entry Problem? the1800 towers

[Jenny_Jackson]

What make you think we need to "import" terrorists? (I think they're willing to get here all on their own.)


(Getting them to plant the bombs where "we" want them vs where they want them might be a different matter, however.)


(I have a few suggestions of my own regarding where those bombs should go . . .)

Well... we could make a deal with Syria and Iran. The US border could be their biggest Terrorist train ground. It's like we'd be doing them a favor too

And what was this deal yesterday where Bush said if he doesn't get permission from congress to torture anyone he wants, he'll have to pull all the anti-terrorist programs?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, just so no one gets the wrong idea, these last posts are purely in jest. Not only do I not want to blow up immigrants, I admire them. There's a lot of native borns I might want a crack at, though - nah, never mind.

I'm sure that applies to the others in this round of rough fun.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

OK, just so no one gets the wrong idea, these last posts are purely in jest. Not only do I not want to blow up immigrants, I admire them. There's a lot of native borns I might want a crack at, though - nah, never mind.

I'm sure that applies to the others in this round of rough fun.

You have a point as far as it goes, Roxanne. Many of the "illegals", "undocumented" or whatever you call them are coming here for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, many are coming her to run drugs. Now we have Latino gangs roming the streets.

The Oregon Prison Population is over 65% hispanic now, most from drug dealing and gang related crimes.

Those are the ones who need to be filtered out at the border.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You have a point as far as it goes, Roxanne. Many of the "illegals", "undocumented" or whatever you call them are coming here for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, many are coming her to run drugs. Now we have Latino gangs roming the streets.

The Oregon Prison Population is over 65% hispanic now, most from drug dealing and gang related crimes.

Those are the ones who need to be filtered out at the border.

The problem is absurd, obscene drug laws, not immigrants. If I was some dirt poor Mexican with absolutely no prospects for any kind of life and nothing to lose, you're damn straight I would leap at the chance to run drugs! I admire their guts and "entrepreneurial spirit." The cynical bosses at the top are a different matter - they are more in the moral category of politicians in my book - but they are not the problem at the border or in the prisons.

Related, I can't speak for African Americans, because I'm not one, but for what the war on drugs has done to their community, they should strom the capitol with torches and pitchforks.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The problem is absurd, obscene drug laws, not immigrants. If I was some dirt poor Mexican with absolutely no prospects for any kind of life and nothing to lose, you're damn straight I would leap at the chance to run drugs! I admire their guts and "entrepreneurial spirit." The cynical bosses at the top are a different matter - they are more in the moral category of politicians in my book - but they are not the problem at the border or in the prisons.

Related, I can't speak for African Americans, because I'm not one, but for what the war on drugs has done to their community, they should strom the capitol with torches and pitchforks.

So, how would you change the drug laws? No matter where you draw the line, someone will cross it. Admittedly it's most likely to be your poor bean farmer with with other prospects, but that still won't make his actions any more legal or our streets any more legal.

To losen up the drug laws will only invite more of the big dealers to operated in this country.

Me thinks it would make a lot more sense to pour money into the Mexican economy to create jobs for the low income population. The upper and middle class Mexicans are already doing well.

 

[Pure]

The fences lives!

Saw this on CNN tonight, though apparently it's a few days old.

House approves U.S.-Mexican border fence By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 14, 6:53 PM ET



WASHINGTON - The House voted for the second time in a year to erect a fence along a third of the U.S.-Mexican border, part of a Republican effort to keep illegal immigration an issue before voters.


A new 700 miles of double-layered fencing won approval on a 283-138 vote, a bigger margin than last December when the House passed it as part of a broader bill that also would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. The nearly 2,000-mile border now has about 75 miles of fencing.

Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the separate fence bill was needed to show Americans "we can take meaningful action to secure the border."

The House's bill last December and one passed by the Senate last May are so far apart on issues that Republican leaders haven't even tried to negotiate a compromise.

The main difference is that the Senate bill would provide legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S., a concept supported by President Bush but opposed by most House Republicans. The Senate bill calls for 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican border.

Supporters of the new House bill said the new fencing would let Border Patrol agents focus more on apprehending illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico rather than having to man the entire border.

"We have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border ... where we're now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," said Rep. Ed Royce (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif.

The bill passed Thursday doesn't pay for the fence. Republicans, estimating the cost at more than $2 billion, said that will be covered in a later spending bill. Democrats estimated the fence would cost $7 billion, based on information from the Department of Homeland Security on costs per mile of a double-layer fence.

"This is nothing more than political gamesmanship in the run-up to the midterm elections. Sounds good. Does nothing," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla.

Democrats accused Republicans of playing upon voters' fears to score political points. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, said Republicans were trying to confuse Americans into thinking " Osama bin Laden is heading north in a sombrero."

 

[Pure]

Answer to 'why the towers' riddle:

The Boeing "Towers" plan won because:

The Towers are very visible (drones aren't).

Second, building them will make a certain company rich.

To *appear* to be doing something and to enrich one's pals-- the two main motives that will account for most of GWBs acts.

 

[izabella]

http://www.lm.liverpool.k12.ny.us/cnycss2/workshops/germany/Berlin%20Wall/Berlin%20Wall%20fenced.jpg

As time passed, the Wall was gradually perfected and became more and more impassible. Altogether it was overhauled four times over. To begin with, it was made up of 12 kilometres (7.5 mi.) of concrete slabs and 137 kilometres (86 mi.) of barbed wire, covered from 116 watch towers, including 32 along the East-West Berlin border. After October 1964, it was gradually strengthened, doubled up and transformed into a " modern border " which took on its final appearance from around 1979-1980.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So, how would you change the drug laws? No matter where you draw the line, someone will cross it. Admittedly it's most likely to be your poor bean farmer with with other prospects, but that still won't make his actions any more legal or our streets any more legal.

To losen up the drug laws will only invite more of the big dealers to operated in this country.

Me thinks it would make a lot more sense to pour money into the Mexican economy to create jobs for the low income population. The upper and middle class Mexicans are already doing well.

You erase the line by legalizing drugs, period. When the profit for a kilo of coke goes from $500,000 to $50, no one will be willing to kill or die for it. The poor bean farmer can go back to growing beans, and he might be able to make a peso at it because his country won't be a war zone. You can close 90 percent of the prisons in this country, and put all that misplaced "entrepreneurial" energy into the above-ground economy, where it can build communities, instead of tearing them down. And if a few misguided souls OD themselves into the great beyond, well, too bad for them. Frankly, I don't believe that any more would.

 

[S-Des]

I suspect that this system will soon be used to keep people in as much as it keeps others out.

Anyway, all the illegal stuff comes in a border checkpoints anyway, hidden in other things and with proper documentation. Can't see this 'wall' changing that much.

We are sooo in love with technology, aren't we? And like all people in love we're blind to its faults.

That's not true Rob. I watched the head of the Los Angeles PD talk about the serious problems with Mexican gangs coming in and fighting over the drug trade. The problem in large part is people walking across the borders (they even showed hidden cameras of these guys cutting through existing fences to get across). These gangs are spreading out to the surrounding areas (he called it exporting gangs). As I told Pure in a separate thread, there are no crime statistics dealing with illegal (undocumented) aliens because the government doesn't keep them.

A 14 year old girl was raped last week by a 25 year old Hispanic man who had already been deported, then walked back across the border. When the news agency asked the Sheriff's Department if he was indeed here illegally, they were told that, "We don't ask that question." So there is no way to know how much (or little) crime (violent or otherwise) is committed by people crossing the border or going through the checkpoints. It's just a guess. Anyone who tells you different is lying. There are statistics about how many people are in jail, but that doesn't count unsolved crimes or ones where the criminals fled the country (we had a famous one of those here where a man murdered his girlfriend, then fled to Mexico where he still is hiding). I've seen estimates ranging from lower than US per capita crime to far above it. But the San Ysidro fence that was approved under the Clinton administration has preceded a large drop in the violent crime in the cities that it borders.

Will these towers "fix" everything. No (and I hope no one is gullible enough to believe they would). But catching people who are trying to cross illegally would hopefully cut down on the crime, the enormous damage to the environment (you wouldn't believe the estimates on the fires started or garbage left by people crossing), and the deaths that result from people trying to walk here across miles of desert.

 

[S-Des]

You erase the line by legalizing drugs, period. When the profit for a kilo of coke goes from $500,000 to $50, no one will be willing to kill or die for it. The poor bean farmer can go back to growing beans, and he might be able to make a peso at it because his country won't be a war zone. You can close 90 percent of the prisons in this country, and put all that misplaced "entrepreneurial" energy into the above-ground economy, where it can build communities, instead of tearing them down. And if a few misguided souls OD themselves into the great beyond, well, too bad for them. Frankly, I don't believe that any more would.

Um, Roxanne, people OD themselves into the great beyond everyday already. You think that by legalizing drugs (especially fun ones like crack and heroine), more people wouldn't? Especially when doing so would reduce the cost and increase the availability.

We had a drug sweep recently here that coincided with a serious problem. There was a heroine shipment that came into the area that was tainted and a number of people died. The police arrested dozens of people who were trying to score, even though they knew the tainted drugs were here. Fear of death doesn't stop an addict from trying to get high. Anyone who has dealt with a family member who is hopelessly addicted will tell you that they will lie, steal, and sometimes assault their immediate family to get high.

I'm not a fan of the drug war, but I do not want my child growing up in an area where she can buy heroine right next to the budweiser.

 

[izabella]

I'm not a fan of the drug war, but I do not want my child growing up in an area where she can buy heroine right next to the budweiser.

Theoretically, a child can't buy Bud until she's 21. Theoretically, she'd be adult enough to understand the effects of Bud, or bud, or heroin when she's an adult. Legalizing enables regulation - meaning tainted heroin would be as likley as tained Bud or tainted spinach is today.

 

[S-Des]

Theoretically, a child can't buy Bud until she's 21. Theoretically, she'd be adult enough to understand the effects of Bud, or bud, or heroin when she's an adult. Legalizing enables regulation - meaning tainted heroin would be as likley as tained Bud or tainted spinach is today.

And of course legalized alcohol hasn't helped make it more available for 12 year-olds who want to get drunk?

My point isn't that I'm worried about the heroine being good enough. I'm worried about a drug that people find it incredibly difficult to get away from after trying it a single time, suddenly being available on the store shelves. Most high school and college parties seem to have alcohol available (and a great deal of peer pressure to try them). Now imagine that with a much stronger intoxicant that is infinitely more addictive. Not saying you don't have the right to campaign for legalization, but I'll oppose it forever.

 

[izabella]

And of course legalized alcohol hasn't helped make it more available for 12 year-olds who want to get drunk?

I don't know - Prohibition didn't last long enough for us to find out what 12 year olds would be doing if alcohol were illegal. Maybe there'd be a guy who knew a guy who could get some bathtub gin to drink on the beach. Surely, someone would know someone who made moonshine in the hills, just as every 12 year old today knows someone who knows someone who grows weed under some lights in a warehouse.

 

[Belegon]

But the San Ysidro fence that was approved under the Clinton administration has preceded a large drop in the violent crime in the cities that it borders.

really? news to me...

 

[S-Des]

I don't know - Prohibition didn't last long enough for us to find out what 12 year olds would be doing if alcohol were illegal. Maybe there'd be a guy who knew a guy who could get some bathtub gin to drink on the beach. Surely, someone would know someone who made moonshine in the hills, just as every 12 year old today knows someone who knows someone who grows weed under some lights in a warehouse.

And how many people do you know who manufacture heroine? Crack? I added to my above post because I misunderstood your response, sorry. Weed is less addictive than alcohol or cigarettes. It's a very poor example to look at in comparison to other drugs. But crack changes your brain chemistry the first time you try it. You have the urge to do it again forever. Make that as available as alcohol and I think it's a bad situation. Again, you have every right to make the opposing argument. It's entirely possible I'm wrong. But I don't think so and will oppose it's legalization until someone can convince me otherwise.

In the spirit of honest discourse, I will confess that I don't do drugs and wouldn't do them, even if they were legal (I don't think). However, I do drink on the weekends, so if they were just as available, who knows? I do have a very addictive personality (which is why I stay away from harmful things), so I fear if I tried them I'd be one of those poor SOB's Roxanne doesn't think (or care) would OD themselves into oblivion.

 

[S-Des]

really? news to me...

I read two web sites that quoted government statistics (and read an interview with a border guard who talked about the change). I've also seen PD officials for several large cities claim the same thing. The wild fires had tripled in the last few years before the fence started going up and it was claimed that it was because of people crossing (whether intentional or otherwise). Since I don't live there, I'm just believing what I read. If I'm wrong, let me know.

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/ucrrates50to2005.pdf

That's the crime statistics for San Diego. The drop in murder, rape, robbery, and all other categories are staggering. It's from the SD PD, so unless they're lying, it looks pretty dramatic to me. Although, those are overall stats, so not being a resident, I can't say if there are other factors.

 

[Belegon]

I read two web sites that quoted government statistics (and read an interview with a border guard who talked about the change). I've also seen PD officials for several large cities claim the same thing. The wild fires had tripled in the last few years before the fence started going up and it was claimed that it was because of people crossing (whether intentional or otherwise). Since I don't live there, I'm just believing what I read. If I'm wrong, let me know.

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/ucrrates50to2005.pdf

That's the crime statistics for San Diego. The drop in murder, rape, robbery, and all other categories are staggering. It's from the SD PD, so unless they're lying, it looks pretty dramatic to me. Although, those are overall stats, so not being a resident, I can't say if there are other factors.

I think that what you have there is a case of two things happening at the same time and that while they may be related, there is no proof that they are.

No one in San Diego politics or news are correlating these two things.

Wildfires...remember the huge nasty wildfires we had a couple years back? Caused by a caucasian hunter who got lost and started a "signal" fire. I think that it may be true that people crossing illegally do account for some fires. I'd be surprised if it was a large percentage.

In my own non-fact supported but observed opinion, the majority of violent crimes among hispanics in this area are committed by citizens of the U.S. Especialy when we are talking about gangs and such.

The fence idea is silly and a waste of money. They will still get through. They need what we have. You can feed a whole extended family on just the money one worker can afford to send home.

Spend the money elsewhere if it must be spent. Social services, etc. Or here's an idea...the national debt is spirialing upward again, thanks to many factors...including but not limited to the war and the recovery from last hurricane season. How about we NOT spend the money!

Or if it must be spent, how about dumping the whole piece into alternative energy research?