Bangkoktraveler Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 So far kudos from both parties on Obama's selections. Not much for most conservatives to complain about. Maybe its the honeymoon period but the media can't find too much wrong with his team so far. Seems a good idea to keep Gates in for now till all are up to speed and then get rid later on possibly. I would like to see us out of Iraq sooner than later. We really do have no business there. I can't comprehend a reason to stay in a war that we fought under false premise in the first place. No matter what happens in Iraq, good bad or whatever, we shouldn't have gone in. Although I hope things turn out for the best, my fear is that it will be used by others as justification to going into another country under false premises by saying 'if it ends well, it doesn't matter why we went in'. It looks like the person who will head up Homeland Security is the govenor of Arizona. I don't think there is a person who is more aware of border issues then the govenor of Arizona. I think this might be a good choice if she gets the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 It looks like the person who will head up Homeland Security is the govenor of Arizona. I don't think there is a person who is more aware of border issues then the govenor of Arizona. I think this might be a good choice if she gets the nod. Napolitano is possibly the worst choice, if you want somebody to enforce the immigration laws and make enforcement a priority. But we all know that Obama is for "amnesty" and this "Gov." will certainly try to do her best to make it easier for wets to make inroads into the society. I pity the poor Border Patrol agents, having to work for a boss who will work against them. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 It looks like the person who will head up Homeland Security is the govenor of Arizona. I don't think there is a person who is more aware of border issues then the govenor of Arizona. I think this might be a good choice if she gets the nod. Napolitano is possibly the worst choice' date=' if you want somebody to enforce the immigration laws and make enforcement a priority. But we all know that Obama is for "amnesty" and this "Gov." will certainly try to do her best to make it easier for wets to make inroads into the society. I pity the poor Border Patrol agents, having to work for a boss who will work against them. HH [/quote'] From what you have implied, Arizona under our Govenor, has had the least enforcement in regards to illegal immigration of any State in the Union. I would say that is far true. I would say Arizona is one of the toughtest States on immigration. I would say Arizona has one of the largest illegal immigration arrests per population then any other State. Arizona, I believe, is the only State in which some of the Sheriff deputies and and some of the State Police are cross deputized as Federal Border Patrol agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Just made for each other ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Yes indeed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Limbaugh apparently thought Hellery was a brilliant choice, noting that Barry made it almost impossible for her to run in 2012. Limbaugh cited the old adage: "keep you friends close and your enemies closer". 555 HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 The high arrest rate might be because more wets cross into Arizona than other border states; cuz there is more of a Border Patrol presence. My information is that the gov. vetoed the legislation which would have empowered local/state enforcement officers to enforce immigration violations and that she was against requiring the production of ID to vote...and a number of other initiatives designed to make it more difficult for wets to assimilate into the population. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Getting into a side debate on immigration, I've got to ask the question. Is the border defendable? Meaning, can we enforce the southern border well enough to keep illegal immigration out? I've heard two arguments in that regard. One says yes, but we lack the conviction as a nation to build walls, fences, hire enough border guards, using technology that the military uses to monitor areas in time of war, etc. Another argument says no, we can't. That if we can't keep drugs, guns and other contraband from coming in, we can't expect to keep people out. Which is correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 The high arrest rate might be because more wets cross into Arizona than other border states; cuz there is more of a Border Patrol presence. My information is that the gov. vetoed the legislation which would have empowered local/state enforcement officers to enforce immigration violations and that she was against requiring the production of ID to vote...and a number of other initiatives designed to make it more difficult for wets to assimilate into the population. HH The govenor is against Arizona enforcing Federal laws. Does California enforce Federal Laws? No. The biggest beef was if Arizona enforcing Federal laws, who would pay the bill. The Feds claimed Arizona would. The govenor said like hell we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Getting into a side debate on immigration, I've got to ask the question. Is the border defendable? Meaning, can we enforce the southern border well enough to keep illegal immigration out? I've heard two arguments in that regard. One says yes, but we lack the conviction as a nation to build walls, fences, hire enough border guards, using technology that the military uses to monitor areas in time of war, etc. Another argument says no, we can't. That if we can't keep drugs, guns and other contraband from coming in, we can't expect to keep people out. Which is correct? You have set up a false (and infantile) dichotomy. No human endeavor is 100% successful. In particular, all government programs are only partly successful at best. The question, as always, is cost versus benefit. Are we spending the right amount on border control? To answer this you ask whether some certain increase in border control expenses will produce sufficient reduction in illegal immigration (and drug importation, etc.) such that the benefit of that avoided problem exceeds the cost of avoiding it. Generally speaking the first dollars you spend give the greatest bang per buck. You always stop increasing spending before the problem is 100% eliminated. Catching that one last, most sly and determined border-crosser will never be worth the additional resources it would take to do so. There will be some other problem that will need those dollars. This is how public policy professionals frame these issues, choco. Only children and fools ask whether it is possible or impossible to solve a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.