Should we have border security?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Recently I posted a government analysis in which it was acknowledged that the southern land border was not secured.  One of the posters on that thread suggested something to the effect that 'everyone knows that.'

So, the next question is, should we have border security.  In this context, two specific proposals, with survey results on public attitude.

So, do you agree with the public? 

Would you favor or oppose each of the following proposals: (RANDOM ORDER)

                                   Favor Oppose No opinion

Building a 700 mile long fence on the border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         54%     45%        1%
May 4-6, 2007             45%     53%        2%

Putting more Border Patrol and federal law
enforcement agents on the U.S. border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         88%     12%        1%
October 20-22, 2006   74%     25%        1%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/26/cnn-poll-support-for-border-crackdown-grows/

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, it seems pretty clear from the comments to date that most of the lefties here oppose border security.

Interestingly while there has been some comment on aliens illegally entering the country, and substabntial comment on illegal drugs entering the country, there has been absolutely no comment on terrorists illegally entering the country.

Note: I posted the data from ORC/CNN poll to illustrate just how far out of touch with the general public this forum has become.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, it seems pretty clear from the comments to date that most of the lefties here oppose border security.

Ernest, Franzl and I aren't lefties though.

First, I never referred to Ernest as a lefty (and he did not answer the question).

Second, I am insufficiently familiar with Franzl, so I cannot refer to him as a lefty, even though he does seem to oppose border security (his answer referred only to the northern border).

Third, please cite on poster whom you consider a 'lefty' who has posted on this thread in favor of border security.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, do you agree with the public?  

I oppose the fence for a number of reasons that I have stated here previously, but I agree that we should have a border patrol.  Nations have a right to protect their borders.  They do not have a right to upset the ecological, biological, and economic realms in a way that adversely affects all nations.  Anything that walks, crawls, slithers, or swims across the US-Mexican border will be affected by a fence.  Moreover, there are communities whose existences depend upon the ability to move people and products across the border.  In supporting walls and fences, the GOP--once the party of economic freedom--has come a long way since Reagan's admonishment to Mister Gorbachev to "tear down that wall."  

Hmm.

Seems like more than a little historical revisionism here.

First, no one that I know of is trying to keep Americans from fleeing to Mexico (or do you believe that the wall in Germany erected by the communists was designed to prevent West Germans from fleeing into East Germany?).

Second, no one that I know of is trying to prevent legal commerce between Mexico and the United States.  So, lawful exchange of goods and services would continue through the many international ports of entry lining the border if border security was actually in place.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Isn't the issue of the wall an empirical issue of bang for the buck vis a vis alternatives, including e verify, electronic surveillance, manning critical coke points,  and so forth?  The idea of open borders is quite insane. Am I missing anything here?

First, you are correct that there are better (more cost effective) measures than "a wall," which was never mentioned in my post.  The ORC survey did refer to a 'border fence.'

Second, it has been my purpose with this thread (as a followup to the thread I cited) to illustrate that it seems that much of the opposition to border security is NOT about cost effectiveness, but rather simply opposition to border security per se.

Third, the 'invisible fence' (electronic system) to which you refer was an unmitigated disaster and total waste of money.  Even Napolitano has recognized that in terminating the program.  The program (initiated by Shrub) was an effort to divert taxpayer money to Boeing why pretending to work on border security (a ludicrous pretense).  Boeing deliberately did not consult with the Border Patrol in 'designing' the system because they knew it was a farce.

Fourth, E-verify is an interior enforcement mechanism, as opposed to border security per se.  I will be developing a thread on the use of the E-verify system and employer sanctions in a subsequent post.

So, in conclusion, what is being debated (in reality) is not how we should go about achieving reasonable border security, but whether we should have border security.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmm.

Seems like more than a little historical revisionism here.

Granted, the wall to which Reagan was referring was built to keep folks in, not out.  My only point was that we wanted the wall down.  Back then we stood for free international commerce, and opposed attempts to diminish it.  If you don't think walls diminish commerce, just ask the impoverished residents of Bethlehem, who at one time did a brisk trade with Western tourists, enough to pay their bills and send their children to universities.  Now the unemployment rate in Bethlehem is nearly 30% and the tourists don't come anymore.  Now it takes seven hours to go seven miles.  Similarly, there was a time when folks in Arizona border towns could sell their produce to the Mexicans, and buy from Mexicans artesania and manufactured goods.  Not so any longer. Not with that big monstrosity of a wall between Sonora and Arizona.  So we can't pretend that walls don't diminish the very thing that conservatives and libertarians claim to cherish most:  economic freedom.

If our army wasn't so weak and demoralized from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could be stationed on the southern border.  I think this is a legitimate function of the Army.  Mexico uses its army to patrol its southern border with Guatemala, as it has a serious illegal immigration issue.  But to be honest, even with its armies and border patrols there, and even with the severity with which Mexico treats illegal immigrants, the tide of illegal immigration into Mexico is great.  An estimated 400 thousand Central Americans cross into that country every year, according to the Instituto Nacional de Migración in Mexico City, so it's not clear that border patrols, bloodhounds, and beatings are the best solution either.  I expect you know all this and that's why you're keen on building a wall, but walls create too much ecological collateral damage, and they're ugly, and they inhibit commerce between nations, and they send a horrible message to the people of the United States.  One that stands in direct contradiction to The New Colossus.

First, to repeat myself, I did NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT suggest any wall.  You seem to have some fixation on walls, and that all walls are bad.

Second, are you suggesting that attempts to stop illegal smuggling are attempts to diminish international commerce?

Third, this may come as a shock to you but, the border security the Israelis put into places such as Bethlehem have increased security and reduced terrorist attacks.  I will put that above any diminution in 'international commerce.'   

Fourth, its really fascinating to learn of your self-described superior knowledge of border security (ROTFLMAO).  But let me ask you have you ever been to the Nogales port of entry?  How about Douglas?  Are you saying their is NO commerce coming through legal ports of entry?

Fifth, so Emma Lazarus encouraged illegal entry into the United States?  Hmm, I never saw anthing to support that.

In conclusion, please knock off the stupid "wall" nonsense!  Its a Nixonian 'straw-man' hack job which is beneath you.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry about the free association.  That Robert Frost poem enters my consciousness every time the issue comes up.  Clearly you didn't write the word "wall" specifically.  (Although even Robert Frost slips back and forth between uses of "wall" and "fence" and he was a poet laureate!  So don't get worked up over it.)  As for Lazarus' poem, it asks specifically for the homeless and the destitute.  Hard to mistake her meaning, but I'll stipulate that it is tangential to the thread so we needn't dissect it here.

As a matter of fact, I have been across the border at Nogales.  I've crossed the US-Mexico border by car at two places in California, one in Arizona, and at least five in Texas.  I've also crossed the Mexico-Guatemala border at two different places and the border from Mexico to Belize at Corozal.  And I've crossed many other international borders.  I've been made to eat my bananas there, on the spot.  Choke it down or be fined, gringo.  I've had to step out of my car while they spray it with some nasty pesticides.  I've had to unwrap carefully packed artesania and have it inspected, and stand aside as border officials walk all around my car with mirrors and dogs.  Once a U.S. official in Texas spent about 20 minutes with a set of three Oaxaca masks trying to decide whether they were made out of cocaine.  So, yes, I am fairly familiar with the border crossings from Mexico to other countries.  The strictest patrols and the most thorough searches are in the US.  Airports too.  I've noticed in airports, particularly when flying back from the Andes or from Amsterdam, that they have the big dogs sniffing bags.  Not so much when I'm flying back from China or Cairo.

Yes, one could argue that attempts to stop illegal importation amounts to diminution of commerce, but no, that's not what I was trying to do.  Nor was I saying that there is no commerce through Nogales.  Obviously Nogales is one of the largest providers of medical and dental care in Mexico for patients from the U.S.  And I can purchase mangos and papayas at a supermarket in Cedar Falls, Iowa, so clearly we have commerce with Mexico.  I was saying that commerce is inhibited by walls (call them "fences" if you prefer), and yes that fence--I still think that most would indeed call that one a "wall" but it's a silly bit of lexicon to argue about--running between Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona inhibits commerce to some degree.  It costs money, and it's just a piece of scrap metal that will be jumped over, tunneled under, or avoided, and that money could have been spent on goods and services.  Moreover, it does inhibit the transit of several species of animals which are important to the desert ecosystem.  (When will we learn that destroying the ecological balance does have long-term economic consequences?)  Also, it limits the number of crossing points and adds to the cost of transporting legitimate goods internationally, raising costs to consumers and diminishing the profits of business that manufacture goods.  Finally, it separates families.  Traditionally, especially in latino communities, families provide counseling, nursing, and baby-sitting services, as well as a number of other important functions.  Some of those bandits may not end up as bandits if only their Abuelos and Abuelas could have spent more time with them.

Of course it is reasonable to expect foreign visitors and foreign workers to be able to produce the appropriate documentation on demand, and if they can't, then we should deport them.  I think that's a pretty mainstream view.  But unsightly and environmentally-damaging walls such as that in Nogales are more trouble than they're worth.  You can point to a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants, but many analysts will cite the economic recession in the US as the main reason for that decrease.  Taking that course will only lead to the my-expert-can-beat-up-your-expert game.

Obviously we should be working with the Mexican government--especially with the current Mexican administration as it seems to be genuinely interested in corruption cases--to clean up the Mexican federal police corps.  We should also continue to examine our own culture to look for more effective ways to deal with narcotics abuse.  But as long as there is poverty in Mexico, then individuals will be tempted to turn to crime as a means to escape poverty.  You can build more sophisticated borders, and you will only create more sophisticated criminals.  For the amount we spend annually on fences, patrols, surveillance, and incarceration, we could be making great strides to eliminate poverty by more humanitarian, and more effective, means.

First, so a "fence" is a "wall"?  Hmm.  Is a motorcycle a truck?

Second, it was the ORC question which refers to the "fence."  Based on extensive study I find that a ditch (eight feet deep by thirty feet wide) backed up by a berm (from the debris excavate from the ditch) planted with indigenous flora (to reduce errosion) backed up by an access road paved with pea gravel, backed up by radio repeater towers where there are communications problems (the radios used by BP are, like most, line of site) supported by an expanded Border Patrol equipped with appropriate technology.

Third, it may suprise you to learn that hundreds of thousands of people (American and foreign nationals) legally transit the southern land border every year.  So, the "imposition" is de minimis.

Fourth, I don't know if you are aware of the extensive environment dammage done by those illegally entering the country.  I have previously posted an article by the Tucson Weekly, a leftish alternative paper on the subject.

Fifth, as I have previously noted on numerous threads, the term "illegal immigrant' as being synomous with illegal alien is simply false.  Many of the illegal entrants are in fact, soujourners who come to the United States for enrichment, and fully intend to (and often do) return to their homes afterwards.

Sixth, I suggest that your confidence in the government of Mexico is rather (ahem) misplaced.

Seventh, your suggestion that all efforts to obtain border security are doomed as the brilliant criminals will find some way to get around them has a number of problems:

a.) most criminals are pretty stupid, and
b.) in the real world nothing is perfect, and
c.) if you argue that perfection or nothing, then, since nothing the government does is perfect, according to your 'reasoning,' the government should do nothing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

We seem to be running in a brick wall (of your making) here.

I seem to recall a story told by Abraham Lincoln to the effect that "If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a cat have?"  Well, as Lincoln subsequently explained, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.

Next, as I pointed out (and you ignored), the security fence the Israelis installed did increase security and decrease terrorist attacks.  To me that is a benefit that far outweighs the real and imagined economic or environmental impacts.

Turning to Calderon, let me suggest that the United States would likely have more success persuading the North Korean government to be cooperative!

Now, there is no way to "help" Mexico get out of its situation.  Its a failed nation-state.  Think Somalia, not Germany.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Angus,

First, as to the security fence, which you sort of acknowledge has increased security and reduced terrorism (you subsequently try to brush off that fact as merely being "perceived"), then you allege that any and all efforts to achieve security involved "enormous" costs and you belittle any and all benefits accrued.  Yes, there is a cost/benefit transfer, but you are essentially blind to the benefits and exaggerate the costs.

Second, you seem to believe that corruption in Mexico is merely a belief fostered by parents rather than a reality!

Third, installing border security has absolutely nothing to due with indoctrinating Mexicans to trust or distrust their government (your argument there was a reallya  red herring). Hence, it will no "exacerbate" the problem!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, there are people in the Levant who live five miles from each other that will never pass one another on the streets!  They don't know each others cultures.  Many can't speak the other's language.  Their children don't play together.  This is what the wall does.  Is this the best long-term solution to ensure national security?  I regard this isolation as part of the social costs, and the bitterness and poverty engendered is likely to increase hostility.  Then you have to depend on a physical barrier because all rational methods to achieve peace are beyond possibility.  It's like a narcotic.  At first it seems to work, so you take more, and eventually you need it to remain sane.  It may seem off-topic to discuss other fences, but such a barrier between the US and Mexico is likely to have the same effect. 

I agree that corruption is a reality and that it's systemic.  I have witnessed it many times.  I've paid twenty dollars in Mexico City to a cop in exchange for not towing my car even though it was illegally parked.  I once gave ten dollars to a cop in Merida in exchange for not giving me a ticket even when I ran a red light in broad daylight.  (They're very specific:  "Act like you're asking me directions and pass me your map.  Put the twenty inside it and pass it out the window to me.")  I even paid fifty dollars in Tijuana once in exchange for not being arrested for driving drunk.  I wouldn't try that in the US.  Would you?  Well, maybe in New York City in the 60s and 70s, but that's an exception rather than the rule.  US cops paid well enough and held to a high enough standard of ethics that they don't take bribes.  Generally.  But there's more to it than that.  US cops grow up in the US, where public schools have you pledging allegiance and learning about democratic values and the ideal civic involvement.  Most parents are not teaching the children to be afraid of authority figures here.  But in Mexico this is generally not the case.  And I'm not saying that it's an inferior culture or in any way denigrating Mexicans.  It's a beautiful country with a generous, peaceful, and hard-working people.  I've driven the length and breadth of Mexico, solo, from its northern frontier to it's southern frontier.  I've spent months at a stretch in Mexico and have visited 22 of the 31 Mexican states so far.  ¡Me encanta México!  It's my second-favorite country in the world, after my own.  I'd consider retiring there if my wife would let me.  So don't misunderstand my statements about its culture of corruption .  It's corrupt because of a complexity of factors involving history, wealth distribution, and education.  We can't change history, but with time and effort Mexico can grow a generation of well-educated, law-abiding citizens.  If you're keen on throwing money at the related problems of drug-trafficking and illegal immigration, then why not put it into the source of the problem?  A wall is simply an analgesic, but education and elimination of hard-core poverty is more like a cure.

Angus,

Let me begin by noting cultures, particularly in the middle east tend to be very insular.  You suggestion that but for a border barrier (yes, in your lexicon all border barriers are 'walls') we would have kumbaya. To do a world tour (of which you seem to be so fond), could you please explain to me about the 'wall' that caused the Biafran mass murder, or the 'wall' that caused the mass murder in Rwanda (to cite two examples).

Next you presume that that 'social costs' (which I understand to you are enomerous beyond rationality)
are the cause of everything bad in the world.  Too bad this is just an unfouded belief. 

Finally, you presume that due to "wealth distribution and education" (I omit "history" as you admit we cannot change that).  So, are you going to redistribute the wealth?  Further there is absolutely NO data to support your conclusion that education is the panacea.

Lets deal with reality, not fantasy.

You try (I'll presume not deliberately) to circumscrime my desire for border security as limited to "the related problems of drug-trafficking and illegal immigration."  There are a couple problems with that assertion:

a.) as I have previously noted, illegal entrants are not the same as immigrants, and
b.) I am concerned with Americans killed in the United States and the very real potential of terrorists entering the United States through our unsecured borders (perhaps with very deadly IMDs).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Angus,

Thank you at last for coming clean on a couple of matters.

First, I have been repeatedly tempted to suggest that we "stay on topic," in reference to you many wandering digressions.  I did not do so as your posts both form a challenge (like finding waldo) in separating the wheat from a great deal of chaff and because they remind me of a colleague's writing style of many years ago.

Second, my point, which you seem to not have discerned was to provide two illustrations that your assertion that all problems in the world are because of "walls", and that history disproves your assertion.

Third, your assertion that it seems to you that with respect to people killed in the US, "its mostly spillover from the three Mexican drug cartels."  Well, I have talked to the experts, and that simply is NOT the case.  So, yes, you ARE mistaken.

Fourth, I thank you for pointing out that you are absolutely opposed to spending anything for border security (and are fervently opposed to any measures that actually work, because they work).

Fifth, your delusion that terrorism is the result "largely from our unsustainable foreign policy"is wrong and absurd.

Sixth, if you want t 'invest' YOUR money in the government of Mexico, by all means, go ahead (you'd have a better return 'investing' in lottery ticks).  However, don't touch my money to give it to the Mexican government!!!

Oh, and one of the first priorities of the federal government is to protect our citizens from foreign attacks.  They are failing abysmally on the southern border.

[CARLHAYDEN]

To repeat myself:

You are willing to theoretically support border security, so long as it doesn't cost anything and doesn't inconvenience anyone (yeah, I know you deny it, just before you go onto long rants about cost and inconvenience).  Now, the system outlined (a ditch not a moat, well, you reword just about everything), is designed both to reduce cost and ecological damage as well as being faster to implement than the system which the survey I cited, most Americans favor.

Second, you naive and irrational belief in root economic causes which can be cured by throwing money at a foreign country, is absurd!  We cannot transform a county like Mexico by throwing money at it!!!

Third, when you see the results (people murdered, economy shattered, theft, destruction of property, etc. up close) it does become a major issue.

Fourth, the fact that you are NOT discussing the matter in good faith may be seen by your use of the term "undocumented" aliens.  Please, please, please stop inventing your own terminology.

Finally, I emphatically reject your "underlying causes" thesis.  It is a canard!!  Evidence indicates that my proposal works (re Israel, the border in Southern California and other places) whereas your attempt at Nation building doesn't.  I realize you belief that it is oh so sophisticated to believe that "root causes" requiring massive expenditure of taxpayer funds is the answer.  It isn't!!!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I guess we're both repeating ourselves, so I think that I have not much to add to this debate, especially since we're digressing into personal attacks.  Your suggestion that my inability to keep up with whatever terms you deem politically correct and therefore acceptable is somehow evidence of an attempt on my part to mislead is provocative, but I'm not biting. 

I'd only add that it seems hardly sophisticated to recognize that folks come to the US seeking a better life, looking for economical mobility, fleeing oppression or violence, or to escape poverty.  We're a land of immigrants, and the underlying causes of mass migration to the US is something we were all taught from a young age, and there's no reason to think the the Mexicans are different.  If somebody uproots and moves to a strange country that is hostile to his presence, you have to assume that he thought that the alternative of staying put was worse.  This does not require some special degree of sophistication.

Does it require some special degree of sophistication to discern the difference between those who legally enter the United States and those who illegally enter the United States?

Apparently you believe that anyone who can get into the United States (legally or illegally) is an "immigrant" (even if they only intend to stay here long enough to get some loot),

I guess I have to keep up the posts about stolen cares being taken to Mexico (its a major racket driving up insurance rates).  When I make those posts, I will be sure to mention that Angus doesn't believe they are happening (since all illegal entrants are immigrants).

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Obama administration doesn't even want "opertional control" of the border.

The Beanbag Question

High-ranking Border Patrol officials have different ideas about what happened on the night when Agent Brian Terry was killed
by Leo W. Banks

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control"

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-beanbag-question/Content?oid=2620653

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Now what's so bad about dropping some nebulous concept that gives people no way to judge how well the Border Patrol is doing and replacing it by actual statistics?  One can argue if those statistics are the ones that should be measured, but hopefully you'll make your arguments without using misleading partial quotes.

Ernest,

Please stop the dishonesty!

The Obama administration has taken a very aggressive stance against border security.

Their position is that if we don't apprehend anybody, there's no problem.

They have told members of the border patrol they their lives are at risk (as well as their jobs) if they apprehend illegals.

I understand you are in favor of illegals crossing the border, but just say so instead of misleading.

Oh, and the definition of "operational security" is given in the previous reports on border security, and is not as "nebulous" as you would suggest.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Ernest,

Please stop the dishonesty!

Actually, that is what I have to say to you.

I understand you are in favor of illegals crossing the border, but just say so instead of misleading.

No I'm not in favor of illegals crossing the border, but I do realize that we do have pesky things like budgets and the Constitution to consider as well.  No government ever has the resources to do everything it would like to do.  That our Federal government has forgotten that for the past few decades is precisely why we are in the fiscal mess we are in now.

Oh, and the definition of "operational security" is given in the previous reports on border security, and is not as "nebulous" as you would suggest.

The quote mentioned "operational control" not "operational security" and given the gobbledygook bureaucrats put out, I doubt that even if they have defined them, the bureaucrats mean the same thing.  But since you assert that there is a actual definition being referred to, please go ahead and provide a link to it, or them if you wish to define both.  The fact that you couldn't even keep the terms straight in the same post only goes to show how much both are likely bureaucratic doublespeak signifying nothing.

Again I request you stop the dishonesty!

Yes, I know you are opposed to border security, but, unlike BRTD are unwilling to be honest about it.

Now, here's some more information about the federal government turning over vast tracts of land to the smugglers.

At present, as GAO noted, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is 55 percent closed, and the chief ranger at the Sonoran Desert National Monument proposed closing that entire 480,000-acre preserve, on the Interstate 8 smuggling corridor

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/spilling-over/Content?oid=2634939

Oh, and here's information abouta previous closure.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Closure of Refuge Lands
Adjacent to Border
Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

(link won't copy)

Oh, and as to your ‘doubts,’:

The 2006 Secure Fence Act defined “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/jonosborne/february-15-2011/house-homeland-security-subcommittee-tries-create-definition-bo

[CARLHAYDEN]

The 2006 Secure Fence Act defined “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

So it's an imaginary goal that can't ever be attained, even if we closed the border to everything and placed minefields on all our borders and coasts.  No metrics to even judge how close we come to that utopian standard.  So "operational control" is defined exactly as I thought it would be, as meaningless gobbledygook to make people think that those in charge in 2006 were actually interested in doing something about immigration.

Once again I request you simply be honest about your opposition to border security.  To YOU the idea is so hateful you keep making things up. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

You're worse than Shady Brady, CARL.

Considering the source, that's a compliment.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Now what's so bad about dropping some nebulous concept that gives people no way to judge how well the Border Patrol is doing and replacing it by actual statistics?  One can argue if those statistics are the ones that should be measured, but hopefully you'll make your arguments without using misleading partial quotes.

CLUSIVE: Federal Agents Told to Reduce Border Arrests, Arizona Sheriff Says
By Jana Winter

Published April 01, 2011

An Arizona sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce -- at times even stop -- arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/exclusive-federal-agents-told-reduce-border-arrests-arizona-sheriff-says/

[CARLHAYDEN]

As will become evident in the coming month, Jeffery Bell LIED!

You believe the most pathetic lies, as long as they come from Obama administration officials.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As will become evident in the coming month, Jeffery Bell LIED!

You believe the most pathetic lies, as long as they come from Obama administration officials.

If you're going to rant, could you at least rant coherently?  I don't know who this Jeffery Bell is, nor did a quick google find anyone relevant.  As for Jeffrey Self (the article you linked to misspelled his name, which I discovered while googling to find out who he is in more detail) who I presume is who you meant to refer to, he's a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol and while definitely a bureaucrat who had spent six years in Washington before being tapped late last year to head up the newly-formed Joint Field Command, he's not an Obama political appointee, but still in the civil service.

(link - Arizona Daily Star article about him taking command of the JFC which gives some good background info on Jeffrey Self.)

I realize that you are unable to disagree with Obama.

I also realize that you will disagree with me on everything simply to be what you are.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As will become evident in the coming month, Jeffery Bell LIED!

You believe the most pathetic lies, as long as they come from Obama administration officials.

If you're going to rant, could you at least rant coherently?  I don't know who this Jeffery Bell is, nor did a quick google find anyone relevant.  As for Jeffrey Self (the article you linked to misspelled his name, which I discovered while googling to find out who he is in more detail) who I presume is who you meant to refer to, he's a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol and while definitely a bureaucrat who had spent six years in Washington before being tapped late last year to head up the newly-formed Joint Field Command, he's not an Obama political appointee, but still in the civil service.

(link - Arizona Daily Star article about him taking command of the JFC which gives some good background info on Jeffrey Self.)

I realize that you are unable to disagree with Obama.

I also realize that you will disagree with me on everything simply to be what you are.

This could create quite the paradox for TF if you ever agree with Obama on anything.

Yeah.

It would probably drive him to TOTAL disfunction.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize that you are unable to disagree with Obama.

I also realize that you will disagree with me on everything simply to be what you are.

This could create quite the paradox for TF if you ever agree with Obama on anything.

Yeah.

It would probably drive him to TOTAL dysfunction.

I'm not worried, CARL.  It probably would take something like Obama declaring the suspension of habeas corpus within 25 miles of the Mexican border to get you to agree with something Obama does.

Again, you make things up.

Its probably easier for you than dealing with what I actually said.

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

I realize that YOU are opposed to any and all funding for border security.

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

So to save us from toxic Mexicans, you would have us not worry so much about toxic chemicals.  However, that still doesn't put a dollar figure on what you think would be enough to give what you think would be adequate border security.

I realize to you, any expenditure for border security is excessive.

Just be honest, like BRTD and admit you are opposed to border security.