I'd like to buy Tom Tancredo a beer!!!

[HankB]

Today's Austin American-Statesman paper carried a news snippet which mentioned a hearing about a border fence in the Brownsville, TX area. Predictably "some" at the hearing objected to a fence along the US-Mexico borner because it " . . . would destroy a centuries-old bond between residents on both sides of the Rio Grande."

Tom Tancredo, bless his heart, came up with what may be the ultimate response:

     "If you don't like the idea, maybe you should consider building the fence around the northern part of your city."

 

[Standing Wolf]

I would very much have liked to vote for Trancredo this November.

[grampster]

Me too, SW.

[longeyes]

Tom has been a lonely voice crying in the wilderness for a long, long time.  I admire his guts and tenacity.  He's been right about all the essentials--and not just about illegal immigration.

[theotherwaldo]

I don't like the current plan for the border fence.  In Brownsville, for example, it would run through the campus of the University of Texas Southernmost - Brownsville, and deed everything south of the fence over to Mexico.

Folks, that's part of old Fort Brown, a monument to the War with Mexico, and we're GIVING it to Mexico!

Never.  Not an inch.

[HankB]

I don't like the current plan for the border fence.  In Brownsville, for example, it would run through the campus of the University of Texas Southernmost - Brownsville, and deed everything south of the fence over to Mexico.

Folks, that's part of old Fort Brown, a monument to the War with Mexico, and we're GIVING it to Mexico!

Never.  Not an inch.

I've no doubt that's deliberate, intentional, and malicious.

Bush & Company really don't want to keep illegals out, which means they don't want a fence or anything else to impede the flow of illegal traffic.

So they drag their feet building the border fence, and then the lousy so-and-so's DON'T EVEN PUT THE FENCE ON THE <EXPLETIVE> BORDER!!!

Then when ranchers, UT, or whoever objects to having their land split down the middle, effectively handing part over to Mexico, the Bushmen will bleat about "respecting property rights" or "listening to those most affected," trusting that their accomplices in the media are ready, willing, and eager to go along with them on this. 

[Jamisjockey]

As a former resident of Brownsville, TX, I do not advocate a fence through it, south of it, nor north of it.
I advocate nuking it from orbit, filling it with landmines, and placing barbwire and machinegun nests north of it.  Turn it into a no-man's land.

[The Annoyed Man]

As a former resident of Brownsville, TX, I do not advocate a fence through it, south of it, nor north of it.
I advocate nuking it from orbit, filling it with landmines, and placing barbwire and machinegun nests north of it.  Turn it into a no-man's land.

How about simply developing a national policy that punishes employers who hire illegals, cut off welfare benefits to non-citizens, and establish reasonable border security?

[theotherwaldo]

A no-man's land, fine.

A gift for Mexico, absolutely not.

[theotherwaldo]

How about simply developing a national policy that punishes employers who hire illegals, cut off welfare benefits to non-citizens, and establish reasonable border security?

-Tack on tax evasion/theft for employers. I'd also add a count of criminal trespass for illegal aliens, with felony counts for repeat offenders - an automatic disqualification for citizenship.

[Jamisjockey]

As a former resident of Brownsville, TX, I do not advocate a fence through it, south of it, nor north of it.
I advocate nuking it from orbit, filling it with landmines, and placing barbwire and machinegun nests north of it.  Turn it into a no-man's land.

How about simply developing a national policy that punishes employers who hire illegals, cut off welfare benefits to non-citizens, and establish reasonable border security?

Raciist!   

[roo_ster]

As a former resident of Brownsville, TX, I do not advocate a fence through it, south of it, nor north of it.
I advocate nuking it from orbit, filling it with landmines, and placing barbwire and machinegun nests north of it.  Turn it into a no-man's land.

How about simply developing a national policy that punishes employers who hire illegals, cut off welfare benefits to non-citizens, and establish reasonable border security?

Run on that platform Paddy, and you've got my vote. 

You'll be the anti-McCain.  Instead of a Fred Thompson red pickup tour, you'll do a red Toyota Echo tour, with the reporters stuffed into the trunk and campaign staffers in the back seat.  Your wife gets shotgun, no matter how much your campaign manager whines.

[theotherwaldo]

Hot off of Fox News: how my county is handling the border fence.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354231,00.html

We're gonna call it "levee improvement" and stick the Fed (that is, you folks) for most of the price.

[roo_ster]

I am fine with earthen ramparts, as long as they are well-defended and patrolled.

[MicroBalrog]

Idea:

Make all illegal border crossing a felony.

Naturally, citizen's arrest is legal when interrupting a felony in progress.

This will of course make it legal for the various citizen's border patrol/Minutemen organisations to arrest said illegals.

This will also serve as a stopgap measure until you can finally get proper border enforcement.

(Yes, this is the superior sneering of a guy whose country has been known to use 20mm Vulcan cannon as border enforcement in some occasions )

[roo_ster]

(Yes, this is the superior sneering of a guy whose country has been known to use 20mm Vulcan cannon as border enforcement in some occasions )

Yeah, sure, it might work.  That 20mm Vulcan cannon thing would keep my backside on the right side of the border, yessiree Bob!

But...then the illegals would resort to more extreme measures.  They are already digging tunnels.  I bet they go airborne, next.

What will be developed is a "campesino-a-pult," with "willing employers" catching airborne illegals in netting a few hundred yards north of the border.

[HankB]

I bet they go airborne, next.

Two words: Border Skeet.

[Perd Hapley]

Make that Border Skeet with a Vulcan, and I am SO down. 

[Manedwolf]

I don't like the current plan for the border fence.  In Brownsville, for example, it would run through the campus of the University of Texas Southernmost - Brownsville, and deed everything south of the fence over to Mexico.

Folks, that's part of old Fort Brown, a monument to the War with Mexico, and we're GIVING it to Mexico!

Never.  Not an inch.

I've no doubt that's deliberate, intentional, and malicious.

Bush & Company really don't want to keep illegals out, which means they don't want a fence or anything else to impede the flow of illegal traffic.

So they drag their feet building the border fence, and then the lousy so-and-so's DON'T EVEN PUT THE FENCE ON THE <EXPLETIVE> BORDER!!!

Then when ranchers, UT, or whoever objects to having their land split down the middle, effectively handing part over to Mexico, the Bushmen will bleat about "respecting property rights" or "listening to those most affected," trusting that their accomplices in the media are ready, willing, and eager to go along with them on this. 

Oh, they did something! They built a 2-million-dollar virtual fence. And then realized it didn't work. And scrapped it.

How much REAL fence would that buy?

[longeyes]

The reality is that our Government is on the side of the illegal alien invasion.  Certainly the Feds, many states and muncipalities.  That brings us back to the real underlying issue: the disconnect between American citzen & taxpayer and our supposed elected representatives.

[HankB]

Oh, they did something! They built a 2-million-dollar virtual fence. And then realized it didn't work. And scrapped it.

How much REAL fence would that buy?

Isn't the decimal point in the wrong place? I thought it was a 20 million dollar virtual fence?

[longeyes]

The virtual fence is the perfect companion to the virtual enforcement policy.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, snap!      

[roo_ster]

I don't like the current plan for the border fence.  In Brownsville, for example, it would run through the campus of the University of Texas Southernmost - Brownsville, and deed everything south of the fence over to Mexico.

Folks, that's part of old Fort Brown, a monument to the War with Mexico, and we're GIVING it to Mexico!

Never.  Not an inch.

I've no doubt that's deliberate, intentional, and malicious.

Bush & Company really don't want to keep illegals out, which means they don't want a fence or anything else to impede the flow of illegal traffic.

So they drag their feet building the border fence, and then the lousy so-and-so's DON'T EVEN PUT THE FENCE ON THE <EXPLETIVE> BORDER!!!

Then when ranchers, UT, or whoever objects to having their land split down the middle, effectively handing part over to Mexico, the Bushmen will bleat about "respecting property rights" or "listening to those most affected," trusting that their accomplices in the media are ready, willing, and eager to go along with them on this. 

Oh, they did something! They built a 2-million-dollar virtual fence. And then realized it didn't work. And scrapped it.

How much REAL fence would that buy?

I helped bid on that RFP (and lost).  I coulda told them that approach was a loser.

[mek42]

One thing that the whole border hullabaloo has been effective at is decreasing easy law-abiding tourism traffic to Canada.  Back in high school and college, going to Niagara Falls, Ontario was the ultimate cheap date.  That side of the Falls really is cleaner and prettier, especially in the summer with all of the public flower gardens right along the river.  Nowadays though, you need to pay a fee of $100 for the privilege of visiting our neighbor to the north.  (If I am somehow wrong and vehicle and foot traffic across the border is still ok with just a drivers license please let me know - it is difficult for me to keep up with all the border requirement changes).

I do agree that actually prosecuting employers for hiring illegal workers is the right thing to do.  How about making a Sarbanes-Oxley style law where the CEO's are presumed knowledgeable about the legal status of their employees?