Romney wants to revisit high-tech border fence

[wickedsolo]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/romney/

“As I have said many times, it is critical that we redouble our efforts to secure the borders,” Romney said to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on Thursday. “That means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa. We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement an improved exit verification system.”

As well know...illegal immigration is a problem in this country.


Hey Mitt, here's a thought: START SHUTTING DOWN SUPERFLUOUS MILITARY INSTALLATIONS OVERSEAS & INCREASE MILITARY PRESENCE ACROSS THE US-MEXICAN BORDER AND THE US-CANADIAN BORDER. Guess what else is nice about this thought? Cuts the defense budget down as well.

2 birds, 1 stone.

[HoustonRaven]

Posse Comitatus makes that illegal.

The military cannot engage in domestic law enforcement unless during national emergency.

The National Guard could be called in on a state-by-state basis, but that's at the whim of the Governors.

[wickedsolo]

Posse Comitatus makes that illegal.

The military cannot engage in domestic law enforcement unless during national emergency.

The National Guard could be called in on a state-by-state basis, but that's at the whim of the Governors.

You could argue that Cartel activity warrants "National Emergency".

[HoustonRaven]

You could argue that Cartel activity warrants "National Emergency".

A president did just that, using this hyperbole and declaring drugs are a threat to national security. His name was George H.W. Bush and it lead to an escalation in the so-called "War on Drugs".

Unmitigated failure.

Not to mention, I don't want troops doing something they are not supposed to do, trained to do or philosophically should not be doing. It's tyrannical.

[wickedsolo]

A president did just that, using this hyperbole and declaring drugs are a threat to national security. His name was George H.W. Bush and it lead to an escalation in the so-called "War on Drugs".

Unmitigated failure.

Not to mention, I don't want troops doing something they are not supposed to do, trained to do or philosophically should not be doing. It's tyrannical.

Then call me T-Rex baby.

[TheExtraPoint]

Just so were clear, this is Mitt Romney arguing for MASSIVE federal infrastructure spending, right?

[wickedsolo]

A president did just that, using this hyperbole and declaring drugs are a threat to national security. His name was George H.W. Bush and it lead to an escalation in the so-called "War on Drugs".

Unmitigated failure.

Not to mention, I don't want troops doing something they are not supposed to do, trained to do or philosophically should not be doing. It's tyrannical.

And just so you know, I understand where you're coming from with that and it certainly makes sense.

[wickedsolo]

Just so were clear, this is Mitt Romney arguing for MASSIVE federal infrastructure spending, right?

So it would seem...

[NCRAVEN]

Just so were clear, this is Mitt Romney arguing for MASSIVE federal infrastructure spending, right?

Do you oppose it?

[TheExtraPoint]

Do you oppose it?

In practice, I support a super high-tech fence on BOTH borders, with gunships and moats and sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their friggin' heads.

Pragmatically, I only support things that are paid for or which at least have the potential of generating revenue themselves, and this falls into neither category in Mitt Romney's America.

I also support stimulus, infrastructure spending, and revenue creation in a slow-growth economy. My view is not nearly so myopic as to view any of these elements as exclusively forces of good or evil in government economics. That's a neo-conservative racket.

Of course my opinions are entirely irrelevant. I point this out simply because I wonder how the Republican party would interpret this if they understood it for what it is - a significant federal infrastructure project the likes of which they have obstructed at every opportunity over the last four years on the curious basis of removing the President from office.

Perhaps more importantly however, building a high-tech fence doesn't deal with the issue of tens of millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Conveniently, Mitt hasn't weighed in on the Preisdent's executive action earlier this week on a substantive level, instead choosing to qualify it as "politics". That reminds me of Pee Wee Herman's famous quote, "I know you are but what am I". It's superficial psychobabble, or what the Teapublicons like to call, "real leadership from a true American patriot in pursuit of liberty."

[Galen Sevinne]

In practice, I support a super high-tech fence on BOTH borders, with gunships and moats and sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their friggin' heads.

Pragmatically, I only support things that are paid for or which at least have the potential of generating revenue themselves, and this falls into neither category in Mitt Romney's America.

I also support stimulus, infrastructure spending, and revenue creation in a slow-growth economy. My view is not nearly so myopic as to view any of these elements as exclusively forces of good or evil in government economics. That's a neo-conservative racket.

Of course my opinions are entirely irrelevant. I point this out simply because I wonder how the Republican party would interpret this if they understood it for what it is - a significant federal infrastructure project the likes of which they have obstructed at every opportunity over the last four years on the curious basis of removing the President from office.

Perhaps more importantly however, building a high-tech fence doesn't deal with the issue of tens of millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Conveniently, Mitt hasn't weighed in on the Preisdent's executive action earlier this week on a substantive level, instead choosing to qualify it as "politics". That reminds me of Pee Wee Herman's famous quote, "I know you are but what am I". It's superficial psychobabble, or what the Teapublicons like to call, "real leadership from a true American patriot in pursuit of liberty."

Big, expensive, deficit-exploding Infrastructure programs suddenly make sense to conservatives when the programs serve to protect their ethnocentric values. Hamburgers over fajitas, amigo.

[HoustonRaven]

Low tech is the way to go, not high tech.

Make a fence 20 feet under ground, 30 feet high and 2 feet thick, cover it with concertina wire and you have a very effective wall.

Use seismic sensors every 1000 feet or so to monitor digging and the whole thing can pay for itself by reducing the number of agents patrolling the border.

Won't ever happen though. Neither political party wants to do anything substantive regarding the protection of our borders.

[wickedsolo]

Low tech is the way to go, not high tech.

Make a fence 20 feet under ground, 30 feet high and 2 feet thick, cover it with concertina wire and you have a very effective wall.

Use seismic sensors every 1000 feet or so to monitor digging and the whole thing can pay for itself by reducing the number of agents patrolling the border.

Won't ever happen though. Neither political party wants to do anything substantive regarding the protection of our borders.

Just curious why you'd think that?

[NCRAVEN]

In practice, I support a super high-tech fence on BOTH borders, with gunships and moats and sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their friggin' heads.

F Yeah!

Pragmatically, I only support things that are paid for or which at least have the potential of generating revenue themselves, and this falls into neither category in Mitt Romney's America.

I also support stimulus, infrastructure spending, and revenue creation in a slow-growth economy. My view is not nearly so myopic as to view any of these elements as exclusively forces of good or evil in government economics. That's a neo-conservative racket.

One of these things is not like the other... All kidding aside, stimulus doesn't work, (especially when you're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you're using for "stimulus"), or at least with the way the Government (not Dem or Repub, just Govt in general) currently does it with rewarding people who got them into office... you know crony capitalism...

Of course my opinions are entirely irrelevant. I point this out simply because I wonder how the Republican party would interpret this if they understood it for what it is - a significant federal infrastructure project the likes of which they have obstructed at every opportunity over the last four years on the curious basis of removing the President from office.

Your opinion is not irrelevant on an opinion thread. I picked up what the point of your question was, and I asked if you opposed it because I've yet to see ANY opposition to Obama's spending. Matter fact, I see you tried to qualify your approval of it above.

We spend/borrow so much money the only way I would approve of it, is if it could be done for a comparative cost and once built cost less to maintain than it does to pay people do the job.

[NCRAVEN]

Just curious why you'd think that?

It's a political football used to sway votes. Every side/politician wanting to get in power uses it one way or another....

[HoustonRaven]

It's a political football used to sway votes. Every side/politician wanting to get in power uses it one way or another....

Exactly