Skip to content

Illegal Aliens and the Border Fence

September 19, 2009


One of Democracy Now!’s featured headline stories yesterday centered on the Government Accountability Office audit which claims that the fence being built along the US Border with Mexico is years behind schedule and has run billions of dollars over initial cost projections. Auditors claim that the completed fence will cost an additional $6.5 billion in maintenance expenses, but more importantly, there will be “no mechanisms to gauge its actual impact.”

There are two points, then, to consider when it comes to the border fence:

1)            Is it worth it? and

2)            Will it work?

Naturally, Democracy Now!’s host Amy Goodman would emphatically answer “NO” to both questions. But would that be correct?

Let’s discuss the issue of cost first.

In the nearly bankrupt state of California, the cost of illegal immigration is staggering. So much of the state budget goes to services for illegal aliens, that officials are at a loss as to how to calculate it. When you add together the state’s spending on schools, prisons, welfare and health care, California spends about $5 billion per year on services for illegal aliens. In fact, the 19,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in California cost the state nearly a billion dollars per year.

Since illegal immigrants work primarily “off the books,” sending a large percentage of their untaxed earnings abroad, the state experiences a double “hit” — it is denied tax revenue, and those untaxed dollars are no longer available to circulate within the local economy.

California, then, ends up spending nearly as much on illegal aliens in a year than it would cost to complete the entire border fence to keep them out.

The next question is one of efficacy. So, will it work?

The Border Patrol thinks so.

Agent Shaun Kuzia with the Yuma (Arizona) Sector Border Patrol says the fence and other strategies and technologies are worth every dime because you can’t put a price on public safety:

Since 2005, we’ve seen about a 95% decrease in cross-border activity, and we can attribute that success in part to the fence being built; but also with an increase in manpower, technology and improved roads; we’ve been able to attain that level of success.

Why not ask the Israelis? Their security fence has been remarkably successful in keeping out potential suicide bombers, who are much more determined than mere illegal immigrants.  Even the Saudis (a vocal critic of Israel’s fence) have built a border fence of their own to keep out the Yemenis.

Is the fence worth it, then?

If it works (and it will), it will be cheap at twice the price.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

  1. September 19, 2009 2:45 am

    Is there the political will to have a border fence?
    If one is to believe the “new world order agenda” Canada and Mexico would join the U.S and become a single land entity, the lack of action on both the political left and right, the new super highways being built in both directions only helps to add potential pieces into this possible new world jigsaw.

  2. September 19, 2009 4:05 am

    As you pointed out, Illegal Aliens are stealing tax dollars.
    Depleting the economy when most of there US dollars are sent directly to Mexico.
    They are a huge burden on local governments in welfare payments, medical care, free schooling and cost of housing them in US jails and our prision system.

    American employers that hire without proof of legal status, pay cash and dodge paying their fair share in taxes are equally at fault and should be arrested, jailed, tried and if found guilty fined 10,000 dollars for each violation.

    If you remove the jobs and cash flow to illegal aliens they will stop crossing into the USA for the most part and a fence would be unnecessary.

  3. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 19, 2009 4:18 am

    They are turning the US into the crap hole they are fleeing. They should be forced to clean up there own country and stay there Mexico is rich in natural resources the problem has always been a corupt culture and Gooberment that we should not have to pay for.

  4. jjay permalink
    September 19, 2009 7:20 am

    Let’s see, the “crap hole” they are living in is run by drug lords who sell their drugs to who ??? What would be the largest consumer of illegal drugs in this part of the world? Mmmm….
    And the weapons dealers who have so few restrictions to protect their “right to bear arms” are selling their haul to those south of the border to do what with? Murder citizens, law enforcers and then traffic their drugs back up to the U.S.
    Oh yeah, and the “Illegal Aliens are stealing tax dollars” by coming to the U.S. to steal the jobs all of us want – like picking blueberries until our hands are bleeding from the stickers, leaning over to the ground to harvest vegetables until their backs are bent forever and getting into our houses to do the pansy cleaning jobs or on the roofs to easily take off the old roof and lifting hundred pound packages of roofing onto the roof to happily add a new one in the blazing sun. Yeah, we all want those jobs, partly because we are so tired of not being allowed to do things for ourselves and made to over eat and watch meaningful television like 4-5 hours of golf or an afternoon of foolball.
    Yeah, and we are paying for their medical bills too when they go to the emergency rooms and leave without paying. Who pays for that??? Oh yeah, we do in higher hospital bills and insurance premiums.
    Ummm, NEVERMIND !!!

    • Patrick permalink
      September 19, 2009 8:48 am

      Mexico has been a “crap hole” long before drugs became the national trade. They could come here legally and work. They used to come here then….go home! Not any more. We have a right to sit and watch golf or football if we want too for however long we want to. Mexicans and others don’t have a right to break into my country.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 19, 2009 11:13 am

      JJay has a point, but his entire thesis is ass backwards..


      1: End welfare in all of it’s various forms… What do you think will happen to the rate of illegals entering the country after they realize that there’s no free lunch here in the USA? Assuming that 75% or more of the Americans on welfare CAN in fact work, stop the welfare, & those horrid jobs that the illegals do, will then be done by Americans… assuming they want to eat of course… Oh, and BTW, I suspect that a decent percentage of those Americans who take those jobs, will soon come to the realization that they can live a whole lot better and make better lives for their children, if they stayed in school so they could get better jobs, and become more prosperous, & move from the welfare class to the taxpayer class… Hmmm…. Does anyone realize how much welfare REALLY costs us ????

      2: Legalize drugs. It sounds crazy to a great many people, but it’s such an obviously perfect solution, that it MUST be done. Our country is being driven into bankruptcy by the cost of welfare and drugs.

      The reason drugs are expensive on the streets is because they’re illegal. Marijuana shouldn’t cost much more than any other leafy green vegetable that you find in your grocery store. Cocaine & heroin also come from plants, and are not that expensive to produce. If some people want to destroy their lives on that crap, so what ? The only direct effect that it has on hard working, honest, productive Americans is the enormous tax burden placed upon us to pay for all of the various law enforcement and prison expenses, and the cost that the victims of drug related crimes have to pay… Add it all up, if you can, and the number is so staggering, that it boggles the mind. Make it all legal and the price comes WAY down, all of the criminals that feed on the drug trade are put out of business, and our prison population goes down by more than half, which means that we can keep a great many dangerous criminals in jail for longer periods of time.. etc.. etc.. etc..

      But the liberal left is more concerned with the welfare of the poor kids from the ghetto whose lives are being ruined by drugs, and that’s just another part of the liberal doctrine that’s so insane. About 20 years ago my favorite aunt, aged 72 at the time, was knocked down on the street by a 16 year old purse snatcher who needed money to buy drugs. My aunt’s hip was broken, she never walked again, & it took many years off her life. And the left is more concerned about the welfare of the kid who assaulted her than the welfare of my aunt who worked hard and paid her taxes for over 45 years…

      Sure.. I have empathy for those young drug addicts, but I’m more concerned about the victims than I am about the criminals… If we were living in a rational world, everyone would fee the same way..

      There’s a common thread here, & that’s the fact that a huge percentage of honest, hard working Americans are being forced to work for the unearned welfare & maintenance of a small % of the lowest part of our society. The left screams that evil rich capitalists get rich by exploiting the poor. The facts are just the opposite. In America, a huge % of the wealth produced through capitalism is being STOLEN by a corrupt government, to take care of the poor.. and the inevitable result of that is that the poor keep getting poorer.

      We may be wasting half or more of our total tax burden in a futile effort to take care of the bottom 5 % of our society. Of that group, I believe that the majority can indeed work if they had to. If we could eliminate half of our tax burden, charitable giving, already high in America, would go through the roof, and the minority of those in the welfare class, who really cannot take care of themselves, would be taken care of by private charities, as was the case when my grandparent’s generation came to America shortly after the turn of the century… They came here with nothing, and NOBODY gave them a damn thing.. and yet their generation created more wealth and prosperity than ever before in the history of man…

      Why ? Because they were FREE !

      • oldwolves permalink
        September 19, 2009 3:03 pm

        Legalize drugs?

        “If some people want to destroy their lives on that crap, so what ?”

        Alcohol is legal. Hundreds of thousands of lives are destroyed by this ‘legal’ substance, every year in this country. Alcohol fueled family homicides and assualts, car crashes with deaths, injuries, inside and out side of the car.

        So lets make drugs legal. That way we can ruin “millions “of lives instead of thousands. Because we know how responsible people will be when drugs become legal! They’ll never abuse it. They’ll have unlimited access to addictive substances, in unlimited forms!You don’t have to hide your bottles at work anymore! A small pill at coffee break and your flying!
        So instead of drug dealers killing drug dealers, we’ll have good old Americans killing Americans in hundreds of thousands car accidents and family feuds like never before! Yipeeeeee!

        And the government gets all that tax revenue to pay for healthcare! Since their will be millions of brand new junkies , we’ll need it! HOORAYYYYY! And we know how well the government runs agencies. Just look how well we’re doing with Medicaid and medicare and social security and the post office! They’ll get everyone back off drugs in no time.

        Hey, While we’re at it, lets make all misdemeanor crimes legal too! Won’t that cut down on crime also? Boy what a great idea!

        (This message brought to you by the American Sarcasm Society)

        • Swemson permalink
          September 19, 2009 3:29 pm

          You write:

          “So lets make drugs legal. That way we can ruin “millions “of lives instead of thousands.”

          No… “We” aren’t ruining their lives, they are. I refuse to be held responsible for what someone else chooses to do to himself… The right to destroy one’s self, no matter how distasteful it is to rational people, is part of what it means to be free. You’re absolutely right about alcohol… it’s legal and it should be. If we treated drunk drivers far more harshly than we do now, we can reduce those horrible events, but we’ll never end them… If we legalized drugs, MANY more victims would be saved.. and plenty of innocents are losing their lives in the drug wars that we’re dealing with today.

          There’s a reason why they call drug dealers pushers you know… the old stereotype of the pusher handing around school yards with his bag of treats is absolutely true. He’s pushing it on those kids in order to create future customers once they get hooked. I’ve lived in the big city, and I know full well how many people got into drugs that way… It’s all about personal responsibility…

          You can carry on about the evils of my politically incorrect solution to the drug problem, but the fact is that it’s the only way to end this problem, and it WILL end it. And I’m not the only person to suggest this….

          As I said, if a rational person studies the problem, and puts the rights of the victims of drug related violence before any concerns about the welfare of the junkies themselves, then legalizing drugs are the only logical conclusion…

          In the meantime however, rather than directing just sarcasm at the idea, why don’t you try using your brain to come up with another solution that has a chance to work… My mind is wide open… is yours ?

          • September 19, 2009 3:34 pm

            Swemson I’m with you 100% on the Drug War issue. You’re right on the money here IMHO.

          • oldwolves permalink
            September 20, 2009 7:28 am

            Ok. Here in the land of reality we find drugs “Bad”,and here’s why.

            While serving as a New York City Police officer in the South Bronx, I ran across literally thousands of “FAMILIES” Destroyed by illegal drugs. Not just the junkies themselves, but their wives, children, parents, neighbors, friends…. I had to carry the children from their homes. I had to ID the bodies in the morgue of those who O.D., of those killed by drivers high on drugs, or those killed by junkies in their drugged induced stupors. I had to go to the parents house to tell them their 15 year old daughter was dead. I had to pull the bodies out of cars when a junkie crashed his car into innocent civilians.(Most of the the time the innocent were the ones killed) How many people dying of AIDS from prostitutes and junkies who share needles.(Remember the governments solution to this? Give out free needles so AIDS will go down? What happened? AIDS cases with junkies increased .Yeah, let the government take care of it.)

            I don’t know what you do for a living swemson but I had to deal with foolish decisions like “Make drugs legal” ideology for my whole career. It’s NEVER just the junkie that dies! It kills everything around him too. And your half assed idea is that if we make drugs legal it will solve the problem? Quite frankly I have never heard of anything so stupid in all my life. It doesn’t make the problem go away. It just puts another face on it and the consequences will be horrific! But we no longer have a drug problem right? Wrong! We now have millions more addicted to LEGAL drugs. But the Illegal drug problem is now solved! Hooray for us!

            Here are the numbers from the Health and Human Services, national survey on drug use and health,2006.

            Drugs are much more addictive than alcohol. In 2006, The rate for alcoholic abuse in America was 17,000,000, out of 125,000,000 who drank out of 300,000,000 Americans. First time Cocaine users ran around 75% and heroin users were 95% addicted!

            If you do the math, in respect to addiction ratios, and if drug use were allowed and legal, you then find your self dealing with over a hundred million Americans addicted to LEGAL drugs! Mostly kids trying it out for the first time! Is that the future you see for America Swemson? Over one third of the country saying” I can handle it?”You think the Government can control that?

            You think the black market will disappear because we made it legal? What about cigarettes? One of the biggest black markets out there. We raise taxes on them. We control them. But the black market still makes it money. Alcohol. We tax it. We control it. But the black market still just keeps rolling along. But you believe that drugs will go away.

            How about when the government raises prices so it will be to expensive for most people? “Oh boy, this government controlled heroin is just to much money. I’ll have to give it up!”
            Or, more likely, you’ll see headlines from newspapers reading,” Crime numbers on the rise! Assaults, Robberies, thefts, rising to new levels!”

            So much for letting them destroy their own lives. They’ll take what you have to feed what they need. Now only their are millions of them instead of thousands !

            There are two fronts to fight. Supply and demand. Where we are fooling our selves is that the government is fighting a drug war. It’s not even a police action.
            Did you know that someone convicted of ‘DRUG TRAFFICKING’ , on average, does only 16 months! Thats it! Bring in hundreds of pounds and you do less that two years. Federal court averages 57 months. It’s insane!

            Make it mandatory that anything over one pound is a life sentence.No parole. Just hard labor.
            As for your local street dealer, first conviction of five years hard labor. Second conviction , life.
            But for now these guys are doing soft time and getting rich!

            I don’t believe in running away swemson. Hit them harder. Stand up and fight a real fight.

            • Swemson permalink
              September 20, 2009 2:53 pm

              The wolf writes:

              “Ok. Here in the land of reality we find drugs “Bad”,and here’s why.”

              Try re-reading what I wrote, and you’ll find that I never said that drugs were not “Bad”… that’s not the point at all.

              The point is that our fight against drugs can never be won, even if it was our government’s first priority. No way… no how.

              Brian, in a post below, makes the excellent analogy to the Prohibition.

              As soon as the Volstead act was passed, the criminals moved in, and America became a bloody battleground. As soon as it was repealed, a huge part of the criminal community was put out of business. You rightly note the damage that alcohol does to society, but wine goes back a long time, and you’ll NEVER be able to make it go away. In case you haven’t noticed, our government hasn’t had much success in trying to keep people from doing things that many think are evil. Just as legislation can’t remove hate and bigotry from people’s hearts, neither can it stop people from doing things that may be bad for their health… And it’s not their job to do so in the first place…. Government’s ONLY legitimate job according to our Constitution is to PROTECT its citizens from others… not from themselves !

              The fact is that alcohol is used and enjoyed by millions in moderation.. You can’t stop them from doing things they want simply because a minority of them abuse it hurting both themselves and others. There have been quite a few axe murders in our history… Do you want to outlaw axes ? BTW: I’m pretty sure that alcohol is responsible for killing far more innocent people than drugs…

              But drugs are different. It’s much easier for people to get hooked on drugs than on alcohol, but there’s also no doubt that far less people would become hooked if drugs could be bought like an expensive vegetable like asparagus… We all know that forbidding things makes them more attractive to the young and naive. You do however make a valid point about it still being expensive if government gets addicted to the cash it can bring in in tax revenue.. Well that kind of government is perhaps the biggest cancer on our society, and it can and must be eliminated…

              But let’s keep it in perspective. I knew people in the past who paid $400 to $500 for an ounce of really high quality pot. It’s market value if it was a legal “leafy green condiment” that you could buy right next to the brownie mix in the grocery store would certainly have been no more than $5 to $10 per ounce.. So even if the government put a 100% tax on it, the price would still be FAR less than it is because it’s illegal. I’d support such a tax… (because it BAD stuff) The government’s huge taxes on cigarettes would be very appropriate if the funds were kept separate and used exclusively to cover emergency room costs. But you’ll also note that the government’s taxes on tobacco haven’t put much of a dent on it’s use…

              If we were to keep drugs illegal, then I would definitely agree with you that the criminal penalties are FAR too lenient… but we simply can’t… the rising costs of our prison systems are another example of why we can’t continue on this path. I don’t know the actual numbers, but I’m betting that more than 50% of our prisoner population is in jail for drug dealing or drug related violence.

              Decriminalizing it is the ONLY solution. It won’t eliminate drug use, but it will gradually, over a period of 10 to 20 years cut it down dramatically. If we were to take a a small % of what we have been spending on enforcement, and use it for education and rehabilitation, it would be reduced further still.. but this thing can’t keep going like it is… The criminals will ALWAYS find ways around law enforcement as long as the monetary prize is so huge…

      • papernerd permalink
        September 21, 2009 1:08 pm

        Legalize drugs:

        National Review had an issue symposium dedicated to that subject. Was before 1999. “The War on Drugs is Lost.” Great issue with contributors from all walks of life and the aisle.

    • papernerd permalink
      September 21, 2009 1:05 pm

      The Department of Education and its backers have made it almost impossible for teenagers to get jobs, must less fight for the few availably if you are under 16. My brothers and my dad and grandparents did many so called “blueberry” picking jobs when teens.

      The illegals-take-the-jobs-Americans-won’t argument is a pile of crap. “College” has been so raised up by the left (and right) as the opportunity must haver that it has been averaged out to spitting out complete numskills to the detriment of tech-skills jobs that have been demeaned, especially by hollywood and the popular media (e.g., being a plumber — you journeyman, is it, 5 years?). College never was and has been for everybody. Nor should it be raised up as meaning you are better than someone else.

    • In the know permalink
      September 21, 2009 2:15 pm

      Spoken like a true elitist.

  5. Ron Wagner permalink
    September 19, 2009 7:21 am

    We should make each illegal alien caught, spend a year building or maintaining the border fence. Then they can cross it back. That will take care of much of the labor cost. Citizen prisoners could also be used.

  6. jjay permalink
    September 19, 2009 7:51 am

    Right, let’s think “Berlin Wall”. That should make them take second thoughts, especially if they have to build it …
    at our expense… paying them decent wages so they don’t die on us in the process.
    That’s a terrific example to the world of how great it is to live in these United States.

    • theblanque permalink
      September 19, 2009 12:10 pm

      Except the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not out.

      Using prisoners/illegals to build the wall is a bad idea–there would be great incentive to build flaws into it.

      As to how the Mexicans would feel about it, well, how do the peoples of Guatemala and Belize feel about the DMZ on their borders with Mexico?

      • Luis Vazquez permalink
        September 19, 2009 9:47 pm

        Americans and other nationalities should start a massive movement to put pressure on the Mexican Goverment, so that they open their borders with Guatemala, instead of placing guards and shoot the violators the way they do.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 19, 2009 3:35 pm


      Are you objecting to the idea of using illegal aliens to build the walls on the grounds that it would make it LESS attractive to others to try to come here… ?

      Isn’t that part of our objective by building the walls in the first place…?

      I think it’s a great message:

      “Come here and break our laws, and you’re REALLY going to pay for it !”

      • September 19, 2009 7:21 pm

        But Swemson, my friend, wouldn’t having illegal immigrants build the wall be giving American Jobs to illegals? 😉

        Shouldn’t American citizens have the right to a good job like wall building first?

        • Swemson permalink
          September 19, 2009 10:06 pm


          I’m surprised at you…

          You should know what I meant by now..

          Who said we’d have to PAY the illegal aliens ?

          We’d definitely have to PAY American citizens to build the wall… that’s not cost effective….

          Why shouldn’t we use slave labor if we have so much of it available… 🙂

          (OK: Now let’s start a pool to guess how many here will take that last comment seriously)

          • September 20, 2009 7:03 am

            It’s an emotionally satisfying idea but not an intellectually sound one. And I think you know that.

            • Swemson permalink
              September 20, 2009 12:21 pm


              That entire post was tongue in cheek 🙂

              Other than for the criminals and gang bangers, I like the Mexicans who come here, because the VAST majority of them come here to work…

              I was a builder in the Phoenix area prior to the RE crash, and I can tell you for a fact, that most builders there wouldn’t get anything done without them.

              Technology more than makes up for the higher cost of labor in construction projects like this.

          • Luis Vazquez permalink
            September 20, 2009 9:08 pm

            THE Obama administration wants to open the entry gates to the USA for the terrorists in Guantanamo: How could anybody pretend that they close the doors to the poor migrants who want to come in to perform what is practically “forced slave work?”

            I am not in favor of illegal inmigration, but let us find a practical way to end it.

            One of the best ways, in my opinion, is to jail those who facilitate the violations of the law, starting with the “BIG AGRICULTURAL POWER HOUSES”

            Nancy Pelosi’s hotels and farm corporations are among them>

  7. Cas Balicki permalink
    September 19, 2009 9:29 am

    That’s a terrific example to the world of how great it is to live in these United States.

    Irony alert! jjay is being sarcastic about the US in trying to suggest that it is not such a great place, and, irony of ironies, he fails to see the irony in building a wall to keep people out of that not so great counrty. Does anyone think anymore? Or is spouting off the object of the game?

  8. Judy permalink
    September 19, 2009 9:52 am

    Most of the weapons used in mexico are Chinese in origin.
    California welfare comprises 32% of the nations total.
    California bankrupt. The very cost to bring criminal illegals through the court system and then imprisonment is beyond staggering.
    You don’t have to worry about illegals bending over in farm fields picking berries since the Federal government shut off all the water to the farms in the central “food basket” area of California to save a bait fish. This area of California produces 12% of the nations food and is now a dust bowl. So, now all those non-working illegals are pushed onto the welfare roles drawing even greater benefits.
    Yes, this country is great. Living here however is a privilege to non-citizens. Crossing the border withour documentation is breaking the law. Without laws, this country is descending into chaos.
    Mexico has more that sufficient natural resouces and ability to grow and maintain an economy to benefit all citizens. Corruption and it’s support is part of the culture in Mexico and South America.Mexican citizens must start somewhere and end the corruption in their country by taking a stand. The US is not responsible for Mexico and the rest of the world. I am sick of supporting the non-supportable.
    89% of all babies born to illegals are born at 2 US hospitals (LA County General, and Parkland in Dallas).This is absurd and a complete drain on the US economy.
    I am afraid that we are looking at the formation of Meximericanada.

  9. carterthewriter permalink
    September 19, 2009 9:54 am

    You either build the wall or you don’t. We have procrastinated to long wasting money and lives in the process.

    Our government has shown a propensity to start something and never following through with the initual intent of the action.

    This practice began when our government stopped Patton from overrunning Germany. Even after we supplied the oppressed nations with the armaments to defeat socialist Nazism. We appeased another form of socialism (USSR) and have been appeasing our enemies ever since.

    Frankly, most of us are tired of it all!

  10. September 19, 2009 10:22 am

    the political will is not there. these gotcha” moments in congress focusses more on their re-elections then what is “safest” for our country. 9/11 woke us up, and politics in washington put us back to sleep. it”s time for me to put on my night cap and get some rest. tomorrow i”ll turn on my computer and see if we”re still here,
    good night

  11. jjay permalink
    September 19, 2009 4:24 pm

    Thanks for your thoughts folks,

    The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in AND out. The effect was the same. The world saw the intent of the government who built it to try and limit the influence from outside its borders.

    It’s a waste of time, our tax dollars and efforts to keep people out. We are a nation built on diversity. We cannot have the Statue of Liberty on one side and a wall on the other. Mexico and Canada are not going away folks. European nations have taken a very long time to figure out how to live with each other without destroying the other. We can possibly learn from their history.

    Yes we have the right to look at golf and foolball as much, eat and drink as much as we want. We have the right to want as much as we can want. Many of us think we have the right to smoke whatever and then blow that smoke in the face of whoever passes our putrid cloud. Just try to enter a hospital without breathing the stench of smokers huddled outside or their piles of cigarette butts thrown down for someone else to pick up. (One of those jobs ‘legals’ are too proud to take.) That’s part of the reason we are one of the least healthy populations of the top industrialized nations.

    We have rights! We can throw them away if we want to, no matter what sacrifices our parents and families have made to get us where we are. If you know any ‘illegals’ you then know they are more likely to want to stay with their families in Mexico or where ever. Most are not crazy to live at the bottom of anyone’s heap and would much rather be with their families than be separated by hundreds or thousands of miles. Oh, but they are animals and should be treated as such, my bad.

    If you are in any other industrialized nation as an American citizen or citizen of any other nation and have an emergency, you can get treatment without having to worry of the cost. The reason is because those nations have figured out that if all citizens are treated regularly through a public plan, then there are much less likely to have emergencies. People are generally healthier and live longer without excessive medical treatment.
    Emergency rooms are not packed with those who have no insurance and who have waited til the last symptom to get treatment, since they could not afford regular doctor visits. .

    You may be right about the weapons of Chinese origins in Mexico Judy. I don’t know your source of info, but you should know that 80% of the weapons manufactured and shipped around the world originate in this freedom loving nation of the United States. We are the leader and that’s in legal sales, not even approaching the illegal sales…

    Interesting take Cas, but as it happens, I do think this is a great nation. How we got here is what most of us did not get all sides of the picture of our history. We have killed more innocent Native people on this continent than Hitler and of course our cause was “morally defensible” according to our leaders. When we go to war, it is always a moral high ground to many without question the fear tactics many of our leaders have cast on us.

    You are absolutely right to ask “does anyone think anymore?” It’s hard work and we are not asked to do in usually, but to spout ‘facts’ (without sources) because we have the right or free speech (and to be wrong without being held responsible).

    All authority should be questioned again and again and held to the laws the rest of us are subject to respect and uphold. Perhaps if we had not been lulled to dreamland by a record budget surplus and our image as the most powerful nation in the world, then we would not find ourselves in the depths of two illegal wars based on a terrorist attack that should never have happened had those elected into the highest offices of the land listened to the clear warnings of our own and other agencies and taken proper steps to stop it. Makes lots of us wonder…

    It’s up to us folks. Neither the government nor corporations are going to take care of us unless we make them and I personally think government is at least a bit more manageable than corporations whose sole purpose is a huge profit so they can ‘survive and grow’.

  12. September 19, 2009 6:48 pm

    Swemson – I thank God for you and so do the couple of fingers that would otherwise have been employed for the hour or so it’d have taken them to type my take — had you not already so intelligently, so competently and so precisely expressed my thoughts — on this thread’s verbalized Lefties’ and other Nanny-Statists’ bowel burblings.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 19, 2009 7:24 pm


      Great minds think alike.. 🙂

  13. Phillip Ley permalink
    September 19, 2009 6:50 pm

    I have no problem with aliens coming to work here. I believe they should be registered, and pay taxes, just like I do. They should not be able to bring family to LIVE here. If they want to work, pay taxes, and send their earnings home, so be it. They will have to spend some of their money for food, shelter, etc. while here so some will be pumped back into the economy. Our shoddy immigration policies have allowed Mexico to avoid their own social welfare ills for decades. We are, in essence, the social welfare system for Mexico. I agree that our national craving for drugs is disgusting, and driving the drug trade. Legalize them, and tax the stew out of their consumption. Better yet, legalize it and tax it, but let’s give them someplace like, say, Detroit as a duty-free zone. No one really wants to live there, and we could get the really dedicated drug users there. We could pick all of the undesirable places to live and do the same, sequestering the deviants in a few places, and derive revenue from their addiction. I agree that a large portion of the legal drug trade is of American manufacture, but many weapons in Mexico ARE Chinese, and thus, unaccounted for officially. I hope all the American weapons are not going to Mexico; I want to keep them at home. Buy ammunition, nonperishable food items, durable clothing, medication, and fuel for the coming meltdown of the American social fabric. It’s good advice.

    • Phillip Ley permalink
      September 19, 2009 6:52 pm

      Oops I meant the legal ARMS trade, not drug trade.

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      September 19, 2009 9:41 pm

      When I arrived in the USA, back in 1954 as a Legal resident, I remember the Immigration agents going periodically to inspect the factories, hotels and other places, looking for those who were visiting as tourists and either overstayed their visas or were working illegally to make some money and take it back to their countries of origin.

      That is something unheard of these days because the pressure applied on the goverment by those who profit from the SLAVE WORK.

  14. Luis Vazquez permalink
    September 19, 2009 9:31 pm

    One of the arguments by those who favor ILLEGAL ALIENS is that they also pay their taxes, therefore they deserve the help they can get.

    Nothing farther from the truth. Most illegals work in a daily basis, are paid by the day and in hard cash.

    Others who work as maids or in any other capacity on a weekly basis, get paid also in cash and their employers do not report to the Social Security Office or the IRS>

  15. Ron Wagner permalink
    September 20, 2009 6:50 am

    Thanks Luis. It is good to hear from a Hispanic who sees the truth of the situation. My grandmother was Mexican American. Her kids didn’t speak Spanish and just wanted to be Americans. I grew up in California , and a lot of Mexican American kids didn’t even know how to speak Spanish. I am talking about the fifties and sixties. I am all for good people being able to immigrate legally, but not for illegals. How do you feel about the border fence? I feel that the liberals are just trying to gain votes, by making another large group beholden to them. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of using and abusing cheap labor. This cheap labor hurts American citizens, especially the poorest among us.

    • Luis Vazquez permalink
      September 21, 2009 5:31 pm

      Ron: I believe that the “FENCE” is just a smoke curtain.

      It could be broken anytime somebody tries to enter.

      As descendant of the Great People of Mexico you must know that the “COYOTES” work in tandem with the unscrupulous owners of vineyards and other “AGRICULTURAL EMPRESARIOS” who, by the way, are supposedly AMERICANS.

      Just last night I was watching a documentary in PBS hosted by Edward James Olmos, about the Mexican Braceros who were hired during WWII to take the place of the americans who went to war.

      I believe that was a good program that should be implemented under strict supervision and many of todays problems could be avoid.

      What most americans ignore is that many of those who violate the laws are people who have been corrupted by their own goverments.

      The day that Latin Americans learn to implement justice in their respective lands, the United States would be free of the inmigration problems.

      One more thing, even though I don’t like the present and many past mexican administrations, I resent the Adjective of “CRAP HOLE” applied to Mexico.

      That does not speak too well of THE TRUE AMERICANS.

  16. September 20, 2009 8:16 am

    oldwolves lectures Swemson on every darned reason why the damned government shouldn’t have anything to do with controlling what idiots put into their bodies and lists a fairly representative sampling of all of the useless bloody gummint tricks and scams that have failed to date.

    So far so good.

    And the solution?

    Let’s try more of the same:

    More inept politicians and bureaucrats setting up ever more opportunities for the enrichment of ever more drug criminals, for ever-worsening drug crime — and the systemic corruption of even more feral bureaucracies, police forces and sheriffs’ departments.

    When, twenty minutes after the repeal of the underlying crime: PROHIBITION, 99% of the crime caused by and/or descending from prohibition would be swept away.

    The “problem” of so-called “addiction” (a BS word used to describe a voluntary state entered into as the consequence of a willful criminal choice — and that actually means “the consequence of a a bad habit”) would be minimal and is in any case none of the government’s business. Step back and afford drug d—heads the dignity of the consequences of their own actions.

    As a bonus (for most of us) America’s politicians, bureaucrats, law-enrichment agencies and sheriffs’ departments (although they’d all have to find other sources of secondary income) might have a little time to devote to policing real law.

    • September 20, 2009 8:27 am

      This is an excellent comment with some great thoughts. Thanks for joining our community here at NewsReal.

      • Swemson permalink
        September 20, 2009 3:33 pm


        I disagree slightly with one part of what you wrote:

        “The “problem” of so-called “addiction” (a BS word used to describe a voluntary state entered into as the consequence of a willful criminal choice ”

        I don’t think that the people who are drawn to drugs and alcohol, are motivated by a desire to break the law as much as they are by the need to escape from reality… Let’s face it, a good percentage of people are just losers, and if they want to destroy themselves with booze and drugs why should we care ?

        Now Wolfie makes the excellent point that their pursuit of and use of drugs results in lots of innocent people being killed. That’s correct, although he misses the point that most of those deaths would be avoided if drugs were not illegal.. So how do we protect those innocent victims once drugs are legalized ? Well here’s another one of my politically incorrect ideas that’s REALLY going to piss off all of the liberals big time:

        For a period of a year or so prior to decriminalizing drugs, we take all the drugs confiscated by law enforcement, and rather than destroying them, we turn them over to the ATF to be stored in secure locations around the country. During that same period, we fix up a few obsolete & abandoned military bases, do some basic and minimal repairs, and we set them up as drug hospices where junkies and winos can go to die without hurting the rest of us. We supply bare bones basic cots and plumbing, a military mess hall, (most junkies don’t each much) an open bar, to make it attractive to winos as well, a bare bones medical staff to help the few who decide that they want to try to kick their habits, and a drug dispensary to give them all the drugs they want until they die.

        Many will find this to be a cold and non-compassionate way to “treat these poor people”… but those who do, like most liberals, care more about the perps than they do about their victims… You can’t legislate human nature.. there are always going to be these type of people, and this approach, no matter how offensive it will be to many people’s more delicate sensibilities does make sense for the simple reason that its sole purpose is to get these people off the streets so they won’t hurt any more innocent victims.

        An elderly woman in my family was a victim of drug violence, and a good friend of mine lost his teenage daughter in a car crash caused by a drunk driver… THESE are the people that I care about, and I couldn’t care less about the criminals & losers who are responsible for these tragedies. We should get them off the street in the least expensive humane manner possible… And throwing a bunch of junkies & winos in camps with no barbed wire fences or guards and all the free booze & junk they want, IMHO, is quite humane indeed…

        • September 20, 2009 9:10 pm

          Disagree only slightly with any of that. Alcoholism is a disease, has a diagnosis and symptoms — and may be completely eradicated from its sufferer’s life by his total abstinence from alcohol. In alcoholics — and only in alcoholics — alcohol has the ability to alter the sufferers perception of reality — and to make his now abnormal state seem perfectly normal, to make his “insides” feel the way he sees everyone else’s “outsides.” An alcoholic (whose particular poison is as socially acceptable as is cabbage and whose use is as easily controlled by 85% of its users as is their use of, say, carrots) would die to be normal — and (once he’s discovered what alcohol can do for – not “to” him – that comes later) drinks to get INTO the world.

          Drug habitues, on the other hand, are for the most part pissed off at everything and everyone and want to “get out of it.”

          And isn’t “are drawn to” the criminal activities and actions whose inevitable consequences are habituation a bit of a softening of what really happens?

          As for what’s an illness and whats a crime? I’m with you 100%. Drunk is your business. Driving (murdering, beating wives etceteras) while drunk aught be an unmitigated felony!

          • Swemson permalink
            September 20, 2009 11:00 pm


            You’re probably right, but I’ve always had a bit of doubt about the idea that alcoholism is a disease.

            Far to often it sounds more like an excuse… an easy cop out. A common effect of liberalism.. never blame the person, always find another reason or excuse for bad behavior.

            Couldn’t it just be a matter of willpower and determination, not to let oneself reach such levels ?

            I know that once they reach bottom, there are definitely physical attributes of the condition that necessitate some help from others… sometimes doctors, but so many people HAVE kicked the habit, that sometimes I wonder if it’s worth all the trouble and expense to help the rest.

            If they don’t want to be helped there’s nothing we can do for them, and if that’s the case, their behavior (drunk driving etc) is simply far too expensive a price for society to pay. Our right to self defense gives us the moral authority to prevent them from hurting us…

            Perhaps sometimes a drunk is just a drunk.

            • Julie Trevor permalink
              September 21, 2009 5:04 am


              I’ll try to explain what can be quite complex in very simple terms.
              Addiction is a physiologic process that occurs in man’s mid brain (primative functions we share with all animals = species survival).
              This part of the brain is responsible for survival functions which we have no control over i.e. eat, sex (reproduce), kill (or be killed)

              Some people’s brains can be exposed to “addictive” substances repeatedly and have not response (there are many reasons I won’t detail on). Other people’s brains will be “lit up”, awakened to a new species “survival” function when exposed to a certain substance i.e. alchohol/cocaine/meth,etc. Not only does this join the 3 natural species survival functions, it usually becomes the most prominent.

              True addiction causes people to behave in ways that to the non-addicted person seems so silly. Why would someone not care about anyone or anything other than getting their “drug”? Because for the addicted brain there is no choice, it is a matter of survival. That “new” survival instinct is as difficult a message to overcome as the drive to eat, procreate and protect your life if threatened.

              Whether drugs/alcohol are legal or not; some people will be addicted. The question is “does the state get to control the choice of all people to “prevent” addiction in those that become addicted”?

              I believe there is a propensity to addictive substances that no law will erradicate…history has been a great teacher.

            • Swemson permalink
              September 21, 2009 9:07 am


              I agree that some people will always become addicted to booze and drugs.. I’m not as concerned about them as I am about the INNOCENT victims of the violence that comes with smuggling illegal drugs for huge profits.

              Decriminalizing them VASTLY reduces the associated violence to others… and that’s all that matters to me.

    • oldwolves permalink
      September 20, 2009 8:41 am

      Except we NEVER fought the so called drug war. Our government gave us lip service until we quieted down and then they continued there usual BS. The stats I gave are real and the projections of drug ‘Addiction’ for 100 million Americans is a conservative one. While we worry about our government’s attacks on health care and others, we have to fight the long war on drugs too because YOUR government will sell you out by faux recommendations that the drug war is lost. The government will make their money and the American people will die!

      The consequences of others “Bad Habits” will hurt us all!

      Follow the logic. Our government will say, “It’s OK to become addicted to government run drugs!”

      • Swemson permalink
        September 20, 2009 3:34 pm

        Then we’ll just have to get rid of all those corrupt politicians, won’t we ?

        And isn’t that what most of us are most concerned about anyway ?

      • oldwolves permalink
        September 21, 2009 7:26 am

        Thank you Julie,

        By showing scientific proof that ‘addiction’ is a real problem, you can see how exposing millions of more people, especially teenagers, to legal drugs, how it will spiral madly out of control. History does show this.

        How does one blather on about the violence of traffickers, which has harmed tens of thousands, but ignore the millions harmed by another violence, that done daily by those in our own communities under the influence of illegal drugs. Almost 80% of child abuse and neglect cases are connected to the use and abuse of illegal drugs. Drug abuse does not cause all crime and violence, it just enhances it and worsens by impairing judgment, weakening impulse control and at some levels of pathology, with some drugs, causing paranoia and psychosis.More than 50% of those arrested today for violent and property crimes test positive for illegal drug use when arrested. What happens when we legalize access to drugs? It would increase drug-related suffering exponentially.

        Here is some history for swemson.

        In the late 1800’s, our federal drug laws were a response to disastrous drug and violence epidemics when virtually every family had access to opiate- and cocaine-based remedies. Drugs were available without penalty. Addiction was rampant, with an estimated 250,000 opiate addicts in the U.S. population of 76 million.That was with just one drug. And we have now 5 times the population and dozens of different drugs available. Has human nature changed that much in a hundred years? NOT AT ALL. If anything we have become even more self indulgent.

        Sorry guys , just as ending Prohibition did not destroy organized crime in the U.S., legalizing drugs will not break the terrorist criminal groups in Mexico. If anything violence will increase because territorial crime families will need to deal much more harshly with fellow ‘business’ men.

        We cannot allow drug addiction to be an expression of individual liberty in a free society. Legalizing drugs is incompatible with freedom and civil society.

        By the way, has anybody noticed what Holland is doing. It’s admitting it’s mistake. Their “liberal” thoughts on legal drugs and prostitution have brought the country almost to it’s knees.The Dutch are rethinking their famously “liberal” polices on legalized brothels, prostitution and soft drugs, such as magic mushrooms and cannabis, amid fears of growing crime and social decline. Such rookies. Cannabis and mushrooms. Hell, we have , as I said before, dozens of recreational drugs. I bet we can kill our society much faster than them.

        Just surrender. Give in. Whats the worse that can happen?

        • Swemson permalink
          September 21, 2009 9:29 am

          We don’t disagree about how bad drugs are…

          I just think that you’re being terribly naive when you say we can keep them out of the country, and I strongly maintain that if you take all of the big money out of the business, it will gradually diminish on its own.

          Law enforcement has been fighting the drug pushers & cartels for quote a while…

          How are they doing so far ?

        • Julie Trevor permalink
          September 21, 2009 12:47 pm

          Well, the trafficking of alcohol is a heck of a lot safe than the drugs that cross our borders…

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      September 20, 2009 1:25 pm

      Addiction is a bit more complicated than a choice…and addiction medicine is a fascinating field. Whether it’s nicotine, alcohol, food, uppers, downers or what ever the “substance” is, it takes first place in your brain’s idea of what’s necessary for survival.
      What I find most interesting is how people get addicted; it isn’t always the behaviour choices I had always associated with it…I guess you can teach an old nurse new things.

      • September 20, 2009 8:36 pm

        “Addiction,” generally speaking, is not more complicated than the consequence of poor choice and worse actions. And the whole field of “addiction medicine” — and particularly the involvement in it of those narrow-field statisticians who prefer we call them “psychologists” — is but a machination for the systematic defrauding and looting of insurance companies.

        Alcoholism is a different problem, whose diagnosis (a physical allergy manifesting in an obsessive craving) and whose ONLY solution, (TOTAL abstinence!) have been known for seventy years.

        Let those who suffer from Alcoholism seek the help that has worked for all those years — and let everyone’s drug habituation be his own problem, not mine.

        But let drunken and/or drugged driving and similar crimes be treated as just that. Nothing is more likely to change a drunk’s or a drug habitue’s behavior and/or to get him started down the Right Road than he that sit cold-turkey in a jail or prison designed for and reserved for his ilk.

        Thousand Dollars a day hospitals for the voluntary sufferers of the consequences of their own criminal actions?



    • Ron Wagner permalink
      September 20, 2009 8:06 pm

      Unfortunately it is not possible to keep alcoholics and drug addicts from driving, without it being illegal to be drunk or high. The same applies to violence against others. Also we end up having to spend lots of money to take care of chronic and severe alcoholics and drug addicts after their lives fall apart. They end up in jail or in a psychiatric ward. Psych wards cost over $1,000 a night. Substance abuse is a bad substitute for spirituality,prayer and meditation, which are the basis for the 12 step programs.

      • Swemson permalink
        September 20, 2009 8:36 pm

        That’s absurd.

        It’s NOT illegal to drink or get drunk, but it IS illegal to drive when drunk. A mandatory minimum of 25 years at hard labor for vehicular homicide while inebriated might go a long way towards discouraging such behavior, and as Julie points out so well in a later post in this blog, drunks are responsible for so many vehicular fatalities, that drug related vehicular fatalities are statistically insignificant.

        Your point about the incredible cost we bear to take care of drunks and junkies is right… but I’ve already suggested a solution to that if you go back 4 posts before yours… Think about it..

        As long as we focus on protecting the rights of innocent people rather than the people who abuse alcohol and drugs, we can cut these problems down significantly…

        But we’ll never unfortunately be able to make them go away completely…

        • September 20, 2009 8:50 pm

          Hear! Hear!

          • Julie Trevor permalink
            September 21, 2009 4:18 am

            The bigger question is how much Government regulation of stupidity do we want?
            If we allow the state to regulate every behaviour that some bad actors participate in, all of our rights are infringed upon in the process. And those bad actors will continue with those activities regardless of the laws – only law abiding people follow the law. {note: bad actors are really people who make bad choices, not bad people}

            A comment I made in our local paper regarding gun control is fitting here also:

            “Incremental control of the few results in total control of the masses” JBT

  17. zeezil permalink
    September 20, 2009 3:07 pm

    Fences Work

    Fences work, they just have to be engineered and properly constructed. Consider the 14-mile double-layer fence between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Its benefits in stopping illegal entry into the U.S. were immediate and long lasting. Prior to the fence, illegals poured through the border here and in one 24-hour period the border patrol reported apprehending 2,000 illegal aliens. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report illegal alien apprehensions along the fence region dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004, a reduction greater than 95%. Additionally, there was a 53% drop in San Diego’s crime rate, as reported by Congressman Duncan Hunter. The open borders lobby ignores these facts when they say fences will not work.

    So, fences won’t work? Let’s take an around the world tour and see if anything else with fences is going on.

    North Korea/South Korea: Called “the scariest place on earth” by President Bill Clinton, this 155-mile-long, 2.5 mile wide demilitarized zone has separated the two Koreas since 1953 and is the most heavily fortified border in the world.

    North Korea/China: It was confirmed in 2006 that China was in the midst of fence construction on its border with North Korea. Long amicable allies, China had become concerned with the large illegal influx of North Koreans into its territory over the previously lightly guarded border. The project is spearheaded by China’s military in order to establish security.

    Belfast, Northern Ireland: Nicknamed the “Peace Line,” this series of brick, iron, and steel barriers was first erected in the 1970s to curb escalating violence between Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods. The barriers have more than doubled in number over the past decade, and currently stretch over thirteen miles of Northern Ireland.

    Cyprus: A 112-mile-long construction of concrete, barbed wire, watchtowers, minefields, and ditches has separated the island’s Turks from its Greeks since 1974. The Turkish Cypriot government reduced restrictions on cross-border travel in April of 2003.

    Morocco/Western Sahara: Known as “The Wall of Shame,” these ten-foot-high sand and stone barriers, some mined, run for at least 1,500 miles through the Western Sahara. Built in six stages from 1980 to 1987, they are intended to keep West Saharan guerrilla fighters out of Morocco.

    Israel/Palestine: The Israeli government, observing how effective the security fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip has been at keeping out suicide bombers, decided in 2003 to start fencing off the West Bank as well because after scores of suicide bombings and daily terrorist attacks against its civilians that had killed more than 850 people and wounded thousands more since September 2000. The 490-mile anti-terrorist barrier has proven a huge success even before it was finished as statistics two years into the project indicated attacks had declined by as much as 90 percent and the number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively.
    The fence should be fully completed by 2010. Note: Hamas militants in Jan. 2008 blew up a 200 meter portion of the Gaza strip fence which enabled thousands of Palestinians to pour into Egypt before order was restored.

    India/Bangladesh: India started construction in 2000 of a 2500 mile fence based on the design of the Israeli West Bank barrier. Its purpose is to stop smuggling, terrorist infiltrations and illegal immigration from Bangladesh. To date, approximately 1550 miles have been built. Wikipedia reports the U.S. has pumped $1.2 billion into the project.

    India/Pakistan: In 1989 India began erecting a fence to stem the flow of arms from Pakistan. So far it has installed more than 700 miles of fencing, much of which is electrified and stands in the disputed Kashmir region. The anti-terrorist barriers will eventually run the entire 1,800-mile border with Pakistan.

    India/ Myanmar (Burma): A separation barrier that India started constructing in 2003 to seal off its 975-mile border with Myanmar. The stated purpose is to curtail cross border crime, smuggling, drug trafficking, insurgency and illegal immigration.

    Pakistan/Afghanistan: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, citing India’s success with its fence on the Pakistan border announced in Sept. 2005, his intention to build a 1,500 mile fence and mine the border with Afghanistan. This is thought to be more likely political posturing and without a massive influx of U.S. dollars will never come to fruition. The political and tribal hurdles would likely doom any serious intention.

    Kuwait/Iraq: The 120-mile demilitarized zone along this border has been manned by UN soldiers and observers since the Gulf War ended, in 1991. Made of electric fencing and wire, and supplemented by fifteen-foot-wide trenches, the barrier extends from Saudi Arabia to the Persian Gulf. Kuwait has since install an additional 135-mile iron partition.

    United Arab Emirates/Oman: Starting in 2005, the UAE has been erecting a barrier fence along its border with Oman to prevent the flow of drugs, terrorists and illegal immigrants.

    Russia/ Chechnya: Noting Israel’s success with it’s West Bank barrier Russia has declared it’s intention to seriously consider constructing a fence on its Chechnya border in order to combat Muslim terrorism.

    Uzbek/Afghanistan: A barrier coursing the entire 130 mile border consisting of two fences, one barbed wire and the second a taller 380-volt electrified fence with land mines and patrolled by armed Uzbek soldiers.

    Malaysia/Thailand: In 2001, the two countries jointly agreed to construct a fence along their 400 mile border to reduce smuggling and stop the infiltration of Malaysian Muslim extremist groups that led to the South Thailand Insurgency, a separatist campaign in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces. The actual progress on this fence is unknown at this time.

    Brunei/Malaysia: In 2005, Brunei built a security fence along its 20-kilometer border with Limbang, Malaysia in order to control illegal immigration and smuggling.

    United States/Mexico: In the mid-1990s President Clinton initiated two programs; Operation Gatekeeper and Operation Hold the Line, to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico. They produced a system of high-tech barriers, including a fourteen-mile fence separating San Diego from Tijuana. By 2005, security barriers stretched along at least seventy miles of the border. Recognizing the success of the San Diego corridor barrier, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandating the construction of 700 miles of border fence along the Mexico border including “two layers of reinforced fencing” and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. Just before Christmas 2007, Congress passed an Omnibus spending bill that removed the two-tier requirement and the list of locations specified. Also, an additional kicker was slipped into the bill, the Hutchinson Amendment which allowed the secretary of DHS to not build the fence anywhere he deemed it “not appropriate”. So how this all shakes out for the border fence construction that is plodding along on our southern border and it’s ultimate success remains to be seen.

    Botswana/Zimbabwe: The government of Botswana claims to have started building a ten-foot-high electric fence along its border with Zimbabwe to control the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. However, most Zimbabweans believe that the fence — begun in 2003 and intended to stretch up to 300 miles — really aims to stanch the immigration flow from troubled Zimbabwe into calmer Botswana.

    Saudi Arabia/Yemen: In 2003 Saudi Arabia began building a ten-foot-high barrier along its border with Yemen to prevent terrorist infiltration. Heeding Yemeni protests that the fence violated a border treaty, the Saudi government vowed to complete the project in cooperation with Yemen. A February 2007 report in the Arab Times indicates the Saudi’s remain committed to fully fencing its border with Yemen.

    Saudi Arabia/Iraq: In 2006, the Saudi’s put out calls for bid on a 900 kilometer fence running the distance of its border with Iraq. It is reported this is part of a larger package of fence building to secure all of Saudi Arabia’s 6,500 kilometers of border.

    Ceruta/Morroco and Melilla/Morocco : A border fence built by Spain with EU funding between Morocco and the Spanish city’s of Ceruta and Melilla on the north Moroccan coast to stop illegal immigration and smuggling.

    Egypt/Gaza: The United States announced in March 2008 that it is giving Egypt $23 million and technical assistance to help Egypt build a border fence along the Gaza-Egypt border to eliminate smuggling and entry of Palestinian militants. The dichotomy here is obvious as the U.S. is set to help Egypt secure its border yet sabotages and drags it feet in securing our own border with Mexico.

    All of the fences detailed that have been built are successful, some to more degrees than others, but successful nonetheless. Don’t let anyone ever tell you that fences won’t work because they do. If fences didn’t work, governments all over the world would not be investing in them. Critics of the U.S. border fence like to portray it as an evil Berlin Wall type barrier, which could not be further from the truth. Our border fence does not keep people in and reduce their freedom, it keeps illegal immigrants and terrorists out thereby securing freedom and security on both sides of the border. It also separates people of two distinct nations unlike the Berlin Wall, which separated two of the same people, Germans from Germans. If there were not the propensity of Mexican nationals and OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans) to illegally cross our border at will and help themselves to whatever they found to their liking in our country while encouraged and abetted by the Mexican and other foreign governments, the border fence would be unnecessary. Since the mass illegal crossings won’t cease anytime soon, perhaps never, the fence becomes a necessity.

    If you don’t wish to overload the naysayers negative mindset and illogical open borders philosophers with all the facts above, then just give them this quote from poet Robert Frost (and supported by a study co-authored in 2007 by the New England Complex Systems Institute and Brandeis University)…”Good fences make good neighbors”. Or, if you’d just like to be a bit snarky ask them this, “If fences don’t work why is there one around the White House?”

    • Swemson permalink
      September 20, 2009 3:39 pm

      Right on Zeezil !

      Well said

    • September 20, 2009 8:12 pm


      Thank you.

  18. Claude Cartaginese permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:00 pm


    I would have liked to have had your research in front of me when I wrote the post.


  19. oldwolves permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:00 pm

    “Decriminalizing it is the ONLY solution. It won’t eliminate drug use, but it will gradually, over a period of 10 to 20 years cut it down dramatically”(Sounds like Obama talking)

    Like alcohol addiction has declined since the end of prohibition ?

    “The point is that our fight against drugs can never be won”

    Now who said the same thing about Iraq? Sounds like Murtha or one of the other surrender monkeys.

    What scares me is this is actually under consideration by those who call themselves conservatives. Is this a positive plan for our drug war?



    DO the research people. I cited where I got My information from. Read it. If drugs become legal this country will be done. Finished.

    zeezil shows that fences work. I think the best proof is given to us by the lies of the MSM. I take as proof how the lefties are forever harping about how Israel has built a fence to keep out the Arabs. What the media fails to report is that SAUDI ARABIA has a bigger fence to keep out the Yemenis! And they refuse to even discuss it’s removal. Fences work. Fighting the drug war works. Surrender never works.

    • September 20, 2009 4:23 pm

      Did you know William F. Buckley Jr. and Milton Friedman were in favor of legalization?

      • Swemson permalink
        September 20, 2009 5:25 pm


        People like Wolfi here will never get it… When he says:


        you can see exactly where he’s coming from… It’s the same blind hatred that makes liberals despise republicans, capitalism, and those evil corporations so vehemently.. It’s a form of insanity. He actually thinks that the right is profiting from the drug industry, when it’s ALWAYS been the opposite… Old Joe Kennedy was the perfect example… Those people are so self superior that they have no problem helping the peasants get their drugs and booze… as long as they profit from it.. Are they any different than the mafia don’s in The Godfather, in that great scene when they were all around the big table.. “keep it in the dark neighborhoods… they’re animals anyway, so let them lose their souls”

        He can’t understand that “WE” didn’t create alcoholics, because he sees evil right wing capitalists as the cause of everything that ails mankind.

        He writes:

        “Like alcohol addiction has declined since the end of prohibition ?”

        Again, he doesn’t get it that the real fight is NOT to prevent people from doing what they always have and always will do.. the repeal of prohibition was intended to stop the violence and bloodshed that resulted from making it illegal in the first place…

        “What scares me is this is actually under consideration by those who call themselves conservatives. Is this a positive plan for our drug war?”

        Here, he raises the probability that he’s one of the loons from the religious right… He doesn’t get that a rational conservative is interested in promoting freedom and personal responsibility etc.. He’s so righteous that it’s perfectly natural for him to advocate that government should function to protect people from themselves… But let’s cut him some slack… maybe he’s gone off the rails because he lost a child to drug addiction, and is therefore understandably directing his anger at drug use itself rather than the violence it spawns.

        Assuming that’s the case, he’s still wrong of course, because the in this mess, the only tragedy worse that a parent’s loss of a child to drug addiction, is a parent’s loss of a good kid who was a victim of drug violence simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time… Those kind of victims are FAR more deserving of our concern than the junkies themselves.

        the cold reality however is that the drug war typically costs about 3 times the actual cost of drug use itself, and it’s never worked & never will… Someone said that it’s not really a war at all, but rather a costly and selective form of government paternalism that has done far more harm than good.

        • Julie Trevor permalink
          September 20, 2009 6:08 pm

          While there is perhaps some good for widespread access to certain substances that may be addictive {i.e. there is mounting evidence that some of the stimulant medications used for ADHD/ADD would be beneficial to more people than just those who take them to relieve the symptons of ADD}; in general repeated exposure to addictive substances almost always results in addiction and addiction related behaviours/problems.

          The kicker is no one knows how many exposures cause addiction, but we do know there are many substances that a single exposure results in addiction.

          Some behaviours with substance use are more dangerous than others i.e. a drunk driver is apt to run several redlights without noticing whereas a potsmoker behind the wheel is apt to sit through 3 redlights without noticing. Clearly running redlights is more dangerous than sitting still.

          The biggest questions for me are 1. why are people so in need to alter their mental status and 2. if people want to alter their mental status why is the government standing in the way and making it such a difficult and dangersous endeavor?

          • September 20, 2009 6:21 pm

            From “Waking Life,” one of my favorite films, a character asks,
            “Which is the most universal human characteristic: fear, or laziness?”

            The answers to your questions:
            1. Laziness.
            2. Fear.

            Though on point 1 I’d add that the desire to alter one’s mental state reflects a spiritual need to achieve a mystical union with existence. Drugs can do that but are perhaps not the best way to get there.

          • Swemson permalink
            September 20, 2009 7:06 pm

            Julie writes:

            “Some behaviours with substance use are more dangerous than others i.e. a drunk driver is apt to run several redlights without noticing whereas a potsmoker behind the wheel is apt to sit through 3 redlights without noticing. Clearly running redlights is more dangerous than sitting still.”

            LOL !

            Thanks for that little bit of “Recherche du Temps Perdu”

            I had a friend at college in the early 60’s who swore, when we pulled him out of his slightly bent VW after hitting a big oak tree at about 3 MPH in our driveway, that the oak tree leapt out of the ground and attacked his car.. (In case you’re wondering, he was doing Purple Ozzlies at the time)

        • Luis Vazquez permalink
          September 20, 2009 9:24 pm

          I didn’t know that Joe Kennedy and his son Ted were Republicans.

          Joe Sr. provided us with the wiskey he introduced illegally here, and Ted and some of his grandsons, including Joseph Kennedy III, consumed a great amount of it.

          • Swemson permalink
            September 20, 2009 10:50 pm

            Reread carefully sir..

            I said Joe was a liberal elitist from the left, not on the right.

        • oldwolves permalink
          September 21, 2009 4:37 am

          Now that swemy has finished with the name calling I would like him to answer the question.

          How does creating millions of new junkies help America? Yeah Yeah I know Mr. tough guy will say ‘screw ’em, but while he’s riding so high and righteous we will have to still deal with the mess that his type of surrender will create!

          Let me tell you about a little ‘unscientific’ experiment that I did at my local H.S. During a class conversation I asked them if any of them tried drugs. 4 out of 32 raised their hands. Then I asked them all the same question again but asked them to simply write on a piece of paper a Y (yes) or a N(no) if they ever tried drugs. Total secrecy. 19 came back Y. 19 out of 32. These were tenth graders.

          Tell me Swemy, you never did anything stupid when you were a kid? How many in these post have never done something stupid when you were kids? What some people here lack is not book smarts but reality checks. You may not want to know it but every damn kid of yours has done something dumb and stupid. Everyone. It’s part of human nature at that age to go out and explore and to test limits. Accepting this truth is called COMMON SENSE. You hope they don’t but they will. Deal with it. Now add the fact that drugs will be readily available to them. Do the math!

          Tell me swemy. How do YOU tell kids who are too ignorant and foolish, not to try something! By your definition of insanity( Einsteins repetitive quote, I believe) tell me how making drugs accessible to millions of kids a good idea?

          Oh yeah, by the way, what the hell is this “Blame Right wing capitalist” crap? I AM a right wing capitalist!

          “Here, he raises the probability that he’s one of the loons from the religious right”
          Sorry swemy, I’m agnostic. Your logic and name calling does however show your true colors, don’t they. Maybe you should be standing up at the podium with Pelosi.

          So thanks, but no thanks, you don’t have to cut me any slack. As for gone off the rails well, at least I’m the right track. However, your ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ idea of legalizing drugs… seems that light is a train coming down the track right at you, and your still screaming”, See I told ya, look at the light!”

          As for blind hatred, well damn me YES! Most of you haven’t seen the destruction caused by drugs and hopefully never will. And no i never lost anyone personally to drugs. Swemy keeps confusing the issue by bringing it back to the junkie where as i keep talking about the VICTIMS of these junkies. But swemy keeps ignoring that. The victims of thefts so Junkies can get their next fix. The victims of robbery so the junkies can get their next fix. The victims of assaults so the junkie can get his fix. Then add all the time cops have to use to deal with it. All the times hospitals use to deal with it. All the time parents lose at work when they have to deal with it. All the deaths of junkies and their victims and how WE all have to deal with it.

          Yeah I hate drugs Swemy. As much as you want them legal ,I want them destroyed. I want those that bring them to this country and kill our kids and their victims destroyed. I want those politicians who don’t do there jobs and fight a real war against drugs thrown out and never allowed to seek office again. I want to keep fighting and never surrender because the real cost is too great. So instead of fighting for drugs , swemy, and all who agree with him, why don’t you start fighting against them and get on board.

          • Swemson permalink
            September 21, 2009 8:55 am

            The statistics from the Netherlands proves that you’re wrong: After legalizing drugs several years ago the European statistics show that drug related violence plummets when you decriminalize it:

            “There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%.”

            If you raise your kids right and teach them the right values, the risk of drugs to them is pretty low. I had no problem with mine… If you have problems with yours, you’re going to have to take the responsibility for it.

            If you can figure out a way to eliminate all illegal drugs and the violence that comes with them great… But you can’t and never will. Not even if we spent half of our GNP on the event. We’re far too open a society to police EVERYONE…

            And I’m not going to waste my time to get involved in a fight that I know is futile.

            • oldwolves permalink
              September 21, 2009 10:43 am

              1995? 1995? 15 years ago? I cited stats from 2008. I think you better get rid of your windows 95 and update your numbers. 1995. Sheesh!

            • Swemson permalink
              September 21, 2009 11:44 am

              So the stats I found are old… so what. They’re still accurate.

              The problems that they’re having in the Netherlands today, is due to the fact that since drugs are illegal almost everywhere, all the junkies are traveling there… with such a high concentration of non-productive losers, there’s bound to be problems.

              Cheap drugs, welfare, free healthcare… wow.. that’s paradise for a junkie…

              Decriminalize it everywhere, and things will improve very quickly… I’m not the only one advocating legalization you know…

              Go google the phrase “Arguments for legalizing drugs”.. and you’ll find lots of arguments both for and against…

              BTW: We agree that drugs are horrible. Our disagreement is simply about how to solve the problem, so how about dropping your rude and insulting manner… Your snide remarks discredit you in the minds of rational observers…

              PS: I’m on a new MAC running 10.6

      • oldwolves permalink
        September 21, 2009 3:49 am

        Even the gods make mistakes. Take the platypuses. But then there’s a difference between talking about what policies should do and what their consequences actually are. The road to hell and all that.

        • Swemson permalink
          September 21, 2009 9:00 am

          BTW: I know that the idea of legalizing drugs to reduce drug violence is counter intuitive, but sometimes it works that way.

          Making the possession of firearms in Australia is another example of how government screws things up worse, when the try to regulate them… Google the stats on violent crimes before and after they took the guns down under…

      • Bobby permalink
        September 21, 2009 3:22 pm

        I don’t know if Freidman was in favor of legalization, but I’ll believe you. I do know that he also said that his economic theories cannot work with an open border. As for Buckley, he became a useless faux conservative during the last 30 years of his then useless life.

        • September 21, 2009 4:18 pm

          Friedman was for legalization:

          “As for Buckley, he became a useless faux conservative during the last 30 years of his then useless life.”

          LOL! What an absurd joke of a statement.

  20. oldwolves permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:03 pm

    No, your data is 15 years old! My snide remark was an example as to show antiquated your information is. Windows 95 , get it? The whole point is the great liberal drug experiment fails! Then your suggesting that if America makes drugs legal , we could become the drug center of the world? As in the Netherlands. What? As if we wouldn’t have enough problems with the millions of our own junkies, we could become the world center for junkies!

    As for my snide remarks, I apologize. But look who’s calling the kettle black! lol

    I get my dander in an uproar when I ask legitimate questions, backed up with current statistics, and am either ignored or given answers that have nothing to do with the question. I’m used to that when I go on to liberal blogs but find it distressing when ‘conservatives’ fail to attempt even a rational rebuke! I’ve given history, personal experience, current data from actual sources. Yeah I could google “Arguments for drug legalization”, but I could google ” People pretending to be conservative” and get 12,000,000 hits. I prefer common sense and debate where one party puts forth information and the other ‘disproves’ it.

    For some reason your absolutely set on this drug legalization and damn the consequences. It’s frightening to me that someone actually believes that letting loose such an evil in our country could actually be a ‘good thing’.

    Why not let Islamic terrorist have free access to our country in hopes that they will see how wonderful America is? No airport checks or anything! I believe that they will see the light and turn over a new leaf. Let them all come in. We would stop all terrorism in this country by simply giving in to their wants! we all could become Muslims and there would be no more 9/11’s. There would be world peace!

    Doesn’t make sense , does it. It would stop terrorism , but at what cost. Legalizing drugs would only create literally millions of new junkies and tens of millions of victims. For what?

    Benjamin Franklin said,” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Liberty means responsibility. And we will all lose our essential liberty if we allow our country to be infected with millions of junkies. We will cease to exist. And deservedly so.

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      September 21, 2009 1:12 pm

      Old wives, your data is somewhat accurate i.e. 80% of child abuse cases involve drug or alcohol abuse however almost 100% of child abusers have eaten carrots.

      Most drug users and carrot eaters don’t abuse their children; a certain percentage of them abuse children.

      Be careful how the statistics you quote are being used to influence your response to them.

      • oldwolves permalink
        September 21, 2009 2:42 pm

        Carrots? Oy. The point of the statistic is that out of 100 households that have drug abuse problems, 80 of them abuse or neglect kids. Where as 100 households that don’t have drug abuse, 5-7 of them abuse or neglect kids. Ok now?


        • papernerd permalink
          September 21, 2009 4:26 pm

          Uh… no. Out of child-abuse cases she stated, 80% of the abusers in those cases have a drug problem. There’s a difference. Nothing is stated about percentage of households with children who are drug abusers.

        • Julie Trevor permalink
          September 21, 2009 5:38 pm

          Old wives,
          I think you should re-read the statistics you quote – your deductive logic/conclusions/re-statements is not supported by the data you provide

          You said 80% of all child abuse cases involve substance abuse…that does not equate with 80% of all households where substances are abused also abuse children.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 21, 2009 3:36 pm

      You write:

      “Then your suggesting that if America makes drugs legal , we could become the drug center of the world? ”

      No… I never said that, and to suggest that that’s what I’m suggesting is moronic.

      If other countries followed our lead, we would ALL have a FAR smaller population of junkies that are MUCH less dangerous to innocent civilians…

      – We get rid of the crime, and with it a huge % of the violence.
      – By legalizing it, we remove the attraction that most young folks have to things that are forbidden..
      – By legalizing it we save an enormous amount of resources, a small % of which could increase our education and rehabilitation cost tenfold…

      Note: Current cost of the drug war thus far this year, $36.8 Billion, and that doesn’t include the cost of keeping the 600,000 drug offenders in prisons. If we add the cost of the damage done to individuals and private property, the cost probably soars well above $100 Billion.

      Add in the savings that will result from keeping the more violent prisoners in jail, & the number becomes astounding.

      I, and a lot of others are convinced that this is the way to deal with the problem… We’ve been trying it your way for decades, and the problem keeps getting worse…

      The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time…

      Your method has been tried and has failed…

      It’s time to try something different.

      If you still disagree, then try backing your assertions up with hard evidence and facts rather than just the unsubstantiated accusations and assumptions you’ve been parroting back throughout this thread.

  21. oldwolves permalink
    September 22, 2009 5:08 am

    You are the one who suggest that if the USA were to “LEAD” in the puerile notion of legalizing drugs, everyone one else would follow, no? Well I’m under the impression that when you lead, you go first. When you go first, you are usually ALONE”, no? Thats why it’s called “first”. So we go first and expect all the other countries to follow our ‘lead’. All these countries will see America become a country of tens of millions of junkies, and as you so astutely brought up, we will then have junkies from all over the world come to America, as they did in Holland.And as such since Mr. O has almost made Free health care a done deal, we can expect millions from around the world. All thats missing from your scenario Mr. Swemson are unicorns crapping rainbows.

    Somehow you believe that increasing the market for junkies will somehow decrease demand. You need to read ‘Basic Economics’ by Thomas Sowell. He proves through dozens of examples how when you increase supply for a desired object prices actually are raised until wants diminish. However , if you have a consumer that is ‘addicted’ , demand never goes down. Supply’s are limited. Eventually prices go higher and higher , over the ability for someone to pay. What happens then swemson? Millions of Junkies unable to afford legalized drugs.Where as we had hundred of thousands , now we have tens of millions.

    Lets go over your points.
    “We get rid of the crime, and with it a huge % of the violence”
    I have allready show that the opposite is true. Ending Prohibition did NOT stop criminals from continuing their violence. They just moved onto other enterprises and kept the killing going.
    “By legalizing it, we remove the attraction that most young folks have to things that are forbidden”
    Alcohol is legal too. Yet how many hundreds of thousands of teenage and college kids have been arrested , taken to hospitals, been to and partaken in alcohol illegally? You don’t remove the attraction Mr Swemson, you only afford more opportunities.
    “By legalizing it we save an enormous amount of resources, a small % of which could increase our education and rehabilitation cost tenfold…”
    Yes we can save ten fold the money we NOW spend, but what of the future where we have ten times the amount of junkies. Where will the money come from then? You keep posting the present cost of the non existent drug war but fail miserably in showing the future cost of your intentions.The road of hell being paved with them.
    “We’ve been trying it your way for decades, and the problem keeps getting worse…”
    No Mr Swemson, you have not been trying MY way for decades, You have been fodder for the political lip service of decades of politicians. The so called drug war is not real. If the American government truly wanted to eradicate drugs from this country it would happen in just a few years. We have the resources militarily, socially and economically to smash every bit of the stuff from our shores. But because of attitudes like yours, Mr, Swemson, that being junkies deserve what they get, the American people won’t get a chance to see the overall picture of a future with 1/4 to 1/3 the population becoming victims.

    Your vision of surrender will insure the hasty failings of America. So we have not tried MY way Mr. Swemson. My way is extremely harsh and cold. Junkies get two chances at getting cleaned up. Third time 5 years hard labor.
    Local dealers, 5 years hard labor first offense. Life after second. Drug trafficking , first offense, life no parole. Our military would be able to take care of crops grown over seas with a similar chemical of agent orange. Night dusting over the poppy feilds.If whatever country resist us, we simply cut them out of any moneys or assistance we give them. Let their governments know we won’t be there at all. We won’t have to go in militarily. We just starve them out.
    Have our military do tours with the national guard at the borders and build that damn fence! Higher and stronger. Not some dinky little fence that all you need is a ladder to climb it. Thats a war on drugs Mr Swemson. Not what you are being fed.
    “If you still disagree, then try backing your assertions up with hard evidence and facts rather than just the unsubstantiated accusations and assumptions you’ve been parroting back throughout this thread.”
    This has to be the most inane statement of them all Mr. Swemson. I have given to you historical presidings of previous ‘legalized’ drugs from the late 19 th century.I have given you current events showing failed drug policies.(Holland) But you ignored it.Not only ignored it but tried to counter it with 15 year old data!I have given you current statistics from the DOJ concerning current sentencing procedures of drug dealers and traffickers , but you ignore it! I have given you statistics on drug crimes and their abusers and their victims , and you have ignored it! I have asked you at least 3 times to explain how creating millions of junkies is good for this country Mr Swemson and still you refuse to answer. All we get is Legalize drugs and everything will get better. There goes that unicrn again.

    “As for Buckley, he became a useless faux conservative during the last 30 years of his then useless life.”
    I’m not sure who stated this, but you sir , are an ass. Mr Buckleys essays and books were consistently logical and inspiring. You should wish your life was 1 /100 th as useless as his. Maybe you will amount to something more than a troll.

    To Ms. Julie Tremor,
    Perhaps I misquoted the stats in my rush to get these numbers out and I apologize if I had. I thought that my simpler explanation would have sufficed for you. So I will try again.
    Lets break down the numbers to simple fractions. In households where you have drug abusers, let’s say 100 houses, you have an 80% chance of having children their that are abuse or neglected. If each house had two children that would mean 160 children being abuse or neglected. So far so good?
    Now lets look at another segment of the population. Non drug using housholds. We have 100 households where you have 5-7 % reporting of abuse or neglect. This would mean that 10 -14 children were likely to be abused or neglected.
    Now do you see the correlation between drug abuse and child abuse? An nary a carrot has been seen. Don’t feel bad about it I have my blond moments too.
    This will be my final posting on this subject. It’s quite obvious that there are people who would rather ignore history and facts and count on unicorns. So I’ll allow others to have a final say on this matter.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 22, 2009 10:47 am

      You write:

      “if the USA were to “LEAD” in the puerile (sp) notion of legalizing drugs”

      “PUERILE” notion…?

      In your first sentence you show your hatred and lack of objectivity…

      “All thats missing from your scenario Mr. Swemson are unicorns crapping rainbows.”

      You’re so sure that you’re right, you can’t even listen to a different idea without twisting EVERYTHING I say, and then pronounce YOUR opinions as if they were FACTS.


      ““We get rid of the crime, and with it a huge % of the violence”
      I have allready show that the opposite is true. Ending Prohibition did NOT stop criminals from continuing their violence. They just moved onto other enterprises ”

      You haven’t shown ANYTHING.. all you did was disagree with me, and your OPINION, as shown immediately above, is so absurd as to be pathetic.

      “Ending Prohibition did NOT stop criminals from continuing their violence.”

      It sure as hell stopped the violence associated with illegal booze… And yet you try to imply that I think that legalizing drugs will cause the elimination of ALL crime…

      ” They just moved onto other enterprises and kept the killing going.”

      Yeah right… as if there was never any crime before prohibition….

      That’s as stupid as Carter, who, looking at the sign “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” said that the right wanted to bury Obama himself.

      You don’t offer ONE opinion based on facts…

      Your solutions have been tried for years, and have NEVER worked, and some of them are so absurd that no reasonable person would ever agree to it…

      Harsh penalties ?

      “Local dealers, 5 years hard labor first offense. Life after second. Drug trafficking , first offense, life no parole.”

      Like America is really going to support the idea of putting a college kid selling dime bags away for 5 years on a first bust or life on a second… Your idea would require the creation of hundreds of thousands of new prisons beds….. Only a very small % of drug criminals ever get caught, and we already have 1 adult out of every hundred in America.

      So if all you can do is spout stupid and failed ideas, twist the facts to suit your OPINIONS, and insult those who disagree with you, then why don’t you just shut up. You have proven that you have nothing to add to the debate, and that you’re not even worth talking to….

      As Groucho said: “Go, and never darken my towels again”

  22. brittanicus permalink
    September 22, 2009 3:41 pm

    Nothing is a 100 percent perfect and that goes for the government application E-Verify? The answer for any irate hired worker is simple, that if the employer is not satisfied with the results of the immigration verification identity process? You take a copy of your 1-9 form to the Social security agency, to resolve the issue? YOU WILL OBVIOUSLY NOT APPEAR BEFORE AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, IF YOU HAVE NO AUTHENTIC PAPERS? This is not a complex approach to the problem, although the US Chamber of Commerce, ACLU and a multitude of detrimental businesses have tried to escalate this situation? They say categorically nothing about how to rectify the matter, owing to their main objective is to demonize the process any way they can? Even their adolescent attitude of filing some frivolous lawsuit with the courts fell through?

    E-Verification–MUST–become a permanent law, not just subject to an employer’s whim? The public who savor their jobs not being appropriated by foreign workers–AS HAPPENED IN EUROPE–should demand E-Verify in every industry, every business with heavy penalties for those who rebuke the law including mandatory jail sentences. EUROPE over several decades has also been overwhelmed by legal and illegal immigrants, thats why health care across the Atlantic has become compromised? E-Verify could be easily expanded for many other uses in the US, including admittance to health care, drivers licenses, government subsidies that would include education and home mortgages?

    But we must remain vigilant as the status quo has in their influence a group of stalwart politicians. They have secretly conspired to table E-Verify in the past and will no doubt try to eradicate it’s accessibility in the future. Hundreds of pariah businesses are devoid of a conscious towards the American working man or woman. They have corrupted the lawmakers in Washington, with special interest money and extravagant favors. They have already indoctrinated some of our previously honest leaders with favors and in return we have seen the weakening of 287 G police training apprehension of illegal immigrants. Already President Obama has listened to Sen.Harry Reid D-NV, California’s own Nancy Pelosi and Napolitano who have weakened other enforcement laws. NO! Innocent children of illegal immigrants who were transplanted by their parents here are not to blame. Our borders have remained like sieves, thanks to some of the lawmakers whom we voted for over the years. Legislators are ultimately culpable as they make the decisions, as by inheritance of each administration who resides in the White House?

    Money was wasted on building the single length border fence instead of Rep.Duncan Hunters planned two-tier barrier as in San Diego? ICE raids have been reduced and even the No-match-rescinded. More money is wasted overturning enforcement laws, instead of using the full force of these procedures in combating the illegal immigrant invasion. IF YOU HAVE SOME SOLID KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGAL WORKERS, CONTACT ICE! ADDRESS YOUR POLITICIANS AT 202-224-3121 NO MORE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM! IT IS NOT IN THE COUNTRIES INTEREST. USE AMENDMENTS TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS WITH THE 1986 IMMIGRATION LAWS ALREADY ENACTED. Learn facts not rhetoric or lies at NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH & CAPSWEB.

Comments are closed.