Thread: Op:Activists asking for too much on immigration

Opinion
Activists asking for too much on immigration
Our view: Call to bring down barriers along the border is ill-timed and unwise
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.08.2008

There's a possibility that momentum for Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reforms may get a boost under the administration of President-elect Barack Obama. However, some pro-reform activists should remember not to ask for too much too soon.
Like an electric stovetop that's been on for hours, it will take some time for the acrimonious debate over illegal immigration to cool down.

We bring this up because the Associated Press reported last week that some elected officials in El Paso are asking Obama to throw out federal plans to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico.

OK, that didn't strike us as unreasonable. We have argued and this newspaper has reported that it is unrealistic to seal the border with fencing. Some terrain along the border is too rugged for fencing and no wall can thwart the ingenuity of humans desperate to find a better way of life.

Also, building hundreds of miles of fencing ignores the fact that many illegal immigrants enter the country legally. They come in with valid visas and then simply don't go home.

However, the El Paso officials did not stop at asking for a halt in fence building. They also suggested that existing fencing, including several miles of decades-old barriers in El Paso, Nogales and San Diego should also be removed.

This is asking for too much too soon.

There might come a day when people can cross the U.S.-Mexican border as easily and hassle-free as they cross the U.S.-Canadian border. But that day isn't here yet.

Tearing down barriers would also be a tough political sell to many politicians and millions of voters who want tighter — not looser — border security.

Texas state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh told the AP that taking down the barriers would send "a message of friendship and a message of hope."

Shapleigh and like-minded activists need to remember that barriers in urban areas along the border aren't meant only to stop illegal immigrants, but drug smugglers and other criminals as well.

As long as drug trafficking from Mexico remains a problem, we believe keeping the barriers in urban areas is a good idea. They provide a level of security that a less-sturdy fence cannot and make it more difficult for smugglers to operate.

The El Paso officials might have been prompted to make their requests on the hope that Obama and a more Democratic Congress will be more likely to enact immigration reforms now that Republicans have lost some strength.

It also doesn't hurt that Obama has nominated Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for monitoring the border. Napolitano is a moderate on the immigration issue and has criticized border fences in the past.

We have argued on these pages many times that border security plays an integral role in the debate over curbing illegal immigration. Where we agree with the pro-reform advocates and disagree with some members of Congress and Arizona's Legislature is that enforcement actions alone will not solve the problem of illegal immigration.

A comprehensive solution would include:
â—

[quote="cvangel"]

A comprehensive solution would include:
â—

I've heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. How have all those amnesties since 1986 been working out?

Seal the borders enforce the laws and you go a long way towards reversing the unemployment problem,rebuilding our economy, stopping the illegal drug trade,saving the tax payers billions on education,healthcare,wellfare,foodstamps,housing,a ll in all you solve most of the problems in this country.(except the politicians)most of them need to be imprisoned anyway.

I would recommend that the water supply for El Paso be tested because this is the most insane stance put forward by those in border states that should be worried more about drug violence spilling over to their community, rather than getting some aunt or uncle or other extended family over the border illegally!

OK, that didn't strike us as unreasonable. We have argued and this newspaper has reported that it is unrealistic to seal the border with fencing. Some terrain along the border is too rugged for fencing and no wall can thwart the ingenuity of humans desperate to find a better way of life

Here we go again with the argument that illegal invaders (with their 6th grade educations) are so smart that we should just forget about a wall because in all their infinite wisdom, the invaders will find ways over, under and through a fence.

Are open borders, pro-illegal invader advocates really that stupid or does their contempt for the rule of law cloud their ability to think like a rational person ?

[...]

Originally Posted by millere

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Are open borders, pro-illegal invader advocates really that stupid or does their contempt for the rule of law cloud their ability to think like a rational person ?

It is some sick, degenerate form of Liberalism that is taking hold of this country. First, "political correctness" taught that the definition of a moral, decent individual was someone who was always on the "hunt" for White males who could be fired from their jobs or abused, even physically. Then the "global" socialists came along and basically said, "...as long as I get money in my wallet I will trumpet the importation of low wage slaves into the US as some sort of 'third world social crisis' even though it is nothing of the sort."

When the obvious solution is to defend our borders, the Socialists jump up and say it is "physically impossible" like you pointed out. But then when real physical progress is made to having the fence built they do everything they can to tear it down because they think we are easy to fool. Bush is an example of this obvious "Liberal profiteering" sickness.