Thread: Ron Paul Unplugged: Cutting Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Bingo!! As I said, the biggest shills being our very own government - especially ICE - so we believe they are really going to build a fence, build one that will work and build it soon enough to work.

ICE may not be doing the job as well as we'd like, but calling them shills is a bunch of B.S.. Until you personally raid a drop house full of dangerous gang members, you might want to cut them a little slack.

They are going to play with us, divert us from interior enforcement,

No matter how much they supposedly "play with us", more and more states are making interior enforcement a top priority.

maybe take land

How do you expect them to build the fence without "taking" (translation=paying handsomely for it) some land?

and play the waiting game - until after the election - until the NAU is a done deal

That's the same kind of B.S. logic that the OBL uses to argue for amnesty: "Since we can't deport all of the illegal aliens, we should legalize all of them". Get some new talking points or just admit that quite a few Ronbots are afraid of the fence because they think it will be used in the future to keep people in as opposed to keeping illegal aliens and drug smugglers out. Sorry, gotta go. There are some black helicopters circling over my house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ICE may not be doing the job as well as we'd like, but calling them shills is a bunch of B.S.. Until you personally raid a drop house full of dangerous gang members, you might want to cut them a little slack.

I don't cut them any slack. I have heard very little about dangerous houses full of gang members. I have heard of 15, 20, and so forth being arrested. I did like that they had raided some businessess - but they ar esmall.

To suggest that ICE is doing their job and has been doing their job is just naive. I'm not talking bout some individual people employed by ICE - by the institution itself.

Sorry - I'm not buying they are doing anything but perhaps raiding some non-contributors, staging some raids for the media's benefit.

If they wanted to get rid of illegals, park at the plants at shift change and fill up the busses - 100's at a time. We can't 'on-at-a-time' this thing and expect to get the job done.


No matter how much they supposedly "play with us", more and more states are making interior enforcement a top priority.

Yes, yes, yes. States are making interior laws - but not the federal government.


How do you expect them to build the fence without "taking" (translation=paying handsomely for it) some land?

I understand they willl have to take land - but why are they saying they will give them 30 days - when they don't even have the fence designed yet?

But if the government comes to me and tells me they will give me twice what my house is worth and I have to sell whether I want to or not - that's taking.

Actually, I think they knew they would meet with opposition and that is why they are getting tough on the condemnation. They can blame it all on those greedy Texans down there. Those same Texans, by the way that have been begging for some kind of relief and action for 30 years and have been living with and battling this situation on their own for that long.

Had they listened to those crazy Texans 25-30 years ago, and done what they should have, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.



That's the same kind of B.S. logic that the OBL uses to argue for amnesty: "Since we can't deport all of the illegal aliens, we should legalize all of them". Get some new talking points or just admit that quite a few Ronbots are afraid of the fence because they think it will be used in the future to keep people in as opposed to keeping illegal aliens and drug smugglers out. Sorry, gotta go. There are some black helicopters circling over my house.

I do hope this doesn't get personal or insulting - that bothers me. If we, as Americans, can't discuss things that are so important and speak our minds without being insulted, we've already lost.

I am not a Ronbot and because I don't have total faith in our federal government doesn't mean I don't want drug dealers and terrorists stopped.

I don't know what my statement that the government is the one playing the waiting game - and dragging this out until after election or the NAU has to do with the idea that 'we can't deport them all'. No connection whatsoever - I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying I don't believe it will be done. There is a big difference.

And you haven't lived until you have had a black helicopter, armed, hover over your house for about 30 minutes - one hover over the courthouse square, and one making a wide and decreasing circle of your small town.

nntrixie wrote:

I understand they willl have to take land - but why are they saying they will give them 30 days - when they don't even have the fence designed yet?

The feds aren't giving them 30 days notice before they build the fence. They are giving them 30 days to simply answer (repeated) requests to give them access to their land in order to conduct surveys. Some of these Texas landowners have a personal stake in contuing the illegal invasion so they won't even give the feds permission to survey their land.

But if the government comes to me and tells me they will give me twice what my house is worth and I have to sell whether I want to or not - that's taking.

It could be argued that people who want to continue the illegal invasion unabated should have the right to keep their homes, but they better not bitch when they find their homes and/or towns on the wrong side of the fence.

Originally Posted by SecureTheBorder

That's the same kind of B.S. logic that the OBL uses to argue for amnesty: "Since we can't deport all of the illegal aliens, we should legalize all of them". Get some new talking points or just admit that quite a few Ronbots are afraid of the fence because they think it will be used in the future to keep people in as opposed to keeping illegal aliens and drug smugglers out. Sorry, gotta go. There are some black helicopters circling over my house.

That kind of deprecating talk is really uncalled for. Alot of Ron Paul supporters support a 2,000 mile fence, I know because I am one. Most of the folks I've met in the Phoenix RP meet-ups support the fence, as well, but the fact remains that if we don't eliminate the cheese the mice will continue to find a way in.

Think about it.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

That kind of deprecating talk is really uncalled for.

Agreed. If I offended anyone, please accept my apologies. Sometimes my German/Irish temper makes my "righteous indignation" somewhat unpalatable.

Alot of Ron Paul supporters support a 2,000 mile fence, I know because I am one.

Then why did you write the following post on this message board?

Actually, widening the river where possible is a GREAT idea!

It's alot cheaper than the fence, it provides access for farmers and fishermen, it doesn't 'mar the landscape' and it would be an effective deterrent.

There's alot of merit in this.

Most of the folks I've met in the Phoenix RP meet-ups support the fence, as well, but the fact remains that if we don't eliminate the cheese the mice will continue to find a way in.

Think about it.

You're preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by SecureTheBorder

Then why did you write the following post on this message board?

Actually, widening the river where possible is a GREAT idea!

It's alot cheaper than the fence, it provides access for farmers and fishermen, it doesn't 'mar the landscape' and it would be an effective deterrent.

There's alot of merit in this.

Because it's the truth. Wide, flat water is easy to monitor, electronically or otherwise, the river would be deep enough for the BP to utilize more high-speed boats and it eliminate 2 of the biggest objections to the fence in that area, access and aesthetics. And if you'll notice the added bolding to my original statement, it doesn't detract from any fencing in any other areas.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Because it's the truth. Wide, flat water is easy to monitor, electronically or otherwise, the river would be deep enough for the BP to utilize more high-speed boats and it eliminate 2 of the biggest objections to the fence in that area, access and aesthetics. And if you'll notice the added bolding to my original statement, it doesn't detract from any fencing in any other areas.

Emphasis mine. I can't help but point out the logical fallacy in this statement. If the river is wide enough for the BP to utilize more high-speed boats, it would also be wide enough for the drug cartels and human smugglers to use high speed boats. IMO, widening the river is just an alternative being pushed by the OBL to forestall building the double layer fence because they know that a good fence will significantly reduce the illegal invasion.

However, I would support widening the river AND building the double layer fence because that would give BP a waterway to patrol activity and make it more difficult and expensive to compromise the fence. From what I've read, the feds want a fence that will hold back foreign invaders for at least 15 minutes so BP can catch those who manage to cross the border. Widening the river AND building the double layer fence might give BP more time to catch the invaders, which would make their jobs easier and discourage many would be invaders from even trying to cross the border.

nntrixie wrote:

I understand they willl have to take land - but why are they saying they will give them 30 days - when they don't even have the fence designed yet?

Why do you say the fence is not designed yet? The Duncan Hunter fence is the plan that was written into law. It's a double-layered fence with interlocking cameras, sensors, stadium lighting, and a high-speed road between layers. The problem is not that the fence isn't designed, it's just that the President and DHS doesn't want to build the actual fence that was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States. It's up to us, the American people, to force our so-called leadership to obey the law as intended. I'm with SecureTheBorder on this, constantly whinning about the resistance we're getting isn't going to solve a darn thing. We must keep the pressure turned on high through our phone calls, emails, letters, etc.

One more thing, since when does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, border communites, border land owners, and corporate America decide what's good for our national security? Should we trust them to do that? I should say not! Those Americans that advocate against the 854-mile double-layered fence are playing right into the hands of the Mexican government and greedy folks that wish to prosper from open borders. Politicians that are pandering for votes are also included in my list of greedy folks seeking to prosper from open borders.

As I've said before, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of those folks living along the border do actually support the fence. Unfortunately their positions don't sell news and it certainly doesn't fit into the desires of the MSM. With that said, I seriously doubt they're going out of their way to interview folks along the border that support the fence.

Personally, I find Paul's comment regarding how offensive the fence is as, for lack of a better word, offensive!

SecureTheBorder wrote:

I can't help but point out the logical fallacy in this statement. If the river is wide enough for the BP to utilize more high-speed boats, it would also be wide enough for the drug cartels and human smugglers to use high speed boats. IMO, widening the river is just an alternative being pushed by the OBL to forestall building the double layer fence because they know that a good fence will significantly reduce the illegal invasion.

Of course you're right, and most people should see that.

Originally Posted by SecureTheBorder

I can't help but point out the logical fallacy in this statement. If the river is wide enough for the BP to utilize more high-speed boats, it would also be wide enough for the drug cartels and human smugglers to use high speed boats. IMO, widening the river is just an alternative being pushed by the OBL to forestall building the double layer fence because they know that a good fence will significantly reduce the illegal invasion.

The cartels and smugglers are ALREADY enjoying near-unfettered access. They simply DRIVE across the river right now. Anything that would slow them down is an improvement over what we have.

The Rio Grande forms 1,250 miles of border between the US and Mexico. Obviously you can't widen the whole thing and good fencing SHOULD be used for the vast majority of it's length, but in places where it would help widening the river does make sense.

I'm with Pinestraw, I don't have a problem with a fence - a real fence, a 2,000 mile fence and one built - yesterday, if it is coupled with interior enforment.

As for not being designed, we just had a story on here not long ago about the various companies bringing samples of their design to an A & M (I believe) location and turning BP agents loose on it with various tools they had confiscated from illegals.

They were talking about it needing to be aesthetically pleasing, etc. - from that I assumed it hasn't been designed yet. Maybe those people don't know it has already been designed.

So why if it has been voted on, designed, isn't it being built - in places where there is no opposition? Have they gotten all of it built in the other areas? That's not my impression, but I could be wrong.

As for whom we should allow to decide what's best for our national security - I think those on the border who have been asking, demanding, and begging for some enforcement or 30 years might be at least as interested in national security as the politicians and the politically run Homeland Security department. You now the people whose job it has been to protect this country and the border and haven't done it for 30 years?

Do some on the border support the fence, of course they do. No one has suggested otherwise.

Unless we close off the enticements of jobs, welfare, live as you like situation, we are going to have illegals.

What you don't understand - these people's homes have been on the wrong side of the fence for 30 years. In other words, these people have dealt with the illegals, almost on their own, for a very long time.

I am not about to suggest they are all people who want more illegals here, or that they are friends of drug dealers.

I'm not against a fence, totally - but don't put all our emphasis on a fence. Without interior enforcement and not just token enforcement, we will just be the same nation full and more full of illegals with a very expensive partial fence on the border.

If Americans don't have access to the water - and Mexico does - then we have given it to them.

It may have to be that way - but if we ask them to make that sacrifice, we need to make sure it is done right and done in conjunction with some real interior enforcement. I don't see that happening.

It is wrong to suggest because people see the fence as not being the ultimate answer are just wanting the flood of illegals to continue. That kind of talk is unfair and just wrong.