THE WALL (well... fence actually)

Does anyone know if the fence and other boarder security items are happening since Obama has taken office?

We were talking about it in the staff room at lunch and since nobody has heard anything we wondered if increased boarder security is no longer happening, or if we are just not hearing about it because of the economy.

Anyone know?

I need to ask my bro-in-law who is Boarder Patrol I guess, but he doesnt know anything most of the time - he is just running around the desert trying to stop drugs and weapons from getting across.

Here is a funny side story just to make this thread more interesting:

The drug dealers pay people to carry shopping bags full of drugs to the boarder and they wait in the brush for a truck to pull up and honk - then they all run out and throw the drugs into the back of the pickup and run back to Mexico...

So my Bro-in-Law has has been involved with a couple of busts where they get a pickup and drive up to the area where this happens, honk, and people run up and throw drugs into the truck.... with a Boarder Patrol agent in the drivers seat. lol. Idiots.

 

Man, did I think this thread was going to be about something else! I have no information of any value to add, and yet, I will still post drivel. Good story on the pickup / drug runs, though, and thanks for that, Jensers!

I am just a new boy, a stranger in this town...

 

Pretty much par for the course in any state (although our neighbors to the east are the true experts of this tactic).

On the lead-in to the news the other night here, they mentioned a woman whose house is on the wrong side of the fence and all the drug traffic related antics she's had to endure. I didn't watch the piece to get the details though. It was probably the same woman in Brownsville who was in the papers a couple of years ago.

 

The wall is a feel good thing that does nothing to address the reasons as to why people come here. I doubt that Obama will address the problems, but here's hoping he does.

 

I created a post here last night, but I am not sure what happened to it - I think I fell asleep in the middle of it, but I found several articles.

A couple of points in the articles:

Drugs coming across is a terrible cluster F.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33433955/ns ... nd_courts/

Funding has been pulled for fencing in current legislation.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9B7RA8O3

The current build is well behind the projected schedule and far over budget, and the technology that has been put into the system is broken or flaky.
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009 ... _barr_blog

Due to erosion and flooding concerns there are places where the fence are up to a mile away from the river and that is putting US homeowners on the wrong side of the fence with no system in place for allowing them to get to the other side of the fence.
(Cant find this article again - sorry)

And then this one that talks about current construction.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/t ... trees.html


Anyway - the boarder has to be closed, I dont know how that is done realistically but you would imagine that it could be sorted. We cant have a free passage for drugs and other illegal activities.

 

We could legalize, regulate and tax the hell out of "illicit" narcotics and thereby remove the profit incentive of the smugglers, reduce Mexican and US violence, save tax dollars on so called enforcement and incarceration, and actually make money via permits and taxes.

But those thoughts seem too practical - and are opposed by, inter alia, huge prison and alcohol lobbies, to ever gain traction.

 

I went back and added the links to different articles I was reading last night.

I know this is not a current priority, but it seems like something can be passed that matches the historical nature of our country while also making sure that we know who is in the country and also puts the pressure on those that we are really concerned about: The Drug trade, Violent or Criminal Illegal Immigrants, and those that are a draw on the system without putting anything into the system.

Is it really that hard to create a database that employers can use to know for sure that an individual has a valid work visa?

Perhaps this has not been created because we dont actually want to know...

Regardless - my opinion - if you are here, working, and dont have a Criminal record of violent or 'serious' crime... Pay your fee and get registered - build a database, and provide an opportunity for renewal up to a point where a person can apply for citizenship.

And - as said - the boarder has to be secured. I dont know how, but that is a must.

 

So then the government gets in the drug business? How do you decide who gets drugs and where they can use them and... and... and...

Sees like a can of worms to me?

 

Jens, I believe your argument is a false slippery slope.

Overcrowded prisions, trillions thrown down rabbit hole of the war on drugs, and a reality that gov't resources will be scarcer in the future, supports the notion that the current situation is untenable. The current situation is a can of worms and a vestige of some hypocritical puritanism that claims 'this drug is OK (alcohol, oxycontin, etc.) and these aren't.' Either they are all OK, or none are OK, but by picking and choosing which drugs to limit, any argument supporting prohibition is already debased to some extent.

I say the gov't is already in the "drug business" (at both state and federal levels) - the gov't tells us what drugs we can use and cannot use, there's the FDA, and how would the gov't's involvement be any different than the regulation of alcohol (ATF)? 21 and over is the drinking limit, seems reasonable and easy to move to any narcotic regulation. Zoning, and attendent licensing and permits, as now with bars/pubs, would dictate areas where narcotics would be available, and hopefully, with a little more strictness than the liquor store on every corner I see now.

An in anticipation of arguments claiming we may have to pay for the health care costs of junkies, well, let me tell you we as a society already pay that price. You think a junkie has health insurance? And what about the poor children? Well, I can remember during my high school days that illegal narcotics were more readily available than alcohol - but that's only my experience. At least with gov't regulation, hopefully the same restrictions as with alcohol could be enforced to try and keep it away from minors.

And there's no way the border is ever going to be closed, and it's not feasible unless a Maginot Line was constructed. Cheap labor makes the wheels of capitalism go 'round and, I'm not being flip, but somebody has to provide the labor base for agriculture in California (and it's not the Joads from Oklahoma anymore).

 

Legalize drugs

Seems simple to me...same way we do it with alcohol. If you want to sell, you pay a fee and get license. If you want to buy, you simply prove you are "of age" (ie, 21, but that could change). Local governments can regulate where and when sales take place, and in what public places they may be consumed.

The whole structure is already in place. What can of worms?

 

RE: Legalize drugs

Wow - really?

I feel like I am in college talking to some guy at a party who is high and sharing with me his philosophy on government.

I am of course kidding, and mean no disrespect - but I cant see how these arguments work.

The drugs you are talking about are never legal if not prescribed by a physician to treat a specific problem... Alcohol is excluded of course - but alcohol is not used for treatment, and due to the fact that alcohol has been a part of American Culture from the get go - it has been "grandfathered" in as acceptable and that will never change regardless of the fact that when abused it is a leading factor in death and domestic violence.

And yet - our government has drawn a hard line on tobacco because they have identified that smoking is a drain on resources. Government has also put protections in place for those who choose not to smoke - Local governing bodies have created ordinances that make smoking such a pain that I continue to see less and less of it. (I love that I can go bowling and not REAK when I leave the building.)

I will agree with you that the government talks out of both sides of their mouth with Alcohol and Tobacco because they condemn it and try to 'protect' people from it, and yet they are happy to rake in the taxes from the industry.

Lets get down to it then... Are we talking about pot? If that is the case I can see some of your feelings because pot is bad for you, but it is not a highly addictive substance, and the effects of smoking pot are of a similar length and severity when compared to alcohol.

But Meth? Coke? LSD? Heroin? These are HIGHLY addictive and DESTRUCTIVE substances with effects far greater than those of alcohol and marijuana. You are talking about the poor and uneducated - who do you think will fall victim to these substances at an even higher rate? Who are currently suffering from the devastating and disgusting influence of these horrible plagues on the people of the world? You want to make it more available to them? Is this some secret elitist plot to thin the population or tax the poor for yet another benefit for the rich?

I am sorry to hear that you had a drug problem at your high school. It is not the case where I live and teach... Yes it is out there, but if you want it - you have to go searching for it.

Just because it is a problem where you are at doesnt mean that I need a corner market full of a bunch of junkies in my community.

I mean really - legalize the manufacture of Meth and provide opportunities for your population to use it... It is laughable.

 

It's not a laughable idea at all. there have been countries who have done this and it worked. I suggest you look into Portugal.


Also, it's impossible to shut down the border. There hasn't been a country in the world who has completely closed the border. Even north Koreans find a way to escape their country. Like I said, you must fix the causes of the immigration and drug problems. Legalizing drugs would he a welcomed start.

 

Legalize drugs

What's laughable is the idea of government spending billions trying to protect people from themselves...when clearly these people don't want that protection!

We have poured billions down a rat hole in our "war on drugs" over the past 25 years, and what have we got to show for it? The rate of drug use is roughly the same as it was 25 years ago. That's what is laughable.

Do you really think the rate of use of pot or meth or cocaine is going to increase dramatically if those drugs are legalized? What evidence do you have of that?

The history of countries like the Netherlands and Denmark says otherwise. Studies show that drug use in Amsterdam is no higher than it is in any big city in America. Problems with addicts there are treated as a public health issue, not a criminal issue. That is a much cheaper and more humane way of dealing with it.

How very noble of you to try and protect the poor and uneducated from us evil elitists...did you ever ask them if they wanted your protection in this matter? Or do you consider them too uneducated to make such decisions for themselves.

--edited to remove a reply to a comment that was not directed to me.

 

I think they should create an invisible electronic fence. When you want to cross the border you have to have an electronic device with you so it doesnt set off the system. This will be equally inconvenient for Mexican and US residents, which is fair. If you dont have the device then you get tazered and set off an alarm. It will keep our lawyers busy with lawsuits - something they will need when government run healthcare eliminates the gravy train of malpractice litigation.

 

A wall is obviously wrong as in "Mr. President, tear down this wall". However, Nev and St.Lou and Jensers and 24 were more addressing the drug problem rather than a 911 reaction. 911 just highlights the further havoc that our border issues might bring to bear.

Tazer 'em, they might like the high that results

 

Oops - nice catch Hatter - I did spell it Boarder... haha - oh well - it happens.

I will do some reading on Portugal and see what I find.

I have to disagree with you. Not long ago I watched a program on prostitution in the US, and while there were a good number of those in the sex trade who are happy and make that choice, there are many others who are turning tricks for $5 so they can get their next high. It is terrible, and you say they dont want help? I am not convinced. That is just one example. My niece tried Meth because she was an unhappy teen and the boy that gave her some attention introduced her to it, and took over her life... Everything they say in the commercials and on the billboards! It was and continues to be a horrible struggle in her life. It is nothing she wanted and nothing she would do again. We DO need to protect people from this crap.

Ok - lets see it, and what specific drugs are we talking about?

My comment was a joke, but since you took it literally - How noble of me to be concerned for the poor and uneducated, huh?

Yes - you are right... That is noble.

Fair enough - so what is your solution then? Open all the time to anyone? What is the middle ground then?

I am not going to touch the Bush comment - we already got off on the drug tangent!

 

Yes, good thread, Jensers and comments by all. I hope to respond to some of the above issues raised in response to my posts when I have more spare time (hey, I thought I put forth more coherent arguments than the stoned fella parked at the keg claiming 'dude, drugs are good' 8) )

Put simply, the current system with regard to narcotics is broken and needs to be changed, be it de-criminalization or mandated treatment, or whatever, it needs to be changed.

I like Mo's idea of an electronic-based control system (seems like that could actually be implemented, but to what success?) - but as stated, illegal immigration (at least in California and the southwest) is driven by economics and demand...and lest we forget, a good portion of illegals simply want a better life for their families (without waiting in the formal queue) - as did all of our ancestors who made the trek here.

"...And I'm waiting at the Berlin wall, I gotta go over the Berlin wall..."