Promises, promises. These are what political campaigns contain in order to garner votes or what politicians spew to get a pet project accomplished. Case in point happens to surround the promise of securing of the US southern border with a fence if the people accepted "amnesty" for illegal alien invaders during the Reagan administration. Illegal alien invaders received amnesty; but, does anyone see a fence all across the US southern border? No, and the citizens of the US probably won't. While Donald Trump talks about securing the border and building a fence, other politicians criticize Trump for his rhetoric.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), 2016 Republican presidential candidate, appeared on Fox News Sunday calling Trump's stand on immigration rhetoric that makes good political theater while explaining the reason a wall will not be built along the US southern border should he be elected.
"Well, rhetoric makes for good political theater, but the fact is, it's 1,933 miles from Tijuana to El Paso to Brownsville and you're not going to build a wall on that distance. What you are going to do is put the personnel in the right place, have the strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas. And what's really missing are the aviation assets flying 24/7 with the ability to look down and analyze what's going on on both sides of the border. And then when it's clearly illegal, fast response teams to go and interdict. That's how you secure the border. We can do it substantially quicker and more economically then we can with the political rhetoric of 'Oh we are going to build a wall.' People want results. As the governor for 14 years, I had to have results. When I put the Texas National Guard on the border last summer, we got results. But it's not Texas or any other state's responsibility. It's the federal government's responsibility to secure the border. And when I'm president of the United States, the will will reside in the White House. We'll secure the border."
Read that a couple of times and let it absorb. Once you've done that, now you can shake your head a bit and sigh.
Rhetoric does make for good political theater; but, Trump is not the only candidate engaged in rhetoric -- looking at you Gov. Perry. According to Perry, a wall can't be built across the US southern border because of distance, citing the 1,933 miles from Tijuana to El Paso to Brownsville. Basically, that's almost the entire length of the southern border. Measuring 13,170.7 miles, the Great Wall of China spans rugged country and steep mountains. In a building process spanning 2,300 years, the wall served to prevent invasion, protect Silk Road trade, and protect different territorial borders. The wall contained flanking towers every 500 feet or so and fortresses at vulnerable passage points. In other words, what Chinese civilization accomplished before the technology of equipment, concrete,
rebar is not a project "we" are going to do. Or, better yet, it is not a project we are "willing" to do.
Perry contends the way to secure the border is to put personnel in "the right place, build strategic fencing in the metropolitan areas," fly aviation assets around the clock to "analyze" activity on both sides of the border, then have "rapid response teams" intercede when activity is "clearly illegal." Illegal alien invaders are crossing along the entire length of the southern border, not just near metropolitan areas. Much of the southern border crosses hostile desert terrain. Where is the "right place" to position personnel in that environment? He refers to "clearly illegal" activity. Illegal alien invaders crossing the southern border anywhere is "clearly illegal."
While his plan sounds "plausible," there are plenty of loopholes.
It doesn't matter how many agents or border personnel are placed along the southern border. If government instructs the agents to "stand down" or not engage with use of appropriate force when threatened, it is useless to post them along the border. With the mention of aviation assets, one assumes Perry means "light planes" or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Again, this would preclude that analysts review quickly in real time and personnel be close by to respond quickly and in enough numbers to have an impact. With the hostile desert terrain of Arizona and New Mexico and towns few and far between, Perry surely has some idea on shelter and an office of operation for personnel to be in the right place. He's not telling if he does, but it would be a good time to do so.
While it is the federal government's responsibility to repel invasion, the government failed to perform its duty, meaning the duty then falls to the States. Article I, Section 10, last paragraph of the Constitution of the united States of America declares a State may not engage in war, "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger, as will not admit of delay." When tens of thousands of individuals swarm into a State of this nation, it is an invasion. Since the federal government refused to "repel the invasion" as per its responsibility outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the State is then compelled to respond to protect citizens from "imminent danger." One assumes the threat of murder, rape, kidnapping, assault and trafficking of citizens, along with the entry of Muslim terrorists, are not considered "imminent danger."
By the way, are those National Guardsmen still there, Gov. Perry? Have the "invaders" changed their tactics to avoid the Guardsmen? Are the troops going to stay despite the drop in the number of apprehensions? What exactly are they allowed to do? Results were seen from the guard activity at the border only because the invaders went to less monitored areas to cross. Kudos.
There is only one "border" or perimeter without a fence or constant guard where no one dares to cross. It's known as Area 51. Sophisticated technology detects intruders nearing the perimeter by various means so patrols can arrive swiftly to monitor the individuals. Yes, the equipment is so sensitive it can tell the difference between humans and animals. Helicopters monitor the activity of detected individuals near the perimeter. Additionally, signs posted along the perimeter warn of the use of "deadly force" and/or imprisonment and fines. We know this since numerous broadcastings of the area show all of these deterrents. It works because people know those warnings are not idle threats.
Because of the US political correctness in dealing with Mexico and assuming a "kneel" position to their every complaint, it is obvious deterrence doesn't work unless punishment is severe. And, the people are confident the warnings are not idle threats. The US has done everything from providing them "eiderdown quilts and chicken three times a day" to providing transportation to a destination of their choosing inside the US. No punishment is enacted much less severe punishment to those who cross our border, unlike the reaction of Mexico should an American cross illegally. The US can monitor and patrol or position agents standing shoulder to shoulder on the border; but, it is useless unless the agents can use the force necessary to thwart invaders.
Yes, the people want results. For far too long have we as a nation heard rhetorical "promises." It is time for action. While politicians rail against a "fence," most Americans support a physical deterrent across the border, along with adequate monitoring and manpower authorized to use force to repel illegal alien invaders. The wall built along the West Bank in Israel has certainly decreased the hostile infiltrations to nearly zero. So, what is it about a "wall" or "barrier" that won't work in the US, when coupled with adequate flanking towers and fortifications at critical crossing points housing border agents allowed to use force to repel invasions into the nation?
Not only do Americans want a secure border, Americans want illegal alien invaders dealt with according to the law. Amnesty is not the answer when the law has been broken. American taxpayers do not want to support illegal alien criminals in prison nor have them released into the communities. The money spent on welfare and social services for these illegal alien invaders and prison accommodations for these criminals would pay for deportation and help build a barrier wall as a deterrent.
Will any politician answer the question directly and address these issues without rhetoric? Walls and barriers work everywhere else. Is there something about the US that makes them ineffective? Americans are tired of hearing that a wall along the southern border is a money issue problem. Citizens are tired of hearing illegal alien invaders cannot be deported. The government can support the United Nations, send $500 million to train and arm ISIS, dole out money and services to illegal alien invaders to the tune of billions, slide money to "green energy" companies that file bankruptcy, bail out the automobile companies who, in turn, pay huge bonuses to CEOs and ship manufacturing overseas, fly "Moochie," the girls, and every other family member across the world to vacation and shop every other week, and fund a baby murder mill. Add to this mix the funding of dozens of unconstitutional agencies. The government can fund all of that, but money is lacking to secure our border adequately.
Gov. Perry, it's BS. While you criticize someone else for "rhetoric that makes good political theater," you are doing no better with the display of your hypocrisy in engaging in the same practice.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.