Section of Arizona "closed to public" - why can't we secure our borders (McCain, interstate)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now we have a significant public section of our own country that WE are not allowed in? This ticks me off beyond belief. Do people still want to **** and moan about the sanctions Arizona is taking?
Apparently McCain is asking for troops to come in. No-brainer idea, but I'd consider more serious action by sending a few bombers in there and bomb it. I'm quite serious; it should at least be considered. Much less chance of loss of troop's lives and more effective at wiping out some of those scum.
And since we're not allowed in there, we'd only be killing the drug scum, which is a good thing. We could give notice and say it's coming, but not exactly when, giving any innocents (who shouldn't be there anyway) a chance to exit. Not sure of the details.
But either way, how is it we can send all those troops overseas but we can't use them to protect our OWN soil?? IMO just throwing up our hands and letting the drug scum have control isn't exactly the answer.
PS: please do not make this another "it's all Obama (or Bush's) fault" ad nauseum. That's what the Political forum is for. My debate topic is why aren't we doing more about this and whether or not we should take military action, and if so, how.....
I think the gov. has basically closed up shop here and is going to let the chips fall where they may. The gov. funds will be spent on a war trying to secure oil rights - or whatever they are fighting for over there - and the US has basically been left to tend itself.
I also think those in very powerful positions have their own "Plan B," which they are not sharing with the hoi polloi.
Natural selection, I guess you could say....whoever ends up standing, is the one that wins.
They don't care anymore; TPTB have already moved on. JMO
PS: please do not make this another "it's all Obama (or Bush's) fault" ad nauseum. That's what the Political forum is for. My debate topic is why aren't we doing more about this and whether or not we should take military action, and if so, how.....
The reasons this park is closing are sickening, actually unbelievable.
However, the reasons ARE political. I don't blame it on any individual President because I believe all of them are players in a much larger "plan," of which the masses are not aware.
You'll not see meaningful US military presence or action on the border. Ultimately, I think land will be ceded to Mexico.
This is more of a commentary on the Fox News reportage than on anything else. If you do your own math, you will see that the area in question (3,500 acres stretched along 80 miles) is a strip along the border averaging 120 yards wide. Not much more than the right-of-way along interstate highways, also closed to the public. And if the border fence were to be put in place, the amount of land that would be closed to the public (and critical and endangered wildlife) would be a lot more than 3,500 acres.
How come we get so much weeping and wringing of hands about Gulf of Mexico wildlife, but nobody cares about Sonora Desert wildlife? By the way, the whole idea of the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge is to keep people from stomping around in wildlife habitat, isn't it? Every National Wildlife Refuge has large areas that are closed to the public, which are strictly controlled, with significant penalties for violators. Where's the outrage about those sections of New Jersey and Illinois being ""closed to the public"?
In fact, one practical alternative would be for the US government to use public domain to take possession of all land within 100 yards of the border, designate it as a national wildlife refuge, close it all to the public, and use existing regulations to enforce it. And that would make perfect sense in terms of wildlife protection, because virtually the entire border is critical habitat, from the Tijuana River to Boca Chica.
The problem isn't that "we can't secure our borders," the government does not WANT to secure them, because if they wanted to - they would.
One has to wonder why. There's obviously a reason.
Cheap labor is just one. I'm sure there are more.
It all boils down to money.
The elite make lots of money off the cheapisimo labors of illegals and they own the politicians that could organize an effective solution. Therefore, nothing changes.
Last edited by Chango; 06-17-2010 at 09:59 AM..
Reason: Please, no clip art in Great Debates
The problem isn't that "we can't secure our borders," the government does not WANT to secure them, because if they wanted to - they would.
One has to wonder why. There's obviously a reason.
Cheap labor is just one. I'm sure there are more.
I tend to agree with you. We do need cheap labor in some areas that Americans are not willing to work on. The US could bring the the old bracero program. The government could state what types of job people can come in and work during a certain season and then they can go back. I have read that many immigrant do not really want to live here. They have left their famiiles behind but do not go back because it is so expensive to return so they just stay. With a government program suppor that would allow seasonal working jobs many would go back to their families and then return the next year.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-17-2010 at 09:14 AM..
This is more of a commentary on the Fox News reportage than on anything else. If you do your own math, you will see that the area in question (3,500 acres stretched along 80 miles) is a strip along the border averaging 120 yards wide. And if the border fence were to be put in place, the amount of land that would be closed to the public (and critical and endangered wildlife) would be a lot more than 3,500 acres.
How come we get so much weeping and wringing of hands about Gulf of Mexico wildlife, but nobody cares about Sonora Desert wildlife? By the way, the whole idea of the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge is to keep people from stomping around in wildlife habitat, isn't it? Every National Wildlife Refuge has large areas that are closed to the public, which are strictly controlled, with significant fines for violators.
Before you do your math you should get the right figures. It is an approximately 3/4 mile wide by 10 miles long strip of land that is 3 miles north of the border in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
The border fence would be south of the refuge and would not close any public lands.
And you are correct many wildlife refuges have areas closed to the public for the benefit of the wildlife. This section of land is not closed for the wildlife, it is closed because of the danger from drug smugglers and coyotes entering the U.S. from Mexico.
The important fact is that if it is to dangerous to let people into the 3500 acres of the refuge, what about the US residents living in Sasabe, AZ. which is south of the closed area. The border needs to be secured.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My debate topic is why aren't we doing more about this and whether or not we should take military action, and if so, how.....
