How much would a border fence cost? Would $182,000,000 be a good start?

You read the bill a week ago? That's a lot of reading for a bill that has no chance of passing.

Anyway, per the most recent version I was able to find: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf

page 58: allows for the transition from the voluntary E-Verify system to the new not-yet-developed-plan which would be mandatory when it comes online.

page 627 repeals E-Verify when the new system was in place.

So E-verify remains what it is now, a voluntary program until a new, not even planned or developed system comes on line sometime in the distant future.

So it's pretty clear that if you are eliminating a working system for a new system that won't be ready for years, then no, you are not serious about using E-verify since nothing in the Senate bill made it mandatory.

 

I don't know what it would cost, but it would probably be a substantial decrease from adding millions of people to the various government assistance programs for generations to come.

 

it's because, as I said, the right really doesn't WANT to stop the flow of cheap illegal immigrant labor.... it makes them all way too much money... but they'll scream about it and act as if they really want to fix it so that morons, like you, will keep voting for them... but they, AND YOU, are way too addicted to cheap labor to ever really want to turn the tap off.

 

Well actually I was talking about bringing criminal charges for criminal acts, in response to what you said. But you guys have been in charge for a while. The Republicans have not been running the justice department. That's where the charges would come from. But nothing....

But like most on the left, you really have only the vaguest idea of what's going on with the right. It seems surprising to me because I understand the left far better than you will understand the right, but anyway... let me break it down for you. The conservative anti amnesty factions are well aware that establishment Republicans (and all Democrats) support amnesty. Outside of that, Libertarian oriented Republicans support amnesty because...ideology. That's why you have some people like Paul Ryan and an activist like Grover Norquist who are very supportive of amnesty. So the people in the Republican Party who actually oppose amnesty are in the minority. It's just a loud minority, but it's an issue that will eventually be lost.

 

Actually some of the most well known Conservatives push for E-verify on this very forum.. You must have missed them in the search of trying to find racism everywhere.

 

but the trailer park republicans hate those wetbacks and will continue to vote GOP because they truly believe - gullible idiots that they/you are - that the GOP actually wants to stop the flow of cheap labor which they clearly do not. I would think that the GOP would earn a boatload of hispanic votes by simply owning up to the fact that they are addicted to cheap labor. You could still hang onto the trailer trash by talking loudly about gays or abortion, or whatever issue your focus groups told you would work.

 

Because you dont use the same name after you've been deported several times, which the majority of those involved in those incidents have. Generally, when youre a border jumper, you dont hang around to talk to cops either.

 

It's a proven fact that there are more rich on the Left than on the Right and don't think for a minute that none of them on the Left own businesses. Arizona is a Republican state and they have a law that forbids employers to hire illegals. We also have a law that business must use E-Verify. Arizona was sued by the US Chambers of Commerce. The Obama administration backed it and it went all the way to the USSC. Arizona won the law suit, but of all the judges on the court, all the Liberal judges voted with the US Chambers of Commerce. All the Conservative judges voted with Arizona. How do you explain that?

 

I really don't get the fence idea. If you want something able to keep the majority of immigrants out its going to take more and a tall fence. The Chinese didn't even build the Great Wall as a way to keep people out, they built it so it would channel incoming forces into more easily controlled lanes and geographic corridors, and it didn't even always work at doing that.

You want a wall that would keep 99% of immigrants out? Okay, we just have to figure out a way of recreating the defenses of Constantinople and stretch from it from its original 4 miles to 2000 miles. Front section of defense is a 60 foot wide 22 foot deep moat with a short earthen rampart at the US side, water supplied from pipes connected to reservoirs deep inside our territory. Second line; a 27 foot high reinforced stone wall with greek fire (napalm) launchers at the top and foundations dug far into the earth to counter any sapping attempt. Third line; A 40 foot high reinforced stone wall thick enough for four men to run on side by side... behind that, field artillery. These defenses held for almost 1,000 years, I am sure they would do well against the so called "unwashed hordes" conservatives fear today. Just drop about three trillion dollars on it and we can get it done!

 

We don't have the money to build a fence across our whole Southern border. But we don't need one. Deny those that sneak in here citizenship and have a national E=Verify law and you have taken away most of the reasons to come here. If you need people to do jobs Americans don't want to do, put out more temporary work visas.

 

Its over 50.

 

Put the U.S. Military and all their equipment along the southern border and shoot anything or anyone attempting to cross.

 

Did I say you? No, I said liberals, and there are thousands of articles like the one below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

 

so... you have no proof that any of those deaths were committed by illegals, and nobody wanted for murder gets deported. Nothing but racist speculation.

 

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...as-deported-before-he-could-stand-trial.html/

Please... Run along now. Adults are conversing.

And for the record, I didn't say they were deported awaiting a murder trial. I said they don't stick around to talk to cops.

 

every one of the victims in your first website was "allegedly murdered" by someone. And you don't see how silly that sounds? really???

 

It's even worse than that! There are vast stretches of West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona where even trying to build any kind of "fence" would be incredibly expensive, impossible to maintain, and stupid beyond belief. Here's just one representative picture of the terrain in West Texas in the vicinity of the border with Mexico:


It's hundreds of miles from any town of any size at all! You'd need an army of construction people to build any kind of fence, and another army to patrol it.

What makes so much more sense would be to use armed drones to patrol the border regions. I've posted this a dozen times before. We can, and should, give ample warning months in advance that our border is being protected with deadly force. We can have signs all along the border in English and Spanish giving even more warning. Then, if anyone is still stupid and determined enough to invade this country illegally, they run the real risk of getting shot by the drones. The cost would be microscopic compared to any kind of idiotic "fence" idea, it would not require billions for construction and maintenance, and it would be very, very effective. We could "fly" the drones by military personnel sitting in offices via satellites, hundreds of miles away, with no extra costs associated with having to deploy thousands of troops on the border.

Honestly, has anybody got a better idea than that? If you still like the "fence" idea, go visit the canyon country of West Texas for a few months and then see if you still think the "fence" is anything but stark, staring CRAZY!

 

So you were just trying to deflect rather than address me and my argument?

 

I did address you, your question was Obama deliberately targeting civilians, and my response was that Bush was accused of targeting civilians, from liberals, which is true. What part confuses you? And how is that a deflection?

The fact is, neither Obama or Bush deliberately targeted civilians, America doesn't do that

 

I was asking that question to someone who directly accused Obama of killing civilians. I'm not sure what "liberals" saying something about Bush has to do with my argument. For it to actually counter it in any way, you need to apply it me.

 

I mentioned it because it is an absolute lie, Americans do not purposely target civilians. My point was to show both sides make stupid statements like this, and I am sure those who accuse Obama now, are doing it for retribution of what Bush was accused of.

 

You might want to speak with some of your conservative colleagues on this very thread, who are actively advocating targeting civilians.

 

And they are who? What relevance do they have with what I said is a lie? I already said, the United States does not purposely target civilians, not since WWII anyway

 

Heh, trailer park Republicans!

Like I said, you guys don't understand the right at all. It makes it impossible to discuss the Republican Party or it's various factions with a leftist because you guys are so clueless.

 

what, from the post of mine that you quoted, is inaccurate? Is the GOP power base NOT addicted to cheap labor?