Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush Policy: Quick Border Fence Trumps the Environment

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted April 3, 2008.


Current controversy aside, the border "fence" is one of those harebrained schemes that might be funny if it weren't so cynical and racist.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Liliana Segura

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Fear not, America: the Bush administration is not giving up on its immigrant-blocking border fence.

On Tuesday, it declared that it's going to ignore some 30 environmental laws and regulations in order to accelerate its project to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, issued the order, with an ominous warning. "Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation," he said. Cutting through the legal red tape "will enable important security projects to keep moving forward."

Like fear-mongering, flouting the law is part of the daily grind in the Bush administration -- but in this case, Chertoff is doing nothing illegal. The power to waive the law in the name of national security was granted to him specifically by Congress in 2005. The "REAL ID Act," passed as a rider to an Iraq funding bill, declared that the head of the Department of Homeland Security could waive any laws standing in the way of "expeditious construction of … barriers and roads" along the border.

It was not the first time Chertoff has invoked such a waiver -- DHS has used them before to push through fencing in Arizona and San Diego -- but it was definitely his most sweeping order to date. It advances DHS's proposal to erect towers and high-tech surveillance equipment along a sprawling 470-mile span of the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Originally, such action was supposed to be a last resort, but, as Tuesday's order demonstrates, this is hardly proving to be the case.

Aside from the troubling implications of the DHS Secretary overriding the law to push politically-motivated agendas, many critics of this measure are the same who have long argued that a border fence would have a devastating impact on the environment in border areas. Among them is the Sierra Club, which last year took DHS to federal court to try to get Chertoff's special powers revoked. (They lost. Aside from the fact that the REAL ID law included a provision essentially insulating it from court review, in December, a federal judge found nothing unconstitutional about Chertoff's power's, since he can only exercise them on a case-by-case basis.) "Secretary Chertoff chose to bypass stakeholders and push through this unpopular project on April Fools' Day," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope on Tuesday. "We don't think the destruction of the borderlands region is a laughing matter."

Chertoff's response to environmentalists has been to turn around and say that, in fact, it is illegal immigration that is bad for the environment. "I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas," Chertoff said last fall. "And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment."

Current controversy aside, the border "fence" is one of those harebrained schemes that might be funny if it weren't so cynical and racist. A perennial favorite of the anti-immigrant right, the idea to construct a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has been afloat for decades. More recently, historic immigration levels and the post-9/11 political landscape have legitimized the project in the name of national security. Part of a broad emphasis on border control by the Bush administration, which likes to boast about its success keeping out "illegals" -- under Bush, the budget for border security has more than doubled, from $4.6 billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion -- the border fence was officially codified in the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Passed by the House and Senate in September 2006, the Secure Fence Act mandated the construction of a barrier stretching along a 700-mile portion of the 1,969-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The measure was a bipartisan effort; with the midterm elections weeks away, many lawmakers considered it a political imperative. As Texas Republican John Cornyn put it, bluntly: "The choice we were presented was: Are we going to vote to enhance border security, or against it?" The bill passed 80 to 19 in the Senate. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for it.

But confusion about what kind of shape the "fence" would take emerged almost immediately. "No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised," the Washington Post reported in early October. What was supposed to be an order to build a long and towering concrete wall had quickly morphed into the White House and DHS's desire to allocate funds for a "virtual fence," emphasizing surveillance technology and "tactical infrastructure," to build what Bush called "the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." Logistical confusion aside, on October 26, 2006, Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: border, immigration, chertoff, dhs

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
beware the berlin wall...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Apr 3, 2008 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
suppose that the wall does keep the mexicans out...

anyone that thinks that the crooked (and powerful and politically connected) employers that used to use them will simply pony up and pay american wages for illegal alien jobs is sadly mistaken...

those jobs are currently held by some 12 million illegals...however..the bosses already have a cheaper-labour alternative to replace those 12 million illegals if the tancredoes and hunters get their way (which appears to be the case) and the illegals were gone ..

its called the convict lease system..."convict" is prolly the wrong word..since much of this prison labour wont be convicted in a court-of-law but rather seized under the military commissions act...

in any case..we can safely expect a fivefold increase in prison populations in order to replace illegal immigrant labour...the current prison population of 2.5 million is equal to the city of chicago.. under this system..it would be larger than the whole state of illinois...

and should you become one of those 12 million americans ensnared in this new economy..you will be far worse off than any illegal immigrant is today...if your not..you will still have to compete against that workforce...and competing against the gulag means accepting the conditions of the gulag.. while the prison industry charges you thousands of dollars per inmate in taxes...

the soviets justified their own imperialism in the name of "liberating peoples oppressed by decadent regimes"...the soviets built a wall to "keep the enemy out"...(that should sound familiar)...and for much of its history..the soviets had an economy that revolved around prison slave labour...

so now my question is ..who won the cold war??...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: beware the berlin wall... Posted by: john mont
» RE: get real john mont... Posted by: blitzmesser
Good Morning Editors
Posted by: amatullah on Apr 3, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that's "harebrained" you want in the first graf, not "hairbrained."
The editing gets worse each week. How can Alternet be taken seriously if they can't get anyone to proofread?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Morning Editors Posted by: wildswan
» RE: Good Morning Editors Posted by: slowbob4
» RE: Good Morning Editors Posted by: pspinrad
fence or no fence...we need a sane immigration policy
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 3, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fence or no fence...we need a sane immigration policy...i prefer skill-based over family reunification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Golly Gee
Posted by: GollyGee on Apr 3, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New to the Internets? No editing needed or wanted. Leave the 'editing" to Fox News.

The wall is only one of many public-works projects of the National Corporate Welfare Program.

It won't keep anybody in or out, but it has do be done in a hurry so the contractors can rake in piles of dough before anyone can stop the project.

Down the road (under a new administration?) new contracts can then be let to dismantle the fence and "restore" the environment.

See why it's important to hurry? Every mile put up is a mile that will have to be taken down. Win/win.

The trouble with convict-labor is it's so expensive. We already have a working slave-labor system in place and it's running along just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "anchor baby" rule has to change.
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 3, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "anchor baby" rule has to change and if that means changing the constitution, so be it. No-one should be able to hop a plane from ______ on a tourist visa and squat their puppy out on US soil and be able to bring their whole family from ______ with them later on. Illegals who arrive without documents and have babies here? Deliver the parents and baby home with a birth certificate naming the parent's legal country as the country of citizenship.
We can't take care of native born citizens ....how are we supposed to rescue the rest of the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Anchor Babies Are A Myth Posted by: sofla100
Golly Gee
Posted by: GollyGee on Apr 3, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Veggiegrrrl, you're right about the "Anchor Baby" rule.

Very, very few nations other than the U.S. grant citizenship that way. For most of the world a baby's citizenship is held to be the same as the father's or else that of both parents, and only recently, in some countries, it can be that of the mother. Where the child was born makes no difference to most governments.

A simple change in the law would do more to stem illegal immigration than row after row of fences, but where's the corporate profit in that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A well-patrolled border wouldn't need a wall
Posted by: war_on_tara on Apr 3, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find myself agreeing with this somewhat, although it tends toward the usual AlterNet "doing anything about illegal immigration is racist" claptrap.

At this point there must be the technology to patrol the border pretty effectively without trusting in a humungous wall that could still be breached, climbed over, etc.

Most illegal immigrants enter on legitimate visas anyway. Most of them don't cross the Mexican border illicitly, maybe around 40% do (an inexact statistic, obviously) so the popular perception of what needs to be done is skewed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush the Commy?
Posted by: modeler on Apr 3, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the communists who put up the wall through Berlin and the fence between East and West Germany. When are you ordering the minefields to make the divider complete Mr. Decider? Patrolling the border properly would create asdditional jobs and would probably work better. Typical Bushit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama supports the wall
Posted by: war_on_tara on Apr 3, 2008 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should be pointed out also that Obama supports building the wall. Apologists for illegal immigration might be shocked at what they'll find on the subject at barackobama.com!

I realize it's always fun to blame Bush for every bad thing you don't like. But of course Bush did absolutely nothing about illegal immigration for 7 years because his corporate masters didn't want him to. Now he's for this quickie wall to help McCain eke out a victory in the southwestern states where McCain's corporatist, do-nothing stand on illegal immigration isn't popular.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both Obama AND Clinton are in favor of the wall
Posted by: happyhermit on Apr 3, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the article mentions that none of the Presidential candidates have weighed in on what they would do with the wall, but they have. only 8 Senate Democrats voted for it. among them were Obama, Clinton, and Dodd. i can't help but notice that these three have something in common.

it's not just "Bush's policy."

supporters of Clinton and Obama have to get real about what they are and what they are not supporting. some people i talk to don't actually believe me when i mention that Obama isn't philosophically or legally opposed to the death penalty or that he wants to build a monstrous wall or expand the size of the US military or develop more nuclear power plants or that he's taken more money from wall street than any other candidate or that he doesn't actually plan on ending the war in Iraq. same goes with hillary's platform.

i'm not saying all obama/clinton supporters are so ill-informed, obviously, but there should be a stronger effort to use your support to sway the candidates in a more progressive direction, if that's where you'd like them to go (say, for example, opposing the border wall).

the problem with the hero-worshipping of obama that is so rampant among people of my age bracket (young ones) is that they have simply adopting the views that Obama has put forth in order to triangulate into a more viable position. i doubt obama actually opposes gay marriage and supports the border wall, but he has had to come up with reasons why these are good ideas, and many people who support him have then gone and adopted these contrived justifications.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Border Security
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 3, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There needs to be some way to secure our borders. Maybe the way to do that is to hire people to implement border security. At least that would mean jobs. We can not continue to take millions of people into this country, who in turn have babies and add even more to the population. We have to consider natural resources and the negative impact of having too many people to support. We have severe drought in many parts of the country and we have poor laws regarding development and water use. There are so many things that we have to change about the way we live and consume all natural resources. Having a rapidly expanding population makes everything more difficult to address.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look Deeper
Posted by: wildswan on Apr 3, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hint: NAFTA. There is a reason people have to leave their homes and families in Mexico and Latin America and put their lives at risk and pay a lot of money and deal with dangerous criminals just to get here to work for shit wages. The reason is: it is better than what they are leaving behind. Think about that.

We are all humans living on the planet earth. Big corporations do not limit themselves to one country. That's why they are called multinational. They control the rest of us with borders (prison walls). They are just shoring up the prison walls. Too many escapees. We need a world without borders!

All the workers of the world have the same issues and it will only get better when we realize that we're basically in the same boat no matter which country we live in and we work together to take back our land and our lives and take control of our own destiny. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

I write about some of the things we can do on the grassroots level in my blog at http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Look Deeper Posted by: CatDad
Latest Bush/ Chertoff Coup at the Border
Posted by: koulflo on Apr 3, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Congress enacted the Real ID Act in 2005, few people appreciated just how radical a piece of legislation this was. Yes, it introduced a drivers’ license data base that many folks astutely compare to a national ID card. It threatens to create havoc on the roadways by denying undocumented immigrant drivers a chance to get a drivers license and insurance which comes in handy in case of a car wreck. Real ID also included provisions that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration matters, which creates a damning tilt toward unfettered executive powers over immigrants.

I thought all this qualified Real ID as one whopping, dangerous piece of law. But just today, additional horrors of Real ID were revealed: a coup at the border.

It was announced that section 102 of the Real ID Act provides the justification DHS Secry Chertoff says he needs for DHS to waive about 36 existing (mostly environmental and land management) laws enacted by Congress that pertain to DHS efforts to construct a border fence (18 foot steel and concrete) along the US-Mexico border from California to Texas.

As of today, the rule of law, and separation of powers no longer apply to the DHS’s SBInet efforts to construct a border industrial complex.

see more at
http://koulflo.wordpress.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Q: What happens
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 3, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when you build anything quick?

A: it falls down just as fast.

If this is really the course we're going to take, at least do a good job.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

illegal wall
Posted by: vegan27 on Apr 3, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. has no right whatsoever to build a wall on its side of an international border. Can you name even one country on the planet that requires documentation for residents who aren't citizens? This is racist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» vegan27 is racist. Against Americans. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: illegal wall Posted by: djnoll
Is it me?
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or are our "leaders" getting crazier and more vicious as time goes by? A fence between us & Mexico will hold them back about as well as a piece of twine would hold back an elephant. Hell, some Mexicans may even challenge the fence merely because it's there, thus showing up our officials as the fools they are. I'm not a mind reader, but I wonder what will happen when the fence is proven worthless. Considering the pathological brutality of the bush crime family, deadly force certainly can't be ruled out. There are already quite a few halfwits with guns in the border area who would be only too happy to shoot any and all "trespassers".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it me? Posted by: Cooltruth
Anti-Canadian
Posted by: Dweeb on Apr 3, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are they going to begin that essential 5,000 mile fence along the Canadian border to stem the endless flow of snowbacks sneaking across to take our jobs, fill our prisons with inmates, our schools with semi-literate children and our welfare roles with vagrants? Moreover, all of the terrorists known to have entered the US by crossing a land border have crossed from Canada. Build the fence before that mushroom cloud rises over Chicago or Seattle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criminal activity at the border...
Posted by: jimmyaj on Apr 3, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chertoff says, "...Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation..."

Somebody needs to tell the Bushies that Mother Nature doesn't stop for foolish ventures of mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The French built
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 3, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Mainot line to keep the Germans out, didn't work did it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fence = Racism Against Hispanics, Immigrant Bashing and Foolishness
Posted by: sofla100 on Apr 3, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "fence," of course is being built along the Mexico - USA border. Not the USA - Canadian border. A border, by the way, where all the known terrorists trying to enter the USA have come across (with Canada). What does this tell you about who it is that the USA is aiming to keep out? All those "Hispanics." Despite the fact no proof exists that they take USA jobs (just the ones Americans don't want), and in most locales they are not eligible for benefits and many of them pay USA taxes they will never see any return on. Meanwhile, by the 2nd generation, most illegal aliens from Mexico no longer even know Spanish. Of course, many of them will still have that "brown skin." But, what this is also about is really "immigrant bashing" once again. Right wing xenophobes with a few liberals thrown in, and of course, that gasbag Lou Dobbs (right about free trade, wrong about illegal aliens). As for the fence, who really thinks this will work? It will simply have holes "punched" in it at well known intervals and in such a way the authorities cannot keep up. The USA would be much better off helping Mexico improve her infrastructure and economy. But, instead we need the money for other, more "important" things, like the Iraq war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sick of being called a racist.
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 3, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, I'm against the wall, because it's stupid and will not work.

I'm also against illegal immigration. Yeah, I said it. And we will NEVER solve the immigration problem, until all of you quit screaming "RACIST!!! XENOPHOBE!!!!" every time someone points out that there is a difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant.

It's as moronic an argument as the "we should shoot em, cuz it's a crime" argument.

I am pro-immigration. I feel the second largest problem that America has, is that the legal immigration process is too slow.

That being said, there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. People who do things the wrong way, the illegal way, just because it is the easy way, are bad people. People who do things the RIGHT way, BECAUSE it is the right way, are good people.

Yes, I just said all illegal immigrants are bad people. I said it, because it is true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not necessarily Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: not necessarily Posted by: djnoll
Name wall sections after proponents
Posted by: asjogren on Apr 3, 2008 10:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think we could officially name sections of this wall:
- Michael Chertoff, Republican, National Security Wall in Texas
- Dick Cheney, Republican, National Security Wall in California
- George W Bush, Republican, National Security Wall in New Mexico
- Thom Tancredo, Republican, National Security Wall in Arizona

We should remember these people for a long, long time, don't you think?

These people should be proud to lend their names to their accomplishment.

And when we refer to the entire National Security Wall, we should always preface it with "Republican"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Fence Me In
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Apr 4, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, America will have a fence on its southern border, despite pleas and warnings about the fragile environment and the rush to build it.
As with any fence, this one isn't a picket fence. It will not keep people out. When someone decides to move, a physical barrier will not stop them. This project has the earmarks of racism around it.
What will this fence accomplish? Why do we need it? Lord help this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Fence Me In Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Don't Fence Me In Posted by: Rapunzel
Holes in the wall
Posted by: Sansego on Apr 4, 2008 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wall separating Mexico and the U.S. will have holes. The wealthy with Bush ties will have the wall not be put on their land. The wall trumps the enviroment but not the rich donators.

(http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/19/hunt-border-fence/)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To keep illegals out, you have to arrest Republicans.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 4, 2008 11:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the employers of the illegals were arrested, there would be no
incentive to violate the immigration law. Clinton did something
about the employers. Bush did nothing for 7 years. Bush rigged
the bureaucracy to prevent honest employers from not hiring
illegals: Employers are supposed to check social security
numbers with the government to make sure that they are
legitimate. Bush made the process take 2 years. Employment
discrimination is illegal, so honest employers are forced to hire
illegals even if they don't want to. These are jobs that Americans
Would take for sure. The illegals know to quit just before their
SSNs are shown to be bogus. The SSN checking could be made
to happen instantly on line if Bush wanted it to happen. Bush
doesn't allow instant on-line checking of SSNs because Bush is
prejudiced against Americans.
The wall is purely for show and propaganda. There is no such
thing as a job Americans won't take, but many employers and
Bush want to pay illegally low wages and violate labor laws.
Violating labor laws is bad for your food supply. You get
manure mixed with your hamburger because of the illegals
working at the meat packing plant. The illegals can't enforce
labor laws, so the line goes too fast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off his rocker
Posted by: blitzmesser on Apr 9, 2008 9:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The guy is clearly off his rocker and has not the slightest idea how to deal with issues like this.
It seems he is watching TV shows all the time... and is lost to reality. The dumbing down has happened to him with a double whammy.... being stupid to begin with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Build a effective fence now.
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Apr 9, 2008 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quit arguing, and stop all immigration now, except in extrodinary circumstances. Unless you like hidding in your home, afraid to go out because of all the lawless gangs and criminal predators from all countrys, running around in increasing numbers and neighborhoods across the Nation. Thats just one good reason. I'am sure you can't ignore the economic drain on all sectors of are government. Thats two good reasons, and you can go on, and on with more. Start using your brains Americans or we will all suffer in the long run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Build a effective fence now. Posted by: blitzmesser
Where did you come from?
Posted by: blitzmesser on Apr 10, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who came to this country a long time ago from another country came here for a reason.
Most likely they were unable to make a living in their old country, were criminals , or had other reasons preventing them from making a living in "old Europe". (and some other countries in recent years.) Some had legitimate concerns, many did not! When they came here they did not apply for citizenship...! They just came and killed everything and everyone who did not agree with their sense of ownerhsip.
No wonder the number of criminals in this country has increased, since offsprings of inferiors often become inferior, still.
You may not like to hear this: pigs were raised to be gluttenous for a thousand years. Just imagine what happens to humans afer being raised in similar circumstances and for a similar purpose for a thousand years?
Or could it have happened already?

How can anyone in their right mind support this idiotic policy of a fence ?
How can people be so stupid to listen to what the Idiot in Charge has to say?

Where do you think the Idiot in charge and his idiot father and greedy grandfather and all the stupid dimwit wives with their "beautiful minds" (what a cynical joke) and all his other retarded relatives and attached scum came from?
Do you really think it was by "legitimatly" coming to this country? Give me a break...

and
let me laugh a very very long cynical laugh...
Thank god, God is in charge of it all. .... hahahahaha
(L0L)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BORDER FENCE
Posted by: maotiki on Apr 10, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EVERY NATION ON EARTH HAS THE RIGHT, AND DUTY, TO PROTECT ITS' BORDERS. ADDITIONALLY, THE BORDER FENCE SEPARATING THE U.S. AND MEXICO IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT. IT IS ANTI-ILLEGAL MIGRATION!!! - AND THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS BOGEYMAN WORD HERE IS THAT THE FENCE IS "RACIST" - OH, GEEZ...WHAT A TIRED BROMIDE!

EDUARDO HERRERA
NEW YORK CITY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]