Brewer: no definition for 'secure border' but will know when she sees it
Jan Brewer
FILE - In this June 25, 2012 file photo, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer pauses during a news conference as she reacts after the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070, after the ruling comes down in Phoenix. It's almost a case of starting over for Gov. Jan Brewer as she weighs whether to ask legislators to provide government-paid health coverage to hundreds of thousands of additional low-income Arizonans. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
14 comments:
Happening Now...
-
Wednesday 6/19/2013
-
Tuesday 6/18/2013
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
papasan173 posted at 9:40 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
...enable us to BASK in financial sunshine. [wink]
papasan173 posted at 9:38 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Jan Brewer is just stupid enough to be dangerous. This state will never progress beyond 1950 as long as she is Governor. We must rid ourselves of people like her, and Ar-piehole, Pearce, and his good buddy, JT Ready-wannabe Juggernaut, to begin to help the majority of citizens in this state. The Republicans are a mold on the face of Arizona that, once cleaned off, will enable us to ask in financial sunshine.
Masterrogue666 posted at 2:00 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Using "The Yuma sector which covers about 126 miles from the west end of Pima County to the Imperial Sand Dunes in California had about 5,800 apprehensions in a 10-month period ending last July 31. By comparison, the 262-mile Tucson sector which covers the balance of Arizona had more than 105,000.", do the math.
Ratio of ILLEGAL ALIENS caught per sector:
Yuma sector- 5,800/110,800 = 5.23%
Tucson sector- 105,000/110,800 = 94.77%
Number of ILLEGAL ALIENS caught per mile:
Yuma sector- 5,800/126 = 46.03
Tucson sector- 105,000/262 = 400.76
Ratio by size of border:
Yuma sector- 126/388 = 32.47%
Tucson sector- 262/388 = 67.53%
Comparing the ratios:
The Yuma sector is about one half the size of the Tucson sector. However, the Tucson sector has almost TEN TIMES the traffic of ILLEGAL ALIENS. That doesn't mean that Tucson is doing a better job than Yuma, most intelligent people would know it's quite the opposite!
Henry David Thoreau is quoted as saying: “The path of least resistance leads to crooked rivers and crooked men.” So true! It's clear that ILLEGAL ALIENS FLOOD through the sector offering the least resistance. What scares me is how many ILLEGAL ALIENS are making it through a sector that has to deal with said flood conditions!
Each major population center, on either side of the border, needs to be protected similar to the Yuma sector. The lower populated sectors could be secured by drones and sensors. If the flood continues to move around the fence, you keep adding to the fence. Soon the flood will become a trickle. Then resources can be redirected towards locating ILLEGAL ALIENS within the USA.
To paraphrase what someone stated above, it will take more than just a secure border to end the problem THAT IS ILLEGAL immigration. However, it is needed FIRST STEP!
Here's some more info about the value of the Yuma sector:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/border-patrol-finds-success-in-curbing-illegal-immigration--targets-las-vegas-102245079.html
monteslu posted at 11:21 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
@VofReason Those services are costing us an order of magnitude less than what I was originally responding to. However, I didn't mean to imply that I'm ok with spending any of that as a reward for illegally immigrating. The math just seemed funny to me.
If we really wanted to invest we should talk about strategically shrinking the border via annexation. AZ could use a beach.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 3:13 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Folks, doesn't it strike you kinda funny that our Liberal Media Establishment picks over every single thing that our beloved Governor., Jan Brewer, does ???
Just saw a "blurp" on CNN about our newly elected Gongresswoman or person...whatever label works.....KRYSTEN SEMENA .
Seems that out of the hundreds of new Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen (no label problems with them...lol)....CONGRESSPERSON SEEMENA .....was the only one who refused to .....SWEAR ON THE BIBLE.
She never admitted to being an atheist or agnostic when she was running for Congress now did she?. but now she takes the Oath of Office on the Constitution....
NOW WE SEE HER TRUE COLORS ..[sad]
az2008 posted at 3:09 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
V, the single largest contributor to illegals using those entitlements is this country's granting citizenship by mere presence on our soil. If you google for "jus soli" you'll find a wikipedia article which lists the countries that do this. With the exception of Canada, the US is alone among developed-industrialized nations. Everyone else grants citizenship based upon the parents' citizenship (present legally? time spent in country? does the child elect for citizenship at age 18?).
Advocates of illegal immigration will say foodstamps, sect. 8 housing aren't available to illegals. But, when illegals have children they become legal guardians of US citizens. They can receive benefits on behalf of those citizens.
The sad thing about this topic is that many on the left and right could agree to amending the 14th Amendment (which unwittingly created this problem of soil-based citizenship). But, due to the polarization of our two-party system, it tends to become part of a larger "hard right" movement. For example: I thought Russel Pierce had what it took to bridge the divide and carry this movement. But, he got into larger issues, opposing extended unemployment benefits, losing a more modern nativist block of support.
Anyway, we're never going to make progress until we fix this citizenship "giveaway".
VofReason posted at 1:24 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
How about when you don't see people demonstrating and admitting and flaunting the fact that they are in the country illegally? Or scores of day laborers amassed i=on city streets. Thank you for monteslu for pointing out the cost to patrol a border, how much do you think it costs for welfare, education, healthcare, foodstamps, rent assistance etc etc for the illegals aliens that are here? Or is that diffent money in a different budget?
Juggernaut8000 posted at 11:55 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Maybe every 100 yards then...
truncate posted at 9:54 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Brewer can't provide a definition of secure border, but will know it when she sees it? I sure know an incompetent Governor when I see one!
monteslu posted at 8:42 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
@Juggernaut8000 you realize that's 310,622 military personnel working 8 hour shifts?
We spend about 1.2 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan (a large chunk of that is in fuel costs and infrastructure).
Since much of the Mexico-US border is remote desert, there will be some similar costs, but probably not as much.
Still even if we went conservative on the pricing, it would be cost prohibitive to use that many people. The money would probably be better appropriated into technologies that would aide in securing the border
az2008 posted at 3:23 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
It would be easier to require ID to rent, lease or sell residential property. Some South American countries I've visited have this requirement. The penalty for landlords (property sellers) is the equivalent of 1 year's poverty level wage. For example, in Chile, that's about $5k US. (Here it would be about $14k.).
It's not perfect. But, it drastically reduces the ability of illegal immigrants to live and work here. It's a multi-layered approach. If you can't drive, work, obtain shelter, nor open a bank account, it's unlikely you're going to be able to function here.
The one thing we don't have which many nations do is a national ID. The way we have a plethora of government-issued ID, it's not realistic for employers, landlords, banks, et. al. to be document authenticators. When you have one ID, it gains the familiarity of currency. Everyone handling the same, universal object.
DonMey posted at 5:57 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
To me, a secure border is one that can reasonably detect anyone trying to cross it. (Trying to detect a tunnel a mile deep isn't realistic)
samkat posted at 5:41 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
Put the monkey on the backs of her critics and lets see what kind of lame excuses they come up with. Sadly, nobody and especially our chief executive is pushing interior enforcement. He seems to have the attitude that if they can manage to slip across the border they are home free.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 5:34 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
The border fence with Mexico should entail an electrified fence, concrete barriers, land mines and military personnel every 100 feet with orders to shoot to kill anyone illegally crossing.