Bush: Border Security Working


by edward
Tags: border, bush, security, working
edward
edward is offline
#1
Apr10-07, 05:50 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 861
Sure it is working in a few places, nice photo op though.

Click on the link, then click on the picture of the stadium lights.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/177688

The border isn't like that except in a very few places.
It is like this:

http://www.topofusion.com/aztr/DSC00815.JPG

The people smugglers have also become more inventive. They have learned the tricks from their cousins the drug smugglers.

A man was arrested Wednesday after officials say he tried to smuggle eight people into the country by hiding them inside water tanks.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/177371
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs
Free the seed: OSSI nurtures growing plants without patent barriers
Going nuts? Turkey looks to pistachios to heat new eco-city
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#2
Jun16-07, 08:23 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
Texas National Guardsmen Accused of Smuggling
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=11103551
by John Burnett
Morning Edition, June 15, 2007 · Three men with the Texas National Guard assigned to help strengthen patrols along the Texas-Mexico border were charged with transporting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Cases of corruption among public servants working along the border have increased.
Ooops! And sometimes it's not working. or "There's a hole in the dike"

Plans for 20-Foot Border Wall Rile Texas Residents
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=11118125
All Things Considered, June 15, 2007 · Business leaders, farmers, politicians and environmentalists — almost everyone in Texas' Rio Grande Valley is opposed to the federal government's plan to build a wall along a 135-mile stretch of the state's border with Mexico.

About 70 miles of the wall will be built through the Rio Grande Valley, and residents say it will change the character of their communities, disturb wildlife habitats and have an impact on the region's economy.

Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas says Valley residents are indignant, and believe Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff misled them.

"On February 21, we met with director Chertoff in Laredo, and we told him firsthand of what we thought of the wall, and we told him it was not necessary. And he answered and said, 'You're right. We may need it in Arizona and New Mexico, but the Rio Grande River is a structure we need to work with,'" Salinas says.

Salinas says business and political leaders from the Rio Grande Valley were thrilled with Chertoff's response — that a virtual wall, consisting of cameras, sensors and boots on the ground was a viable alternative to a real wall.

Salinas says living on the Texas-Mexico border has given local residents perspective about the determination of Mexicans who cross illegally.

He points out a 16-foot fence that runs along the border next to one of the international bridges that connects South Texas and Mexico. He says the McAllen port director used to park his car on the U.S. side of the fence next to his office.
. . . .

An editorial cartoon circulating around McAllen shows a 20-foot high border wall running through town. On the Mexican side of the 20-foot wall is a store and a sign that reads, "Jose's 21-foot ladders."
. . . .
The way to resolve the problem is to reduce or eliminate corruption in various countries, reduce or eliminate the economic disparities in those same countries, and improve economic opportunity throughout central and south America, as well as US.
turbo
turbo is offline
#3
Jun16-07, 08:58 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by edward View Post
Sure it is working in a few places, nice photo op though.

Click on the link, then click on the picture of the stadium lights.
I'm glad I don't have that crap ruining my dark sky. And so much for energy-savings. Guards with battery-operated night vision equipment would probably be just as effective as all that flood-lighting without giving the immigrants/smuggler a clear view of the whole layout.

X-43D
X-43D is offline
#4
Jul20-07, 01:28 PM
P: 152

Bush: Border Security Working


I think it's immoral to deny people access to a country. Let people live wherever they want to live without being expelled, evicted, deported or put in prison by the government. No one owns the land of the earth so everyone can be where he wants to be without requesting permission from the government. The earth and it's land belong to everyone equally. No one has a right to more land than another.

For example Canada and Russia are two big countries which are greatly underpopulated. They can let to at least more 200 million people come to their country. They have more than enough space.

In an anarchist or communalist society there is no need for government. Eliminate borders. Borders are not necessary in my opinion. Borders only divide people and take away their freedom to live where they want. In anarchism there are no borders. Borders are only necessary if some are going to rule others.

Government is a monopoly on violence and this monopoly takes freedom because no one has the right to use violence. Government is never good because it uses violence. If humans are inherently good, they can get along without government. If humans are inherently bad, selfish and violent, then they need some government to restrain them. However that governmet is not allowed to abuse its power or to make laws which hurt others or prohibit and control their freedom of movement.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/m.../sp001500.html
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html
Schrodinger's Dog
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#5
Jul20-07, 03:05 PM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
There are several studies that show our economy actually receives a benefit from immigration, although it is much easier to control here, because of our location.

http://www.population-growth-migrati...migration.html

Migration and the economy
( i ) The UK 's need for immigrants and the policy of the UK Government towards recruitment

There is a wide spread perception shared by big business and the government that the UK needs immigrants, first to take certain low paid jobs which the existing population decline to take, second, and more importantly, to overcome skill shortages in the country. Immigrants are then, seen as playing an important part in enabling the Government to achieve sustainable economic development.

Many immigrants have gone into low paid jobs in the construction industries, catering and domestic services. At the same time, skill shortages are frequently being met by immigrants. So in the health sector, about 30 per cent of doctors and well over ten percent of nurses are non-UK born. In education, overseas teachers play an important role in staffing schools, and a growing number of London education authorities are recruiting staff directly from abroad. In higher education, non-British nationals make up over twelve per cent of academic and research staff. The rapid increase in demand for workers in the IT industry means that over 50,000 more people will be need to be recruited by 2009 and there is a lag in the training of natives (Glover et al , 2001).
I'm sure though the high amounts of unregulated human traffic is a serious burden on local economies in the US, so I can see were that might make opinion on the subject differ.

Perhaps the statue of liberties message should be changed to:-

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"*


*but only if they have passed through the proper immigration procedures and are legal.

I must admit I like the idea of tackling the root of the problem suggested by Astronuc, rather than the fallout. Of course quick fixes, effective or not, are always going to appeal to the more conservative voters.
drankin
drankin is offline
#6
Jul20-07, 04:31 PM
drankin's Avatar
P: 175
Quote Quote by X-43D View Post
I think it's immoral to deny people access to a country. Let people live wherever they want to live without being expelled, evicted, deported or put in prison by the government. No one owns the land of the earth so everyone can be where he wants to be without requesting permission from the government. The earth and it's land belong to everyone equally. No one has a right to more land than another.

For example Canada and Russia are two big countries which are greatly underpopulated. They can let to at least more 200 million people come to their country. They have more than enough space.

In an anarchist or communalist society there is no need for government. Eliminate borders. Borders are not necessary in my opinion. Borders only divide people and take away their freedom to live where they want. In anarchism there are no borders. Borders are only necessary if some are going to rule others.

Government is a monopoly on violence and this monopoly takes freedom because no one has the right to use violence. Government is never good because it uses violence. If humans are inherently good, they can get along without government. If humans are inherently bad, selfish and violent, then they need some government to restrain them. However that governmet is not allowed to abuse its power or to make laws which hurt others or prohibit and control their freedom of movement.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/m.../sp001500.html
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html
Nice idealist take on things. It wouldn't work IMO. Why have a country? I'm afraid we cannot become the United States of Earth. People are too diverse and want their own way of life.
X-43D
X-43D is offline
#7
Jul21-07, 05:52 AM
P: 152
Quote Quote by drankin View Post
Nice idealist take on things. It wouldn't work IMO. Why have a country? I'm afraid we cannot become the United States of Earth. People are too diverse and want their own way of life.
Why not? In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states at all (aka anarchism). Then we will have a unified world without inequalities (aka communism). States only divide people and take away their freedom to live where they want. States are also unequal in terms of land ownership. For example Canada and Russia own much more land than say Israel and Lebanon. It's not fair that there are such great inequalities in terms of land. If we eliminate states we also eliminate these inequalities.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#8
Jul21-07, 07:00 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
If humans are inherently good, they can get along without government. If humans are inherently bad, selfish and violent, then they need some government to restrain them.
I think humans are a mixed bag - often struggling between 'good' and 'not so good'. There is perhaps always some level of self-interest, which is not necessarily the same as selfish.

Governments are composed of 'people'. Government policies are established by 'people'. The violence or aggression perpetrated by governments is really violence and aggression by 'people' on other 'people'.


It would be nice if people of the world would live peacefully and productively, and care for Nature and the environment, and each other. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The world is already divided by differences - primarily in culturally, ethnically and racially. This seems an extension of the tribalism that seems to be a characteristic of humanity.

In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states at all (aka anarchism). Then we will have a unified world without inequalities (aka communism).
Socio-economic/political have shown their weaknesses. Communism never had a chance to succeed because a 'few' took control over the 'many'. Capitalism and democracy have similarly failed.

The question is - how to overcome selfishness "the state of being concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others."

It's not fair that there are such great inequalities in terms of land.
Life is not fair.

If we eliminate states we also eliminate these inequalities.
At this point - elimination of states would produce 'chaos' - more so than currently exists.


Finally, consider the nature of 'private property'. I see the need for 'private property' or more accurately - I need a place or personal space to where I can retreat for peace and quiet.


We've drifted off course on the topic.
X-43D
X-43D is offline
#9
Jul21-07, 07:18 AM
P: 152
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Life is not fair.
Life is not fair but we can make it fair by eliminating inequalities.

Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
At this point - elimination of states would produce 'chaos' - more so than currently exists.
In my opinion it would produce peace and prosperity for everyone. If we abolish states the world will be unified and everyone could live where he wants to live without being deported or put in prison by the state government.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#10
Jul21-07, 07:39 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
Quote Quote by X-43D View Post
Life is not fair but we can make it fair by eliminating inequalities.
Easier said than done.

How would one propose to eliminate inequalities?

If I look on a local basis, within 20 km of where I live, there is significant inequality. We have very wealthy folks (and $million estates) and homeless (many or most homeless are mentally ill to some degree). We have people with PhDs and those with limited education (my wife and daughter have been helping a teenage mom whose children were temporarily removed because of her drug problems. The teenage mom has at best a 9th grade education). And there is a spectrum of economic status, education and opportunity.

We have two prisons nearby whose inmates have committed murder and violent assault. Those inmates grew up within this society.

In my opinion it would produce peace and prosperity for everyone. If we abolish states the world will be unified and everyone could live where he wants to live without being deported or put in prison by the state government.
Again, looking on a local basis - what about crime?

What does a society/community do with those who may not want to conform and be productive?

What does a society/community do with those who want a disproportionate share of the wealth or land?

What does a society/community do with those who exploit others?
X-43D
X-43D is offline
#11
Jul21-07, 07:51 AM
P: 152
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Easier said than done.

How would one propose to eliminate inequalities?
There are inequalities between states too, not only between individuals. Some states own more land than others. For example Russia owns much more land than Israel.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...AATUZ0C&show=7
http://stephaniefisk.theworldrace.or...lifes-not-fair

Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Again, looking on a local basis - what about crime?
I think that if we could eliminate the conditions which cause people to commit crimes like poverty or not having enough money, then there will be much less crime.

What does a society/community do with those who want a disproportionate share of the wealth or land?
Some states already own a disproportionate share of the wealth and land. For example Canada owns much more land than Israel or Lebanon.
devil-fire
devil-fire is offline
#12
Jul21-07, 08:33 AM
P: 40
are you willing to let homeless people live in your house to the point where you cant prepare lunch in your own house because other people have cleaned your fridge? i think not. humans and just about every other living organism on earth is territorial to some degree or another. humans are territorial in a way that reflects ideals instead of family units though.

eliminating boarders would not create 'equality' because the people who build houses wouldn't have anywhere to live because others would sooner move into someone else's house then build their own.

the entitlement of people to the fruits of labor should be related to the labor they do that bears fruit.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#13
Jul21-07, 08:48 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
Quote Quote by X-43D View Post
There are inequalities between states too, not only between individuals. Some states own more land than others. For example Russia owns much more land than Israel.

I think that if we could eliminate the conditions which cause people to commit crimes like poverty or not having enough money, then there will be much less crime.

Some states already own a disproportionate share of the wealth and land. For example Canada owns much more land than Israel or Lebanon.
Yes - I am well aware of the geography.

I am simply trying to find a starting point from which to change the world in a more positive direction.

That starting point for me is me. I can't change other people - I can't control other people, nor would I want to do so.

I can practice justice, fairness and equanimity in my own interactions with people. I can chose not to exploit others - and I don't.

I can choose positive interaction and do my best to avoid conflict.

However, conflict is inevitable, because there are conflicting interests and desires.


An End to Suffering is a worthwhile book to read. It provides an interesting and profound perspective on the modern world. I just finished the book. In conjunction, I have been reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization", and equally profound book which looks into many of the modern day conflicts since World War I and the impact of European colonialism.

Combining a novelist's talent for atmosphere with a scholar's grasp of historical sweep, foreign correspondent Fisk (Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon) has written one of the most dense and compelling accounts of recent Middle Eastern history yet. The book opens with a deftly juxtaposed account of Fisk's two interviews with Osama bin Laden. In the first, held in Sudan in 1993, bin Laden declared himself "a construction engineer and an agriculturist." He had no time to train mujahideen, he said; he was busy constructing a highway. In the second, held four years later in Afghanistan, he declared war on the Saudi royal family and America.Fisk, who has lived in and reported on the Middle East since 1976, first for the (London) Times and now for the Independent, possesses deep knowledge of the broader history of the region, which allows him to discuss the Armenian genocide 90 years ago, the 2002 destruction of Jenin, and the battlefields of Iraq with equal aplomb. But it is his stunning capacity for visceral description—he has seen, or tracked down firsthand accounts of, all the major events of the past 25 years—that makes this volume unique. Some of the chapters contain detailed accounts of torture and murder, which more squeamish readers may be inclined to skip, but such scenes are not gratuitous. They are designed to drive home Fisk's belief that "war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death." Though Fisk's political stances may sometimes be controversial, no one can deny that this volume is a stunning achievement.
Quote Quote by The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.

Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.

However Fisk regards himself, he is at bottom a war correspondent, and the fabric of his book is woven largely from his battlefield reporting. Fisk's writing on war is vivid, graphic, intense and very personal. Readers will encounter no "collateral damage" here, only homes destroyed and bodies torn to shreds. At times, as one horror is heaped upon another, it all seems too much to absorb or bear.
This is the harsh reality of the modern world.
Schrodinger's Dog
Schrodinger's Dog is offline
#14
Jul21-07, 09:09 AM
Schrodinger's Dog's Avatar
P: 1,142
If you ask me in 10,000 years the Earth will probably be much more conglomerated, into states like Europe NAmerican confedaracy. East Asian Bloc, Indian and Sub Himalayan confedaracy. The African nation states and so on. Who knows eventually we may even have one big planetary conglomeration, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, particularly when or if we start colonizing planets.

However the poster is clearly a socialist and his ideas are horrible and unselfish and therefore impractical I didn't die in two world wars to listen to no pinko propaganda.
X-43D
X-43D is offline
#15
Jul21-07, 10:38 AM
P: 152
In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states, so that individuals could go to live where they want without being deported, expelled or imprisoned by the government. Government can make laws which prohibit the freedom of movement. If i want to move to Canada without permission, the government can deport and arrest me. I am only allowed to stay for 3 month and then i must leave. This restricts the freedom of movement for a lot of people who are not authorized by the government to immigrate. Without government, everyone could be free to go wherever he wants without being deported and confined in jail.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#16
Jul21-07, 11:15 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
Quote Quote by X-43D View Post
In my opinion it would have been better if there were no states, so that individuals could go to live where they want without being deported, expelled or imprisoned by the government. Government can make laws which prohibit the freedom of movement. If i want to move to Canada without permission, the government can deport and arrest me. I am only allowed to stay for 3 month and then i must leave. This restricts the freedom of movement for a lot of people who are not authorized by the government to immigrate. Without government, everyone could be free to go wherever he wants without being deported and confined in jail.
AFAIK, most states welcome hardworking, industrious immigrants.

What states do not want are people who take advantage of the system, and thus represent a burden.

It would be great if 'everyone' was honest, kind, hard working, . . . .

But REALITY is . . . .

What does a community/society do with those who simply take from others or act aggressively and violently upon others? Some people simply cannot control themselves in civilized society, and unfortunately they need to be confined in order to protect other members of society.
X-43D
X-43D is offline
#17
Jul21-07, 12:50 PM
P: 152
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
AFAIK, most states welcome hardworking, industrious immigrants.

What states do not want are people who take advantage of the system, and thus represent a burden.

It would be great if 'everyone' was honest, kind, hard working, . . . .

But REALITY is . . . .

What does a community/society do with those who simply take from others or act aggressively and violently upon others? Some people simply cannot control themselves in civilized society, and unfortunately they need to be confined in order to protect other members of society.
There will be those who commit anti-social acts but i believe that if we could eliminate the conditions which cause people to commit anti-social acts like poverty and a restrictive society, there will be much less anti-social acts.

I mean man is the cruelest animal upon earth. Control of land by states has largely been a matter of historical accident and of course military conquest.

Even if the nations somehow managed to have equal amounts of land, I doubt that would do all that much to minimize state tyranny. Again, the question is not whether or not we should eliminate the state, but just exactly how we can eliminate the state. It is far from being a trivial question.

Anarchists oppose the state because the state is imperialist and expansionist and it prohibits individuals from living where they want by deporting them and arresting them.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist...dauthority.htm


Register to reply

Related Discussions
This is something Bush has gotten right--the need for social security reform NOW Current Events 65
Could Bush stay indefinately for National Security? Current Events 15
Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security? Current Events 300
Bush looks to reform Social Security.... Current Events 10
Bush solution to Social Security? Current Events 3