Page 1 of 2
Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 3:02 am
by Gob
PHOENIX (AP) - The Obama administration plans to announce Tuesday that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, an Arizona congresswoman said.
Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords also said in a statement released Tuesday that President Barack Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security.
Part of Giffords' district borders Mexico.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman said the governor hadn't been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.
In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. The troops wouldn't perform significant law enforcement duties.
That program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent there to curb human and drug smuggling and prevent Mexico's drug violence from spilling over into the United States.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:40 am
by loCAtek
Gob, what's going south of the US border is horrific;
Mexican Drug War Drives 3,000 Families Into U.S.
August 16th, 2008 Posted By Erik Wong.
MEXICO CITY — Mounting drug-related violence and 800 murders so far this year have driven some 3,000 families from the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez into the United States, a border expert said Friday.
Officials reported 10 new deaths in the Mexican border city Friday, and five others elsewhere in Chihuahua state.
Most of the families seeking safety across the border were middle-class, said Antonio Payan, a political science professor at the University of Texas in El Paso, the US city adjacent to Juarez.
The mayor of Ciudad Juarez, Jose Reyes Ferriz, said he “knew that some families had left to live in El Paso out of fear of the city’s violence,” but said that he had no figures.
Ciudad Juarez is the battleground in the power struggle between the Sinaloa and the Juarez drug cartels.
In escalating violence, the city of some 1.5 million has registered some 800 homicides so far this year.
Experts said the figure was triple that of the whole of last year.
Bank and car robberies, extortion, kidnappings and protection rackets were also on the increase in Juarez, according to the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.
An increase in kidnappings in the business community was another reason for the relocations, with at least 38 reported this year.
Most of those who left and moved to the United States had dual nationality or children born there, Payan said.
Violence throughout Chihuahua state left 15 dead Friday, officials said.
Ten people died overnight in separate incidents in Ciudad Juarez, local police said, and an armed commando attacked and killed four males, including three youths, on a basketball court in the town of Casas Grandes.
One man died of bullet wounds in a hospital in a nearby municipality, police said.
Federal authorities have deployed more than 36,000 soldiers across the country, including 2,500 in Ciudad Juarez, in an effort to combat drug trafficking and related violence, but some 2,000 people have been killed in Mexico so far this year.
(AFP)
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:44 am
by Gob
I'm sure it is from what you posted. But that doesn't mean the USA should just open it's borders, does it?
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:49 am
by loCAtek
We're allowing more families to enter, just not criminals.
..except in Arizona, don't know if you heard but those

aren't even letting desperate refugees in!
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:13 pm
by Guinevere
I think we should let in anyone who wants to come here for legitimate reasons, improving their quality of life being one.
Here'e my starting point for requirements to enter and stay. You apply for a green card at entry or within 3 months thereof. If you want citizenship, you must start that application process within 1 year of entry. If you don't meet those deadlines, you are returned. If you are convicted of any felony, you are returned.
Instead of spending billions hunting down and keeping out illegals, we spend those dollars on creating a process to help immigrants enter legally, and make sure they have gone through the required process, and help them obtain citizenship or permanent residency.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:22 pm
by loCAtek
Well, a big part of the problem is also those who do enter legally, but do not return to Mexico when their Green card expires. I can't find the numbers on that right now, I think it's as high as 40% of illegal immigrants entered the country legally.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:15 am
by Andrew D
Fortress America is long overdue. We should speed up our withdrawal from Iraq and send all those troops to the border. Anyone caught here illegally should be deported and never allowed to return. We are overcrowded as it is. Nostalgic policies which ignore that crucial fact are ill advised and potentially disastrous.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:32 am
by Gob
Andrew D wrote: Anyone caught here illegally should be deported and never allowed to return.
I would have no objection to the UK and Aus adopting that protocol.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 7:17 am
by thestoat
Andrew D wrote:We are overcrowded as it is
That's an interesting statement. Do US citizens consider themselves overcrowded? I have never considered the US to be overcrowded because it is so large (but then I don't live there). I
do consider the UK to be overcrowded and was surprised to find that the UK is "only" the 51st crowded country (the US is the 178th most crowded, Australia 233rd). I know some areas of a place are uninhabitable and that can affect the result. My point is - I wonder if most citizens of whichever country consider their country overcrowded.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:42 am
by loCAtek
Well, while immigration is down actually, the big stink is why allow so many illegals to burden our already struggling economy? Unemployment is at it's highest and the job market is fierce!
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:20 pm
by tyro
Not to stir the pot, but does anyone know if the US health care system has restricted access and if that restriction is easy to enforce?
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:01 pm
by dales
Mexico?
How are we (the US) going to keep those Canadiens from hopping our northern borders?
This could REALLY get ugly! :twisted:
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:05 pm
by Gob
Stoat, Australia is having a big debate as to how many more people we can afford to have in. This is due to the vast area of uninhabitable land here, and also the demands placed on infrastructure, especially water provision.
Treasury modelling released last year forecast the population would increase more than half to 35 million by the middle of the century. The increase will come from migration, more women reaching child-bearing age and higher fertility rates.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd welcomed the modelling, saying he was in favour of a big Australia. But it prompted criticism from Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson, who has questioned whether the country can support such a population.
Mr Thomson has called for dramatic cuts to immigration levels.
Mr Morrison said he did not believe Australia should ''shut the door'' to immigrants but ''given that immigration accounts for almost 60 per cent of population growth, we can do something about it''.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/debate-o ... -mrni.html
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:25 pm
by Andrew D
thestoat wrote:Andrew D wrote:We are overcrowded as it is
That's an interesting statement. Do US citizens consider themselves overcrowded? I have never considered the US to be overcrowded because it is so large (but then I don't live there). I
do consider the UK to be overcrowded and was surprised to find that the UK is "only" the 51st crowded country (the US is the 178th most crowded, Australia 233rd). I know some areas of a place are uninhabitable and that can affect the result. My point is - I wonder if most citizens of whichever country consider their country overcrowded.
I can't speak for other US citizens. I am not aware of relevant survey data, but they're probably out there somewhere.
There is much more than the uninhabitability of parts of a country to consider. The US does have vast tracts of land that are barely inhabitable. (There are, for example, counties in Nevada, Texas, and Utah (and maybe other States) whose population density is less than 1 person per square mile. And with good reason.)
The US also has vast tracts of land devoted to agriculture. We could, I suppose, pave them over for Wal-Marts and parking lots and housing subdivisions. But where would the food (timber, etc.) come from?
The US also has vast tracts of land set aside as National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Preserves, and so forth. We could, again, pave them over to accommodate an ever-increasing population. But that would make the US a country far less worth living in.
Of course, I consider the entire planet to be overpopulated by a factor of at least six, so take what I say with however large a grain of salt seems appropriate ....
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:28 pm
by Sue U
I live in the most densely populated state in the U.S., and I do not feel it is overcrowded. We still have large tracts devoted to agriculture, state and national parks, private not-for-profit wildlife preserves, and municipally preserved open space under our state "Green Acres" program. Now, since I am the product of an urban environment, my perspective may be skewed the opposite of Andrew's, but I figure we could easily accommodate a few million more people here in NJ alone. It's really a question of well-planned use of urban space. Regionally, when I drive through Delaware, Pennsylvania and upstate NY, I come across plenty of open space. It's not far nor difficult to get out to the country -- and even to solitude -- from our urban centers.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 11:23 pm
by Andrew D
I don't quite get this:
Now, since I am the product of an urban environment, my perspective may be skewed the opposite of Andrew's ....
I was born and raised in the City and County of San Francisco, which is more densely populated than even the most densely populated county in New Jersey, let alone the entire State of New Jersey.
Maybe a difference in perspective has more to do with what is "vast": Just the National Parks in California -- not including National Forests and so forth -- are substantially larger than the whole of New Jersey.
But I always cringe when I read something like this:
It's really a question of well-planned use of urban space.
I've read a fair bit about "well-planned use of urban space," and it almost invariably (though not in so many words) boils down to "How can we cram even more people into the space we have?" For all its paeans to "interactivity" and such, it really amounts to a back-to-the-tenements movement.
What we should be asking is "How can we make it so that everyone who wants to can live in a single-family, detached residence while still retaining sufficient agricultural production to keep us self-sustaining and while still retaining (and, ideally, expanding) our National Parks, etc.?" And the answer is straightforward: Fewer people.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 1:48 am
by Sue U
Andrew D wrote:
What we should be asking is "How can we make it so that everyone who wants to can live in a single-family, detached residence .... ?"
Why is this the model for an "ideal" residence? Would you really prefer an 1100 square foot single-family house on a 60 x 75 foot lot in some drab suburb where you have to get in a car and drive 20 minutes just to get a half gallon of milk? Or would you rather have a 2500 sq. ft. apartment with magnificent views of the Hudson River/NYC skyline within a couple of blocks of shops and a short light-rail ride to the office? Or how about a spacious brownstone on a leafy street with a large park, tennis/basketball courts and community garden at the end of the block?
Believe me, I have no desire to live in a tenement. Have you seen the residential units being built and rehabbed in Manhattan, Brooklyn and North Jersey? This ain't your (or my) grandpa's slum anymore.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 1:53 am
by Jarlaxle
Sue U wrote:Andrew D wrote:
What we should be asking is "How can we make it so that everyone who wants to can live in a single-family, detached residence .... ?"
Why is this the model for an "ideal" residence? Would you really prefer an 1100 square foot single-family house on a 60 x 75 foot lot in some drab suburb where you have to get in a car and drive 20 minutes just to get a half gallon of milk? Or would you rather have a 2500 sq. ft. apartment with magnificent views of the Hudson River/NYC skyline within a couple of blocks of shops and a short light-rail ride to the office? Or how about a spacious brownstone on a leafy street with a large park, tennis/basketball courts and community garden at the end of the block?
Believe me, I have no desire to live in a tenement. Have you seen the residential units being built and rehabbed in Manhattan, Brooklyn and North Jersey? This ain't your (or my) grandpa's slum anymore.
I'd rather suck a shotgun than live in any city. 2500 square feet in or near NYC? That'll run, what, three or four million? Unless that was a typo and supposed to be 250 square feet.
Re: Fortress America
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 2:23 am
by dales
Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was the buzzword in the 1970's.
That's when the population of the United States was around 200million.
We should've capped it there, instead we over 300million and a lower standard of living.
If the US keeps going at this rate, we can have 400+million in 20 years and a standard of living comaprable to that of Bangladesh.

Re: Fortress America
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 2:29 am
by Jarlaxle
Get started then, Bosco: kill yourself.