Rasmussen: 48% Say Shifting Military Money To Border Security Would Make America Safer

Lol, yeah but according to Neo-Cons the terrorists will continue to attack us because we're free. And I don't like the idea of our military 'protecting' our borders, but I'd prefer it over our global empire.
 
Flash said:
Lol, yeah but according to Neo-Cons the terrorists will continue to attack us because we're free. And I don't like the idea of our military 'protecting' our borders, but I'd prefer it over our global empire.
Click to expand...

The terrorists can't attack us if they can't get into our country. That's what the neocons don't seem to understand.
 
I wonder what kind of border security they have in mind. I just don't think that any means of preventing illegal immigrants from walking in through the barren desert would do anything more than convince almost all of them to use another means instead (such as getting temporary visas and then not leaving). The effect on illegal immigration would be minimal and the cost would be huge.

Of course the survey is right anyway. We'd be safer if we spent less on our overseas military no matter what we did with the savings.
 
erowe1 said:
How many terrorists do you suppose have ever gotten into the country by sneaking across an unprotected border?
Click to expand...

I would imagine that almost all of them have. Many of them come here on Visa's as well and end up overstaying it. That's why Ron and Rand both support legislation that would deny Visa's to countries that sponsor terrorism.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
I wonder what kind of border security they have in mind. I just don't think that any means of preventing illegal immigrants from walking in through the barren desert would do anything more than convince almost all of them to use another means instead (such as getting temporary visas and then not leaving). The effect on illegal immigration would be minimal and the cost would be huge.

Of course the survey is right anyway. We'd be safer if we spent less on our overseas military no matter what we did with the savings.
Click to expand...

Those polled did not have the option of framing the question.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
I would imagine that almost all of them have. Many of them come here on Visa's as well and end up overstaying it.
Click to expand...

As far as actually sneaking across an unprotected border, I would imagine that almost none of them have.

How would beefing up border security do anything to prevent people from overstaying their visas?
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
How many terrorists do you suppose have ever gotten into the country by sneaking across an unprotected border?
Click to expand...

Atta did, he came across the Canadian border. And they found people from Hamas trying to come across from Mexico a week or so ago. Our borders are a joke for a country so obsessed with terrorism. And if they really wanted to impact safety, the borders make much more sense than poking a finger into everyone else's eyes, internationally.

However, the point is, that is what RON says and said in the debates in 2007. And not many others are saying it.
 
Last edited:
Traditional Conservative said:
The terrorists can't attack us if they can't get into our country. That's what the neocons don't seem to understand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is where I differ with hardcore libertarians I guess.

If you seal the borders tight enough and impose heavy restricts on immigration from regions/countries which have a record of being the country of origin of terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.) then it would be a much more effective way of preventing a terror attack against the US.

At least it would be more effective than bombing and intervening in random countries while having open borders at home.
 
sailingaway said:
Atta did, he came across the Canadian border. And they found people from Hamas trying to come across from Mexico a week or so ago. Our borders are a joke for a country so obsessed with terrorism.
Click to expand...

That also illustrates why we need to secure our northern border as well. People seem to only concentrate on the southern border, but our southern border is well secured compared to our northern border.
 
sailingaway said:
Atta did, he came across the Canadian border. And they found people from Hamas trying to come across from Mexico a week or so ago. Our borders are a joke for a country so obsessed with terrorism. And if they really wanted to impact safety, the borders make much more sense than poking a finger into everyone else's eyes, internationally.

However, the point is, that is what RON says and said in the debates in 2007. And not many others are saying it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I remember the Canadian one. I thought it was anomalous. But I admittedly didn't know.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
That also illustrates why we need to secure our northern border as well. People seem to only concentrate on the southern border, but our southern border is well secured compared to our northern border.
Click to expand...

That's one of the problems. Actually securing the southern border is a huge task. Once you start talking about the northern one, it just seems practically unrealistic to me and frightening as well. If you've ever been to Boundary Waters, Minnesota, imagine what it would take to do that there, and then multiply that by 1,000.

I'm sympathetic to border security being a legitimate cause. I just think we have to consider what kind of government it would take to do that in a nation with borders like ours, and whether that's the kind of government we want. I definitely don't support laws against employing illegal immigrants or renting rooms to them. And I'm not a fan of the wall approach either. I'd rather just ease up on legal immigration to the point that hardly anyone has an incentive to do it illegally, and reserve our right to deport or prevent entry of terrorists, fugitives from the law, and people with certain contagious diseases. We'll never be able to keep them all out, which is part of what the 2nd amendment is for.
 
erowe1 said:
That's one of the problems. Actually securing the southern border is a huge task. Once you start talking about the northern one, it just seems practically unrealistic to me and frightening as well. If you've ever been to Boundary Waters, Minnesota, imagine what it would take to do that there, and then multiply that by 1,000.

I'm sympathetic to border security being a legitimate cause. I just think we have to consider what kind of government it would take to do that in a nation with borders like ours, and whether that's the kind of government we want. I definitely don't support laws against employing illegal immigrants or renting rooms to them. And I'm not a fan of the wall approach either. I'd rather just ease up on legal immigration to the point that hardly anyone has an incentive to do it illegally, and reserve our right to deport or prevent entry of terrorists, fugitives from the law, and people with certain contagious diseases. We'll never be able to keep them all out, which is part of what the 2nd amendment is for.
Click to expand...

I just think that our borders give us a good reason to push for bringing our troops home from around the world. I always bring up our borders when I talk to some of my conservative friends about foreign policy issues. I talk about how our troops are needed here at home to secure our own borders and defend our own country. That argument is very persuasive to convince conservatives to support a non interventionist foreign policy. I would much rather use our troops to secure our borders than use them to police the world.
 
juvanya said:
Its too secure as is. There is absolutely no reason at all to check my passport when I am travelling to an adjacent area with the exact same culture.
Click to expand...

Those Quebec seperatists bear watching - there were threats of violence concerning the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the battle of Quebec. The main celebration was canceled, and I'm still annoyed about that.
 
The only two things government knows to do about anything are either 1) legislate it away, or 2) throw money at it.

Come to think of it, government really IS limited, isn't it? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Venezuela Military Deployment Is about Cronyism, Not National Security
Replies
3
Views
92
Snowball
Snowball
PAF
The Fear-Mongering Rackets of the U.S. National-Security State
Replies
0
Views
207
PAF
PAF
PAF
How to Make America Great Again
Replies
4
Views
321
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Bringing the War on Terror to Our Southern Border Can Only End in Disaster
Replies
6
Views
91
unknown
unknown
PAF
America the Ugly
2
Replies
34
Views
373
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top