Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Build the Border Fence Already!

August 21st, 2014 - 9:52 pm

terrorists_at_border_8-21-14-1

Most of us, even many Democrats these days, are beginning to acknowledge the complete  foreign policy failure of our president (for an overview see Bret Stephens’ The Meltdown in Commentary),  but we still have to deal with over two years of Obama and we have a serious problem that needs to be handled immediately.

We could die.  Not all of us but a lot of us.  And our society as we know it could be destroyed.

Sound apocalyptic and a little overwrought?

Well, it is apocalyptic, but not so overwrought.

Surely you saw the Islamic State video with that journalist’s head being lopped off, not to mention other videos with people being shot in the back and dumped in open pits. You know too that the jihadi who beheaded the journalist was British.  And indeed the Islamic State is comprised of violent religious fanatics from all over the planet who are well armed, virtually a terror army, and rich.  They have explicit instructions to return to their home countries and wreak havoc for the glory of a coming global caliphate.  Also, they have allies from North Africa to the Philippines who more or less seek the same thing under various names.

It’s not just Houston that has a problem now.  It’s Western Civ!

So what are we going to do about it? Well, there’s a lot that can be done militarily, though much of that will probably have to wait for a new president,  but just as importantly we must…

Build a fence across our entire Southern border and do it now.  Make it as secure as we can.  Spare no expense.  Add whatever high tech accoutrements deemed necessary.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Roger,

You are totally missing the point

1) Islam is the enemy. It wants you converted or dead. That is what Islam teaches.

2) All Western political parties - all of them - plus all the RINOs (Karl Rove, Bush McCain, Boehner, Romney in the US, Cameron in the UK) - have no problem importing Muslims. The left sees them as a potent voting bloc and RINO's are too PC - POLITICAL COWARDS- and stupid to see the left has a new voting bloc.

3) Middle Eastern countries then lavish oil money on these western countries by giving billions for mosques, madrassas and organization like CAIR and endowing Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown with fifth columnists.

4) Your website argues against the fact that the FDR administration was full of Communists and fellow travelers as pointed out in Diana West's book: American Betrayal and so you do not remotely see her analogy to today where the WEST is being infiltrated by Islam.

5) These enemies are not ISIS, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or any other group. The enemy is Islam. Understand that or understand nothing.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
You're not going far enough. This country needs to shed its mindless addiction to immigration and start asking hard questions about how it benefits us. How does it benefit America to have 200 million people in 1960 and 320 million today? How does it benefit America to have 80% of new immigrants come from the Third World in the last 40 years and 90% in the last 20? How does it benefit America to have foreign workers on "temporary" visas crowd American workers out of companies? How does wrecking our ecology and environment and sorely testing our groundwater benefit America? For what? What is the end game, what is the goal?

All immigration should be ended and all illegals systematically booted out, 10 million or no. Ditch the Anchor Baby law. Shrink our population to manageable levels. Make wages competitive again. One man used to buy a house and raise a family. Now two people have to do that. House prices are insane.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
Financially speaking, it would be very feasible to secure 90% of the border, and identify 95%+ of the crossing, for what would constitute a small amount of the DoD budget.

Double wall 18 high, angled outwards, with cameras and infrared sensors. Fairly cheap ones. Set up response stations along the border. Infrared sensor going off alerts the station to check the camera. Camera shows a border-crossing, and they send out a proportional response.

A half dozen drones could loiter, spotting the crossers from miles out, and could easily track people spotted by the cameras, and trail them until they're apprehended. And you know that the military just LOVES to have an excuse to use drones.

It is a very feasible project, whose cost of construction would likely be in the single-billions, and whose upkeep could be run at under 100 million. Not cheap, but not ludicrously expensive either. You don't defend every part of the border - you detect every part of the border, which is pretty easy given the mostly open land, you slow them down naturally at the border, and then in that time you track and respond to where ever the crossing occurs.
14 weeks ago
14 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (111)
All Comments   (111)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If someone is really interested in amnesty, then they should support this. Amnesty will be politically feasible if and when immigration is controlled. A couple of years of a closed border, and it could probably pass. (Now how to put that properly without committing political suicide?)
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Remember when we were going to have a virtual border fence? But Janet Napolitano tried it and decided it wouldn't work. I wonder if she told the truth about that? Everything about this administration is designed to tell us that the border can't be secured. Even "fences don't work". Yet, we have 20-foot high razorwire-topped fences around our federal prisons. Maybe it's time to take a second look at some elements of a virtual fence if it can be put in place immediately while the physical fences are being built.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, Roger, you want our know-nothing president to actually do something that will help the USA?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Build a fence and bulldoze the mosques. Toss the vermin in container ships bound for Africa, with enough fuel to make it half way there. Anyone caught here illegally goes aboard.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am shocked, really, shocked at all the posters on this thread, including the autor, who just don't get it.

Building a wall will accomplish nothing. Militarizing the border will only result in protests. And this accomplishes exactly what? Nothing.

You call yourselves conservatives by yelling "Build a fence!" which is a complete waste of time, resources and money, and ineffectual. Then it's, "Deport them all!" which is not possible logistically.

But, hey, you've got your creds as a "conservative." You're an American!

Get serious and get real. No fence and no amount of deportation will solve this problem. It's the elected representatives that are the source of the problem, and you elected them. So if you want to blame someone, blame yourselves.

Elect responsible representatives. It begins with that. Everything else is blog BS.

You want to secure the border? It doesn't take a fence or the military. Cut off all benefits to illegals. The problem solves itself. Of course, that would require electing representatives who will vote for policies along that order.

And for that you can blame yourselves.

Otherwise, get a gun and buy a lot of ammo.

13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
FDR deported more than 10 million at the start of WWII, without the DHS, with a smaller LEO force, and it took less than 6 months.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, they will still come. They will compete for food services jobs, construction jobs, property maintenance jobs, agricultural jobs and more. They will do these jobs for less money and they will do them better. With open borders people will flow from the low standard of living country to the higher standard of living country every time. It's physics and immutable. The welfare state just makes it easier on them but it is not he primary reason for the flow. Roger is right - secure the border. Then we can talk about other things.

13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow. You know, there is a conservative named Roger Simon too, and he also posts here, but we can tell this article wasn't written by the conservative Simon because

1. It proposes a hugely costly and utterly futile solution to the wrong problem
2. It demonstrates an extremely weak grasp of mathematics.
3. Its most salient effect will be to expand the size of the Federal government.
4. It uses the phrase "spare no expense".

All those are hallmarks of liberal proposals.

First, consider that the US border is more than 20,000 miles long, and he is proposing to build a wall along all of 20% of that, the land-border with Mexico. Because, I guess, he thinks Mexican cannot swim or pilot boats.

Moreover, most illegals who cross by land cross at border-crossing, the holes we have to punch in the wall anyway.

And of course, less than half of all illegals enter by surface travel at all -- and no known terrorist has ever entered illegally!

That's the real problem: when we should be focusing on arresting or killing car-bombers, hijackers, reservoir-poisoners, and bioweapons-wielders, the liberal Simon wants to focus on inconveniencing would-be bus-boys, farm laborers, and construction workers.

That's actually the big giveaway this article was written by a liberal: it's stupid.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, we should "inconvenience bus-boys, farm laborers and construction workers". Then perhaps the 40% of Americans who do not participate in the labor force might be able to find jobs. And please look up "strawman argument" in the dictionary. No one is claiming that enhanced border security will be 100% effective. What is ? - especially when government is in charge. But your answer apparently is to just let everyone in and then arrest the terrorist among them. And lastly to quote Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does" Not enforcing borders because doing so is difficult or expensive is . . well . . stupid.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
huhn? I am talking about the border with mexico, the rocky mountains dont come anywhere near the border with mexico. The max elevation is under 3000 feet. The engineering and construction of a canal and the associated costs are relatively easy obstacles. The idea makes a lot of economic and practical sense, but the people against limiting illegal immigration will claim the snipper dipper whipper whirl migration patterns would be disrupted or a hundred other environmental reasons to pile on costs and regs or stop it outright.

Thats ok, when millions of americans die from terror attacks or illegal alien vectored disease, it will sound imminently more doable.

A Fence is negative, a canal is positive. If it could be built in such a way as to act as a natural river with tidal basin action, so that the inland portions were fresh water, it could created thousands of hectares of new farmland on both sides of the border.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"huhn? I am talking about the border with mexico, the rocky mountains dont come anywhere near the border with mexico."

You need a geography lesson (along with some other basic education). The Rocky Mountains extend from Canada to the tip of South America. Along the way, they get a name change or two, but it's the same mountain range.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/nalnd.htm
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
lol, sorry i didnt know you were retarded, my bad. do you understand the concept of feet, or meters as a concept of measurement of linear distance?

BTW a name change generally, i mean for the non-retarded people, means a different mountain range. The rocky mountains do not extend into south america, and they certainly do not have the same characteristics of sheer bluffs and towering peaks in the foothills where they tail off in new mexico as they do in colorado and points north.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wow. You really ARE stupid!

Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life here.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
A moat? One can already watch the water-craft-equipped racing back and forth on the Rio Grande, dropping off bundles or people. They can cruise on the MX side and our defenses can do nothing, so they cruise to a spot we aren't and unload. Absent robotic snipers lining our side, water is no deterrent.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
you fail to grasp the concept. If the country were to gather the political will to spend the amount of money and disrupt the natural environment to the extent necessary to actually build a canal from the pacific to the gulf, do you think they would not build a fence, roadway, concrete barriers, side flood ditches lighting/ cameras, at least to the extent of interstate 20 along the length of it? you think they are going to just dredge a raw ditch and call it good?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
"you fail to grasp the concept"

That probably has something to do with the jaw-dropping stupidity of your "concept".

13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
The fence, as necessary as it is, is only as good as the30,000 men manning it.
Who would they be? National Guard troops, each group of which has an border control agent imbedded for the legalities, just like the DEA support Coast Guard operations.

It can be nearly revenue neutral.

Each Guardsman is obligated to serve two weeks (which can be 14 to 17 days, depending) Active Duty (ACDU). 52 weeks divided by 2 weeks equals 26 cycles. 30,000 men times 26 cycles is 780,000 troopers. The National Guard (army) has about 350,000. Air guard, army reserve, marine reserve, and navy reserve all have the same two week obligation and total manpower of all these others plus army guard get us there.

All military can carry a rifle and walk a perimeter, for a couple of weeks, anyway.

I would even bet that huge numbers would serve or four weeks for two weeks pay, I know I would, and in earlier times, did. The border states could also use up the one weekend a month time as well.

Now I know the above is far from perfect and the desk jocks and Dems would look for ways to squash it. Maybe we only average 25k, maybe Fort Hood and Fort Bliss troops do patrols as training exercises. It is all about finding the will that will lead to the way.

Finally, we need ROEs that have the troops carrying loaded weapons and authority to shoot after the first "Halt or we shoot" challenge.

(Islam is evil!!!!)
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is where you're headed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRE9vMBBe10

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio
Got to get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been gone long ago
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How could you run when you know?
Four dead in Ohio. How many more?

That is exactly where all of this talk of militarizing the border, building a fence, which would do no good, is headed.

You're playing into the hands of the enemy, allowing them to accuse you of being racist xenophobes, and violent ones at that. You're becoming what the enemy is accusing you of being. Don't you get that?

A far better strategy would be to have hundreds of thousands of Hispanic and African Americans standing on the border, saying "Hey, we need jobs too! And we don't have the resources to take care of you."

Perhaps this eludes the GOP and the so-called conservates. End the benefits, and end illegal immigration.

Build a fence! ISIS is coming! Give me a break. Posturing will get you nowhere. Change the law and enforce the law. Nothing else matters.

13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
disagree.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
And people out there need to go to youtube and watch the video about managing garbage mountain outside of Los Angeles. It is nightmarish. People need to understand the states centered around Las Vegas conspired to have water piped from the Great Lakes. States and provinces there said "uh-uh."

Several years ago America went from a net exporter to importer of food. That same year I remember that fool Michael Moore on Larry King saying we have plenty of room for immigrants. "Have you ever seen Nebraska?" Nebraska's where we grow food you idiot, and no it's not new territory for the Third World's excess population.

By my reckoning we'll have 417 million people in 2054 - twice that of 1960.

WHY?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All