It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


curious question of the US securing its border with Mexico

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 03:11 AM
A good start would be to stop advertising in Central America "Hey everybody, come on in! If you're "underage" (not carrying any id with proof of age) we legally HAVE to keep you!" If it were made clear that illegal entry would carry penalties (and, if we started REAL enforcement,) and made to look less appealing, I believe that would do far more than any fence or wall.

Procedures for legal immigration and temporary work visas are in place for a reason.

I find those who are advocating murder, or a Berlin Wall type solution to be quite hypocritical to our country's historical principles.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:43 AM
The only issue with 100% restricting all work for illegals is the problem I have in my local area, they end up as a limitless supply of recruits for the organized criminal gangs.

Sure you can jail the ones caught but there a dozen more to take the place of each one jailed and eventually you prisons overflow.
edit on 3-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:00 AM
a reply to: crazyewok

As long as the CIA benefit from the porous nature of the southern border, due to the ease of shipping guns and drugs across it in both directions (handy when they need to finance an operation that is not vetted by politicians, for example), that border will remain as it is.

That's just how I see it, but you have to understand the amount of back channel work that goes on down there makes a solid border totally unrealistic. The intelligence services find access to the size and vibrancy of the black market down that way, very helpful indeed for a plethora of reasons. Recruiting foreign mercenaries for questionable operations, securing off the books weapons and gear, organising black project financing with underworld bankers, hiding intelligence assets of all kinds...

Not to mention that the presence of such a hub of black market activity, brings together the many persons of interest that the intelligence agencies like to keep an eye on, as they also barter and squabble for supplies and access to financial services. This makes it an ideal place to observe the functions and methodologies being used to dupe governments into missing the activity of "dangerous" persons.

The benefits to the intelligence community of having a porous southern border are massive, and until they either stop being beneficial to that community, as it exists now, or the way that intelligence community operates changes to render that benefit moot, it will remain as it is.

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:45 AM
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

I find those who are advocating murder, or a Berlin Wall type solution to be quite hypocritical to our country's historical principles.

I agree, break the law and you will benefit!

But this is not how things should be in the US.
We should be a nation of laws and equality, not lies and bribes.

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:53 AM
a reply to: g146541

But how far should you go enforcing those laws.

There comes a point were enforcing them will become more expensive than letting a few through.

You have the cost of manpower, detention centers, prisons, deportation costs ect That will quickly rise up.

Im 100% against illegal immigration. BUT im thinking economic costs. 100% punitive measures will likely cost more than the problem.

A mixed approach would likley be better. Stop the flow 50% or even 25% and then find someway to manage the 75% or 50% that do get through. Be it refugee camps, easier routes for legislation in exchange for higher tax on the immigrants ect

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: crazyewok

Im speaking of Terrorists sneaking across mountainous forest terrain of thousands and thousands of unchecked miles. It would be easy to do.

In fact here in Michigan, I can go camping, hike a bit, and be in Canada and vice versa.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in