Clark Griswold

Objectivism is not even remotely possible in the real world, there is a reason people read Ayn Rand when they are 20 and realize it is bullshit when they are 30.

Keeping it civil, nothing I said was racist and you just read into it what fulfills the fantasy of oppression you have constructed.

Why do you try to confuse legal and illegal immigration? You keep trying to equate the two. There is a process, I am sure it could be improved but there is a way to do it legally and it may not always allow everyone in (which in my opinion is good) but not everyone is guaranteed everything they want in life either.

Yours are too, the original intent of this thread was about securing the border(s) from illegal crossings, nothing to do with legal crossings / immigration. Those who argue against merely stopping illegal crossing / immigration really are saying that other people who are not citizens of this country have special rights to violate laws that actual citizens of this country do not. BTW I specified illegal aliens, not legal immigrants.

Because your "freedom" to enter into business, contracts, etc... with whomever can drag/bribe/sneak their way into the country infringes on my right to not be robbed/killed/raped/harassed by illegal aliens and infringes on the sovereignty of my nation to control it's borders

Do you wait till you get a Resolution Advisory before correcting a loss of separation problem when you can see it coming 20 miles out? Do you wait till you get a Pull-Up Pull-Up before correcting a loss of terrain clearance problem if you know you have a CFIT coming? Why do we have to wait for the pain / problem to get so severe that people will just leave a country to get away from it? Why can't we lead the turn and control our destiny? Do you wait till the stove burns your hand and you feel the pain before you remove it?

Open borders, amnesty, long term high immigration (legal & illegal) pick your poison, are not wise national policies. Allowing in more low-skilled workers (and their dependents) will cost much more than they will ever contribute in terms of payroll taxes and depress the wages of the working poor and working class. What Vertigo proposes (ostensibly a free market of labor which really is just a race to the bottom) can not ever be as Mexico or whatever labor exporting country you want to pick will not allow a reciprocal move to open it's economy or society, again the elites of the third world don't care a whit about their own poor and just expect the gringos to let them in, thereby solving their problem of a dissatisfied mass of poor. We are enabling some of the worst governance / inattention by turning a blind eye to this and allowing it to continue. Robert Rector’s Study: Open Borders + Welfare State = Disaster Build the fence(s) - Patrol the border - Arrest & Fine the illegal EMPLOYERS - Deport the illegals when they are arrested

Can't disagree with you, Vertigo's relevant link was an article about how legalized weed is hurting the illicit production & smuggling business from Mexican cartels, every little bit helps... weakening the Cartels helps the Mexican government defeat them and marijuana legalization with a strong secure border are good tactics in the strategy to build a stable, prosperous and modern Mexico... our ultimate southern border objective, long term for the US it is not optimal to live next door to a not third world exactly but not first world country either... the porous border and our lax immigration, employment and citizenship enforcement policies keep the elites of Mexico from having to deal with their problems, just encourage your poor to go North, send home money and demand citizenship; money goes home, can gets kicked down the road and political hegemony by demographic shift happens, seems tin foil hat and conspiratorial but it is happening... Good article: Is Illegal Immigration Good For Mexico?

An imaginary line on the ground? So if 10, 20, 30 million people just walked across the border, got here somehow or were sent from another country and just decided that wanted to live here that's ok? No say so on the part of the nation, its citizens or respect for its laws or sovereignty? The most basic definition of a nation is the ability to control its territory. If we don't enforce our borders and laws we are no longer a nation and ultimately a society in decline and disintegration. Acting in defense of your interests and your nation is not racism, bigotry, unfair or un-American. I don't believe in or advocate for shooting illegal border crossers on sight and people post shit on the internet out of the bravado of anonymity but that doesn't undermine the need for a physical barrier system, coupled with a border security and immigration enforcement and control strategy.

Yep - partial drug legalization (basically marijuana and a few others) is part of the solution. Drugs, like oil, sometimes gives money and power to some very unsavory nations, regimes, people, etc... Relevant also

True but light a candle or curse the darkness, keep trying to get thru their thick skulls and get the freedom to reform the military. Most of them beleive the military's primary function is to be a jobs program rather than an actual military. On Sprey, I agree as he is brilliant but just a bit opinionated and not open to the idea that any fighter technology past 1970 actually works...

Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it. Mass is important but it has to be combined with quality, balance the two but the AF doesn't seem to know that, where was the mass when we only bought 187 of the planned 500-700 F-22s? I hate to say it but the Navy seems to have a better procurement strategy, they got the SuperHornet and Growler on time and reasonably on budget, so they have sufficient quantity with great quality. Legacy systems just get that much harder to support as Diminishing Manufacturing and Vendor Scarcity come into the later stages of the MWS life-cycle. Exit that death spiral before it wraps up too tight. True, but the B-1 could be put back into the Triad. Difficult and short term expensive but long term cost savings could be realized. We have to decide (and by that Congress has to get its big fat snout out of the process) what do we want the AF to be? Very big but very old or SLIGHTLY smaller and much newer.

The Moose is loose... and right on point. The DoD is now like GM was, a company that used to build cars for profit but devolved into a benefits management entity. Our retirement, healthcare, pay and benefits are the long term problem. Legacy systems need to be replaced but compared to those benefits (which are hard earned and deserved but not long term sustainable to extend to NEW entrants to the military) they are peanuts, just like tax cuts for the rich compared to the 800 lb gorillas of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Like it or not, at some point the DoD is going to have to modernize its compensation, benefits and HR policies. All topics not related to the original point of this thread so a course correction from this rant... The B-1 or the A-10 is not a good choice as the two do completely different missions (primarily). Why isn't the choice between the B-52 or the B-1? Both legacy bombers, both with similar capabilities, but one with more life, more survivable. Retire the Buff, start retiring the oldest 135's, Hercs and bases with no runways...

Legalization of some drugs maybe, it certainly will take away most of the cartels' money but the border is still going to need a new strategy, It is the loss of sovereignty slowly that is the long term problem, possession is 9/10th of the law and having a large population that in your country that are not citizens and still strongly identify with their country which borders yours has the hallmarks of disaster. As TreeA10 said:

Pure genius... Film Crew Learns the Hard Way Why Not to Take an Inflatable Boat Out to Film Great White Sharks

Joe, let's keep a good discussion going. I'll agree with you to a point. instead of saying precedence I should have said, CONUS sovereignty & security is a mission of equal importance to our OCONUS missions. Precision in language is important. All the things you listed are vital to our national security but you just can't ignore the threat next door. It is a threat, a threat of neglect and weak governance, on both sides of the border as the current situation benefits powerful and influential people on both sides of the border, the passive collusion is criminal and I would say borderline treasonous for the continued neglect. Business interests in the US who want cheap, compliant and disposable labor coupled with ethnocentric advocacy organizations linked to a political party want a new working class that votes by and large a certain way and the elites of Mexico and Central America don't want to modernize their economies, provide for their poor and govern responsibly, they would rather off-load their "surplus" population, receive remittances into their economies and keep the status quo. This is the political, economic and I would say cultural problem, that will have to be solved at the ballot box, in the courts probably along with a vigorous debate. What we need to solve as security professionals from all the domains of military, law enforcement, intelligence and legal, is a new integrated construct to solve the law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. Not just a fence or a Guard mission but a whole encompassing strategy, not just new tactics. During the Cold War, most of the organs of Federal government worked toward the overall strategy of containing, undermining, deterring and fighting when necessary communist aggression. We need that same holistic approach to our law enforcement / sovereignty / security problem. This will be by necessity involve a military mission, appropriately sized, equipped, tasked and deployed, but an actual force to apprehend and if required neutralize any unauthorized person crossing into the United States. The Heritage Foundation has a good idea for an encompassing strategy: 15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure In this proposal the author advocates for State Defense Forces (volunteer forces that would be by law funded and accredited by DHS and DoD, I would argue for an enduring Guard mission for this under Title 32 status as a more appropriate solution.

More on National Guard on the border as we are discussing the pros/cons and whether there should be a US military mission on the border Operation Jump Start, largest operation running from 2006 to 2008. Operation Phalanx, the successor operation running from 2008 to 2011. Operation Nimbus, last significant operation, running from 2011 to 2013. Each one following Jump Start was a draw down with Nimbus being mainly air support. The ROE was so restrictive that it was an observe and report only mission pretty much with Jump Start and the follow on missions had few boots on the ground. No matter as it has all rolled up now and Mexico has it's own problems too on its southern border with Guatemala, but they're building a fence.

We can do both, we have the technology... seriously though we can defend our border(s) and participate OCONUS as required... the focus will be confronting and deterring our near peer enemies and competitors but not ignoring significant problems on our doorstep, border security is not only an LE mission

The classy city of San Diego has managed to take control of the anarchy and has a real barrier, some problems but a huge improvement over the non-existant physical barriers we need in urban areas... San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control Some may incorrectly infer from my earlier posts that I hate Mexico/Mexicans and other people using Mexico as an easy point to cross illegally into 'Merica. Nothing could be further from the truth, President Calderon (previous President of Mexico) is a brave man and good leader who initiated the War on the Cartels that we have seen for the past few years. He has risked his personal safety and that of his family to save Mexico from becoming a failed narco-state (List of politicians killed in the Mexican Drug War). We should commend and assist Mexico in fighting this war, they should be if not the top foreign policy concern of the United States then priority 1.1 as they live next door and are our 3rd largest trading partner. I believe ultimately the best souther border for the US is stable and prosperous Mexico to the south but in the meantime, good fences make good neighbors so build the triple layer fences with vehicle barriers in urban areas, surveil high traffic areas and patrol the rural areas with the National Guard (Army and ANG). A secure border (both North and South) with real port of entry security and visa control is just the start. If you don't arrest the employers, you'll never turn off the magnet that draws them here. You don't have to arrest all of them, just start making examples of a few. The first few agri-busiinesses that gets a 25 million dollar fine or construction company that gets shut down for 6 months and has its equipment siezed will begin to change the landscape. Drugs and the huge demand for them causing border insecurity are another problem, separate but closely related to what irks me and I hope a growing majority about our criminal border security and immigration/employment enforcement.

Cool - answer to your question, not one that has maintained its position or survived intact. Great nations or empires commit suicide, not murdered. TrainerModel - so you it's all good on the border? No need to use our considerable COIN resources we've built up over the pas 10 years to secure the southern border? What's so tin foil hat about recognizing Mexico is not a failed state but a weak state or unwilling state and it is time to change the equation? CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode?

Maybe but why is ok to have their military on the border but if the US did the same that would be "militarization" and just unfair and wrong, we're having to fight this with one hand tied behind our back with a bunch of whiny, bed-wetting lawyers at the ACLU shovel out some BS to keep America from actually defending itself.

So by your reasoning, securing and protecting our actual homeland can take a back seat to protecting South Korea? Because if there was a sudden spike in the usual carnage south of the border and suddenly a 200,000 Mexicans suddenly just pushed their way into San Diego, that would be no big deal? Hundreds of Illegals storm California Border Patrol Here's another little gem about how security on the border with Mexico should be a second thought. Transnational gangs form alliance with Mexican cartel, becoming more sophisticated in trafficking drugs, guns, people “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” President Ronald Reagan

The border is more out of control than the public knows (civilian or military). CBP estimates they only catch maybe a 1/3 of the illegals crossing into the US (anecodotal from a 7 year CBP agent in the busiest sector on the border). We are constantly told the lie that they are just people looking to do "work Americans can or won't do". That's bullshit and only a lie told by corporations and their political pawns who want a weak labor market and short sighted politicians who dream of getting 10+ million new voters. No other country allows itself, that is the key phrase, allows its borders to be so weak when it has the resources it to secure it. It is criminal. Here's an example of one of the fine individuals just "looking for a better life" that violate our laws and are not supposed to be here. Controversial Muslim cleric caught sneaking into U.S. Does anyone really believe that any of our OCONUS missions really take precedence over securing our actual border? Tell me you don't think this guy sneaking in is just the tip of the iceberg...

When in the hell are we going to actually protect our own country? N4T Investigators: Rogue Mexican Army troops crossing the line There are about 28,500 US military personnel in South Korea right now assisting in deterrance and defense of the 15th largest economy in the world that also has the 6th largest military (by AD personnel) with a 2.9 million reserve force and we have almost no US military actually stationed on and tasked to defend the southern border. Can we get at least half of that on our border? One can dream though...