February 29, 2008
— Ace I think this is pretty obvious, but still worth noting for the record:
In other words, we've all just been taken for a ride .... In order to do whatever possible to avoid building an actual physical fence ... Bush, McCain and their amnesty cronies made sure a monumental amount of money was wasted on a fake, untested, unreal fence to placate conservatives ... .
And now, after the tens of millions of dollars spent on an unworkable, failed system, and a year of the Feds touting the genius of the 'virtual' fence, Amnesty Secretary Michael Chertoff now says the border will not be prot[e]cted by a physical fence or even a virtual fence ...
It's not all bad though -- we'll "double" the fleet of unmanned drones watching the thousand mile border from three all the way up to six!
Of course, we were previously promised four of these drones to cover every inch of territory between the Gulf of Mexico and California, but hey, six is better than four, right?
Posted by: JackStraw at February 29, 2008 07:07 AM (t+mja)
Posted by: funky chicken at February 29, 2008 07:15 AM (I+jPP)
I hope Presidente Bush receives no honors this last year of office and when he is out from conservatives. But, what am I saying -- Mexico will throw him mucho feistas.
Posted by: Rinnie at February 29, 2008 07:15 AM (Qkhoc)
If anyone has ever watched those History channel and Discovery Channel shows on Area 51, they know that when you step across a certain point, the Air force security folks appear in a matter of minutes. This despite the fact the area is hundreds of thousands of acres in size. So the technology exists, the will just isn't there.
Posted by: Oclarki at February 29, 2008 07:16 AM (otsZj)
Of which two, at the most, will be on station at any given time while the others are rotated out for maintenance.
If McCain is elected, perhaps they can call it the "Juan Hernandez Virtual Fence." It can be erected on our Virtual Border.
Posted by: V the K (wrote his Master's thesis on unmanned aerial vehicles) at February 29, 2008 07:32 AM (PLvLS)
If anyone has ever watched those History channel and Discovery Channel shows on Area 51, they know that when you step across a certain point, the Air force security folks appear in a matter of minutes.
Well, yeah, but they're using extraterrestrial technologies that we simply can't risk falling into the hands of drug runners and human smuggling operations.
I'm all for Kinky Friedman's "Five Mexican Generals" plan:
As he lays it out, the border with Mexico would be divided into five pieces with a Mexican general responsible for each. A $1 million trust fund would be created for each general.
When I talk about the five Mexican generals, people think Im joking but Im dead serious, said Friedman. I will divide the border into five jurisdictions, assigning one Mexican general to each and providing a trust fund for that general. Every time a person crosses illegally, we subtract $5,000 from the trust fund.
Posted by: Rocketeer at February 29, 2008 07:35 AM (fN7ju)
Posted by: Rocketeer at February 29, 2008 07:36 AM (fN7ju)
Posted by: Mike Z. at February 29, 2008 07:37 AM (GLMrI)
Every poll shows that being strongly anti-illegal immigration would make you a shoo-in for president. And our primary system gives us... two pro-illegal immigration candidates.
Posted by: Yeah for Democracy at February 29, 2008 07:38 AM (ZABXa)
Posted by: funky chicken at February 29, 2008 07:40 AM (I+jPP)
Posted by: funky chicken at February 29, 2008 07:42 AM (I+jPP)
Posted by: MKSheppard at February 29, 2008 07:45 AM (XFylu)
Or any other McCain promises. :-(
Posted by: V the K (wrote his Master's thesis on unmanned aerial vehicles) at February 29, 2008 07:50 AM (PLvLS)
Posted by: bonhomme at February 29, 2008 08:11 AM (pKBEW)
Posted by: dan-o at February 29, 2008 10:28 AM (XRwMr)
Posted by: lmg at February 29, 2008 01:25 PM (slf9T)
The site linked above makes 7 claims. Here are 4 of them:
1) Border control advocates want an actual physical fence.
2) Respectable Bush comprehensivist types like Chertoff want to substitute a sophisticated hi-tech "virtual fence" for the crude actual physical fence.
3) Border control types say the "virtual fence" won't work.
4) Respectable Bush comprehensivists like Chertoff in fact cut back on actual fencing, choosing the "virtual fence."
Point (1) is uncontroversial, point (3) is taken as a religious point by many border control types, but I doubt that all border control types believe it. In any case, I have no idea how to adjudicate its truth even for the majority of border control types short of polling border control types.
But point (2) and (4) are not really true. The virtual fence was not and is not intended to replace any of the planned physical fence.
The virtual fence is intended as a complement to the physical fence and as a means of providing some coverage in areas where the terrain makes the building of a fence either too difficult or unnecessary. Section 2 of the 2006 Secure Fence Act includes language that calls for aerial drones, radar towers and so on, i.e. a virtual fence.
As of Oct 2007, there were 151 miles of so-called pedestrian fencing. This was on schedule. Construction of additional physical barriers on the border is also on schedule. (The only thing that's behind schedule is the much derided virtual barrier.) The bottom line is that Chertoff has made no effort to do anything that looks like replacing a physical barrier with a virtual barrier. The fact is that both types of barrier are mandated by the 2006 law, and Chertoff seems to be complying with that law. If anything, you could argue that he's not building the virtual barrier fast enough choosing to move quickly on the physical barrier instead.
The only way you could construe Chertoff (per 4) as "cut[ting] back on actual fencing, [and] choosing the 'virtual fence.'" would be to say that he has spent some of his budget on virtual fencing (and, therefore, could not spend it on actual fencing). But since the building of the physical barrier is on schedule, why throw more money at it, when you need to build the virtual fence as well to comply to the law?
Posted by: WisdomLover at February 29, 2008 03:21 PM (x8kBs)
62 queries taking 1.1707 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.