First time border control ever endorses anyone

[jimnyc]

Probably not that big of a deal, and not even enough to likely help carry a county, let alone a state or the country. But I know if I were a border patrol agent, and I had to deal with these criminals coming across day in and day out, I would be thrilled with someone finally taking a tough stand on things.

-----

Trump: Border Patrol union’s endorsement is proof that a wall is ‘very necessary’

Less than a week after securing the delegates needed to capture the Republican nomination, Donald Trump took to Twitter to thank the union that represents the U.S. Border Patrol agents for endorsing him for president.

“The endorsement of me by the 16,500 Border Patrol Agents was the first time that they ever endorsed a presidential candidate,” Trump tweeted on Monday. “Nice!”

“We are going to have strong borders,” Trump said during a speech at the annual Rolling Thunder rally in Washington, D.C., on Sunday. “We are going to have a wall, and I mean a real wall.”

And to Trump, the National Border Patrol Council’s endorsement — which was announced in March — is proof his plan for a wall is necessary.

“Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements,” Brandon Judd, the union’s president, said in a statement announcing its “first-ever” presidential endorsement. “And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.”

“There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border,” the endorsement continued. “And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President — and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.”

The union’s backing of Trump has come under fire from critics who say it is endorsing not only his immigration plan but also his hateful rhetoric.

“It is probable that the endorsement of Mr. Trump would expose both the union and the individual members to accusations of xenophobia and even racism,” Don McDermott, a former Border Patrol agent, told the Los Angeles Times. “The reputation of the agency and of every agent is called into question.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-bor...000000406.html

[Gunny]

Probably not that big of a deal, and not even enough to likely help carry a county, let alone a state or the country. But I know if I were a border patrol agent, and I had to deal with these criminals coming across day in and day out, I would be thrilled with someone finally taking a tough stand on things.

-----

Trump: Border Patrol union’s endorsement is proof that a wall is ‘very necessary’

Less than a week after securing the delegates needed to capture the Republican nomination, Donald Trump took to Twitter to thank the union that represents the U.S. Border Patrol agents for endorsing him for president.

“The endorsement of me by the 16,500 Border Patrol Agents was the first time that they ever endorsed a presidential candidate,” Trump tweeted on Monday. “Nice!”

“We are going to have strong borders,” Trump said during a speech at the annual Rolling Thunder rally in Washington, D.C., on Sunday. “We are going to have a wall, and I mean a real wall.”

And to Trump, the National Border Patrol Council’s endorsement — which was announced in March — is proof his plan for a wall is necessary.

“Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements,” Brandon Judd, the union’s president, said in a statement announcing its “first-ever” presidential endorsement. “And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.”

“There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border,” the endorsement continued. “And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President — and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.”

The union’s backing of Trump has come under fire from critics who say it is endorsing not only his immigration plan but also his hateful rhetoric.

“It is probable that the endorsement of Mr. Trump would expose both the union and the individual members to accusations of xenophobia and even racism,” Don McDermott, a former Border Patrol agent, told the Los Angeles Times. “The reputation of the agency and of every agent is called into question.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-bor...000000406.html

I support taking a stance on the border. Just seems to me wall is pointless. They got one in CA and they just climb over or tunnel under it. Changing a few rules might help. The Rio Grande is a natural border and we don't use it. We can't touch them if they are in the river. Stupid rule. Put some boats in the water and enforce the border to THEIR shore, not ours. It ain't 3 miles from their shore to ours. We claim that much territory on both coasts. Apply the same rules to the Rio Grande.

A fence from El Paso, TX to the Pacific wouldn't be a bad idea you have to man it. Only way it'll work.

[jimnyc]

I support taking a stance on the border. Just seems to me wall is pointless. They got one in CA and they just climb over or tunnel under it. Changing a few rules might help. The Rio Grande is a natural border and we don't use it. We can't touch them if they are in the river. Stupid rule. Put some boats in the water and enforce the border to THEIR shore, not ours. It ain't 3 miles from their shore to ours. We claim that much territory on both coasts. Apply the same rules to the Rio Grande.

A fence from El Paso, TX to the Pacific wouldn't be a bad idea you have to man it. Only way it'll work.

Build a wall.
Make sure border agents are well armed.
Make it abundantly clear that sneaking in will get you shot. Signs every 15 feet, and even some neon signs.
Start shooting them.
Keep shooting them.

While no doubt some will continue with tunnels and places like that - I'll bet that the numbers go WAY WAY down after that. Fact is, you need a deterrent. Giving them drivers licenses, health insurance, and all other kinds of free shit - not only is it not a deterrent, I think it LURES people in with the light ways they deal with it.

[Gunny]

Build a wall.
Make sure border agents are well armed.
Make it abundantly clear that sneaking in will get you shot. Signs every 15 feet, and even some neon signs.
Start shooting them.
Keep shooting them.

While no doubt some will continue with tunnels and places like that - I'll bet that the numbers go WAY WAY down after that. Fact is, you need a deterrent. Giving them drivers licenses, health insurance, and all other kinds of free shit - not only is it not a deterrent, I think it LURES people in with the light ways they deal with it.

The numbers may go down, but an eyesore is not the best answer. I totally agree on the free sh*t. WE --taxpayers -- foot the bill. Stop giving them all that crap. Stop this sanctuary city BS. No more anchor babies.

And nail the idiots hiring them in the wallet, and hit them hard. If the risk isn't worth the price, they'll quit hiring them.

[Kathianne]

Seriously. If they told the border patrol to shoot anyone who was crossing our border, we wouldn't need the damn fence. It's an enforcement issue and it's screwed from the top.

[jimnyc]

Seriously. If they told the border patrol to shoot anyone who was crossing our border, we wouldn't need the damn fence. It's an enforcement issue and it's screwed from the top.

Yup. How long have we read as well, where they have many captured, and are basically told to just let them go. Well WTF then, what's the point?

[Gunny]

Seriously. If they told the border patrol to shoot anyone who was crossing our border, we wouldn't need the damn fence. It's an enforcement issue and it's screwed from the top.

No one wants to alienate the Hispanic vote. The Dems keep promising them stuff they'll probably deliver on like they have not delivered to the blacks. I worked around these illegals for years. I understand them. Been in quite a few debates with Tejanos that are dumbasses about the topic. All they see is family first. They will vote against Trump. But if I lived in that dirthole down south I'd want to get away too. So I get it.

So it stinks from more than just one head. The bureaucracy to get in legally is ridiculous. I always say come in through the front door with your paperwork. These people need money NOW, and US dollars go a long way in most foreign countries. I'm far from defending them. They're criminals IMO the second they step on US soil. They ome over here, make our money, pay no taxes, then take it back to Mexico to spend.

I think a wall is a waste. It will solve nothing. But what's Trump's job? Selling. He's selling impossible dreams. I've been around developer since I retired from the Corps. They're ALL full of sh*t.

I'm just willing to take an idiot over a criminal or a commie.

[Bilgerat]

The "Secure Fence Act of 2006" (yes, 2006) goal was to build 700 miles of physical barriers between us and Mexico.

Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Dept of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border.

Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built.

On January 23, 2008 Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124), calling for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border.The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced his “Finish the Fence” amendment for the second time, which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the border

The Republican Party's 2012 platform highlighted the fact that the rest of the double fencing was never built and stated that "The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built."

The Washington Office on Latin America, claims that the extremely high cost of complying with the Secure Fence Act's mandate-estimated at US$4.1 billion, or more than the Border Patrol’s entire annual budget of US$3.55 billion- was the main reason that it was not fulfilled.

In short, Congress failed to continue to fund the project past the initial $1.2 billion procured, in order to finish building the fence.


(Information liberated from the Web)