Do you want to secure our borders?
336850
The borders must be secured to avoid all the illegal immigration but also persecute companies that are doing the illegal hiring to exploit cheap labor. As long as there is a demand, the flow will continue. Immigration has to be controled, no question about it.
864556
Why not just enforce our borders and immigration laws? That would prevent them from returning.
90669
No, I am not. There is only one way of dealing with this. You cross over illegally you get shot, plain and simple. There are plenty of people in the US that would love to patrol our borders, so let them do the job and we wouldn't have so many illegals in our country.
216954
If they really have stopped attacks then credit where it's due.\nDon't think it would make any difference if your borders were 'closed': in fact you'd probably excarebate any potential terrorist situation (ie more frustrated, relatively deprived often oppressed people with no hope at all of relative freedom elsewhere). \nKeep your borders open and moderated, I'd have thought for everyone's benefit.
764972
Build a wall 100 feet high and three feet thick out of concrete and steel reinforced cinder-block w/ a 30 foot deep footing and a string of razor wire at the top along every inch of us/mexico and us/canada border...also up the border patrol as to securely guard the wall...the only way through the border would then be either through the gates or around the wall by means of the sea...I would suggest satellites to monitor the entries of illegals by seaway in conjunction w. coast guard patrols to enforce breeches in security monitored by satellite imagery..a little extreme as it were....and although I don't necessarily condone this action... it would be extremely effective as you could imagine.....
450033
Do you mean keep the ones from Europe and kick out all the other ones.If so ,no.I think they should let all of them stay and tighten border security.
770517
To the Border police, of course!
717645
they should close the border regardless. it's our side of the line, we can do wtf we want with it, and anyone who has a problem with securing our border can go to the other side of the border and live there and do all the drugs they want and do donkey shows and drink tequila. i could be mistaken, but i thought the whole point of securing the border was to keep terrorists from coming up through mexico.
952699
It is an ideal to aim towards. A hundred years ago there were hardly any restrictions at all, you could travel between most countries without even owning a passport. Then bureaucracies and paranoia took hold.\n\nIn most of Western Europe border controls have been abolished, and you wonder why we ever had them. It may make it marginally easier for crooks to get away, but realistically very few terrorists were ever caught at borders anyway; look, the 9-11 attackers, the Madrid bombers, the London bombers were all legally present in those countries, border controls made no difference.\n\nWe should work toward removing the differences in living standards that make people want to move. Those who are serious about the "threat" of mass migration should be campaigning for fairer trade, and for our governments to stop supporting dictatorships that not only oppress people, but allow multinationals to exploit them. As long as rich countries take an irresponsible attitude toward the rest of the world, they will face this problem.\n\nIt may surprise some to know that most people would rather not have to leave their countries to live as second-class non-citizens in hostile countries far from everything they know. They would rather be given a decent opportunity to live with dignity in their own countries.
1085707
Why not-we have plenty here to do the job. People need protection--fact-there is trouble there. And they will be wittinesses to everything.
886482
Here here!  Not our problem.  We police the world way too much from the US while we have a lot of our own problems.  Like our ridiculous borders.  If the real reason we were in Iraq was to make sure we didn't get attacked by terrorists, then we'd also be taking our borders seriously.
232671
Yep they should and they should be armed with Lasars and don't worry about papers if they are crossing anywhere other than a check point..Blast'em and let what's left feed the buzzards. I for one remember what this country use to be like and I don't like whats happening. We have to stand up for ourselves because the people in other countries don't care about US...We need to not care for them.
1163790
i don't want to have us look like a police state, and we already have a border patrol, so i say beef up the border patrol , or transfer forces from another Branch somehow.  point is, we need our border patrol to do it, but they need the resources.  also, thanks to any border patrol agents reading, and i would love to see some input from you.
489552
Its already getting across the Borders into our Country. The gangs and roving band of thugs that have freedom to roam and rampage are coming across when ever they want. They run drugs, people and what ever contraband they want. The Border Patrol is a joke, because there is NEVER enough people to police the border. A few hundred people for 4000 miles of border? LETS GET REAL!  One person for a hundred miles of border aint gonna cut it.  Cameras and sensors record them coming over, but, it doesnt matter, they do what they want.\n\nImmagration is a joke, and the joke is making us look bad. \nUntil the Government takes an active stand, (and they wont, because they know which way the wind blows for votes), we will be a free border with a few sent back for the Media.\n\nJesse
665903
Where Exactly Is The Border Secure??\nThe Whole Border Is Open
817377
Yes I Believe That\n\nA serious commitment to border security \nwould require fencing off the entire southern border—\nall 1,891 miles of it. \n(For comparison, \nwe have 40,000 miles of Maintained US Interstate Highways.)\n\nAt $1.7 million per mile \n(the cost of the first 10 mile stretch in San Diego), \nthe entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off\n(all 1,891 miles of it )\nfor $3.3 billion dollars.\n\nIraq spending equivalent: 13.8 days.\n\nCost / benefit analysis, anyone? \n\n\n\n\nIf / When We MILITARIZE That Border\nThat Border WILL Be Secure
904062
You ask the tragic question of our times, but the real answer about securing the borders has less to do with terrorism and more to do with politics and the "cost of doing business". \n\nGeorge Bush has decided NOT to secure the borders of the US against foreigners who want to cross over at will.  By "ignoring the problem" - or pretending it doesn't exist -  he doesn't have to do anything about it - right?  A simplistic statement of "conservative thought", for lack of a better description. \n\nBut let's think about it.  Mexico wants to get rid of as much of its uneducated population as possible.  Bush says, "Hey, send em right in!" , and by so doing makes great friends with whatever government is in power in Mexico.  The NAFTA agreement also plays into that scenario. \n\nSome of this seems to be for the benefit of companies of all sizes in the US, many of whom give Bush large financial contributions - and which benefit from having influxes of people who can be hired at very, very low hourly rates - and who won't complain about tiny wages.  Large agri-business companies are one example. \n\nAnd it seems that the majority of the 11 - 15 million latinos who have "appeared" in the US, have crossed over the border illegally during the Bush administration - according to most of the "reliable" news sources. \n\nAt the CNN "Special" on illegal immigration, the conservative Heritage Foundation had calculated it would cost 2 trillion dollars over the lives of those latinos already in the US -  for the education, hospitalization and health care, social security, and other social services etc., that they would need, but for which they could not pay out of their own pockets.  Neither would their very, very low wages produce withholding tax revenues large enough to pay for these benefits.  \n\nAs an example, it seems a frightening number of hospitals in the Southwest of the US have closed, becoming overwhelmed with latino patients who have no money or insurance to pay for their care, so the hospital closes when it runs out of money.  "Free medical care" was never "free", but was subsidized by the hospital's income,  and its receipt of voluntary contributions from members of the surrounding community.  Now this free care has vastly outstripped the ability of the hospital itself and its supporting community to pay for it.  The doctors are fired and the hospital closes. And now, NO ONE gets any medical care. \n\nHow long will the country last with declining numbers of hospitals?  Or schools, since they too are being overwhelmed? And the list goes on. \n\nThe CNN special also pointed out that, every year, about 500,000 people get across our borders illegally who are NOT latinos - and some of those are members of the terrorist organization Hamas, or other terrorist organizations. \n\nBut the real, current problem is the numbers of latinos who are uneducated who are coming into the US who will never have jobs paying enough to afford the services our society provides, and will have to be given these free of charge. \n\nAnd this society of ours will will ultimately fail if this illegal immigration is not stopped, and the current illegals are not picked up one by one and sent back.  \n\nThink about it this way: could current US citizens and government pay for the health care and education for ALL the Chinese in the world if they ALL decided to come here - for example?  The (obvious) answer is no - the US cannot become the home of most of the people on earth, just physically if not also economically.  \n\nSo why do people think we can absorb some large fraction of the entire population of Mexico? One which is uneducated?  Which doesn't pay taxes, in many cases? Which can't pay for healtcare for themselves, and depend on getting it for free - which will cause the healthcare delivery system to fail at the point it runs out of money? \n\n