4 votes

How to Secure the Border? Your thoughts please...

Do you think the border can be secured? If so, how do you suggest the border be secured? Should a fence/wall be built? Should the border be militarized (further)? What is an acceptable amount of money (taken from the public trough) to spend on your desired program? How much are you willing to (make the people) pay per rejected immigrant? Do you think it's practical to deport all of the illegals?

Do you think the overall productivity of the US is increased or decreased by immigrants? Does the GDP increase or decrease when there is more labor capital? Should businesses be fined for hiring undocumented immigrants? Do you believe fining businesses helps or hurts the economy? Would fining businesses increase or decrease the number of immigrants taking advantage of the welfare system? Is immigration the real problem? Is the problem actually a poor economy and the existence of the welfare state?

I've provided the questions. You can provide your own answers, but I will give my personal take on the issue. Further, the above questions should be considered by anyone considering immigration reform.

I believe immigration should be much more open. Inexpensive labor can greatly benefit the economy. In my opinion, there should be an easy process whereby immigrants can enter the country and be given a residency status that allows them to work and live but prevents them from eligibility for voting or welfare assistance (including unemployment benefits). If after ten years (or some minimum time), if they can provide proof that they have worked continuously, they would be allowed to apply for naturalization. There would be no limit on the number of people entering the country, but upon entering, the contractual agreement would include that at least one family member - where a family would be defined as a significant other and dependent children - would have to provide proof of employment within six months or a year of residency. Under the contract, they would be deported without question upon discovery that the contract was broken to never be accepted for entry again (or possibly after some long duration). This solution would cut down on freeloaders and increase the productivity of the country.

Personally, I believe attempting to secure the border through militarization will never be successful and will only lead to more erosion of our liberties.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree. Mexico should open

I agree. Mexico should open its borders completely and relax it rules so that U.S. citizens can open businesses and gain employment south of the border. There are many areas of business and needed infrastructure that Americans have the know how to provide and Mexico has desperate needs.

The solution is simple

take away all the incentives for people to cross the boarder.

But part of that comes back to the need of the Mexican people to solve their poverty problem. I'm guessing this is a direct result of corrupt leaders in that country and the central banking theft by inflation scheme, this is found in pretty much every country.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

The Libertarian Philosophy

promoted about our borders is a sham, period! The Federal government by the Constitution Article VI Section 4A states The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. An invasion is usually thought to mean an invading military, but it aslo means 'an intrusion or encroachment'. If they are entering without permission, they are encroaching our properties, and should be forced back or penalized. It is a well used term in Football, if somebody crosses the line illegally, they are penalized for breaking the rules. The Constitution is the supreme rule. The Mexicans are taught in school and taught by their ancestrial passage of belief, the whole South Western part of the United States belongs to them, and the believe in the 'Recoquista de Azlan' or to work to take this land back. So, do you think the Founders would have let a mass flow of British into our Republic if it was well known to them, they had plans to infliltrate and take the land back for the King?

Sorry to say, but most of you really haven't a clue about the results of unavaded illegal immigration. Come on down to Houston, Tx. and ride around, stopping at various places, observe the situations, and then come back and base your conclusions. Dr Paul lives about 40 miles from Houston, but I doubt he has journeyed around Houston for a long time. I, nor anybody I know has ever seen him around Houston. Even the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on generaton Mexican Americans dislike those who have invaded our country in the last 10-15yrs, they say they are all freeloading worthless people. Many Naturalized Mexicans who have a business won't hire them, because they only want to work if they need money for the Cantina, or they want to buy something, otherwise, they either don't show or perform poorly, because they are offset by welfare. Their are thousands of cartel operatives and gangs such as MS13 entering our country, not just for selling drugs, but money laundering, theft rings, murder hits, mob type 'protection' payments, and to recruit citizens to garner more access.

All you open borders theorists had better research the Byzantine Empire in order to get a grasp of why you need borders. The Zionist controllers don't want you to know about the Byzantine, they want you to only look at the Roman Empire who were murderous conquerers of land and were never a peaceful properous empire. They lasted 1200 yrs, longer than any civilization, because they didn't let just anybody enter their borders. Here, learn about Ezra Pound, the famous poet on the Byzantium Empire. He was the mentor of Eustace Mullins, and told him to get a job at the Library of Congress to research all the books. Mullins was the first one to expose the Fed, by reading the uncirculated or public destroyed books from the Library of Congress, which he wrote the book 'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/05/09/223546-poet-ezra-p...

If there was an invasion

then where is the declaration of war from Congress?

People know exactly what happens with illegal immigration.

America was built on illegal immigration.
Israel was built on illegal immigration.
Many countries have been built on illegal immigration.

I spent quite a bit of time living in Texas only a couple of...

hours from the border. I worked for a construction company, and spent quite a bit of time hanging out in the barrio with my Hispanic friends that I knew from work. I never heard them say, "[The Mexican immigrants of the last 10-15 years] are all freeloading worthless people."

From my experience, most of the people from Mexico that I've met are hardworking, family oriented people. They've tended to have good values. As with all races, there are "bad" people among them to some degree.

Further, you begin to sound like a statist when you state and seemingly support, "...business won't hire them, because they only want to work if they need money for the Cantina, or they want to buy something, otherwise..."

Not to mention the fear mongering relating to issues that are a result of drug prohibition, namely, "Their are thousands of cartel operatives and gangs such as MS13 entering our country, not just for selling drugs, but money laundering, theft rings, murder hits, mob type 'protection' payments, and to recruit citizens to garner more access."

You seem to be a through and through neo-conservative provocateur, imho.

Besides, can the border be secured? What are your solutions?

The crux of the problem

IMO is the changing nature of "immigrants". In the 19th and early 20th century an immigrant made a permanent choice when he/she got on the boat. Travel and communication was such that "coming to America" almost inevitably meant severing ties with the old country. There was no turning back. Nowadays virtually every place in the world is accessible by air. Telephone/Internet communication is ubiquitous. I know a Chinese student who Skype's his mom every day. There is simply not the commitment to a new nation there once was. Add to this the "diversity" of modern immigrants. In the past immigrants even if they were from very "foreign" areas like eastern Europe or Russia still shared at least some basics of American culture, ie Christianity or judism and a "western " tradition.

Immigration from non western cultures particularly those that do not share respect for the rule of law can be inimical to mainenace of historically American values. Wahhabi Islam comes to mind.

Under these circumstances some control over immigration is ncessary. I would allow conditional entry with employment authorization for all able to pass a criminal. background and health check and disqualification from welfare type benefits for 5 years when they would be able to adjust to permanent resident or apply for citizenship. Any children born would be subject to their parents status but able to apply directly for citizenship at 18. I would make Wahhabi' in eligible for entry as they do not recognize secular authority or non sharia law as an article of faith. We won't let adherents of Nazism or others who want to overthrow the system in either. Freedom of religion only applies once you are in the country.


Give me your tired, your poor ...

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Analysis of the constitution and federal government home owner association structure does not support a principle of closed borders. The only counter people who have studied the constitution can make is that the founders were immigration skeptics as they can point to nothing in the document itself. There are no borders defined in the federal constitution. There is no power to regulate the movement of people, only to provide a uniform rule of allegiance to become a citizen and join the United States political club (ie. naturalization). There is a difference between a rule, such as rule of naturalization for allegiance, and a law, such as a law of bankruptcy, which appears in the same sentence. A rule implies no police power. It is akin to registering to vote. If one meets the criteria of the rule they simply present the evidence they meet the criteria and are certified by the delegated authority. A law for bankruptcy on the other hand may require police power to seize your shit using police power (ie. force) for creditors.

The right principle and moral national policy is that of a loving neighbor. If the tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free want a better life it is the duty of good and free people to welcome them with open arms. The constitution merely endorses the idea the only way to rightly determine whether someone ought to be admitted to the political club as a member is invite them to come be a fellow neighbor and by their fruits ye shall know them.

Arguments that immigrants use public services for free is absurd. Do they not pay fuel taxes? Do they not pay property taxes directly or indirectly? Furthermore the argument is conflated because there is no state or federal constitutional law or legislative statute or code that requires anyone to have a government identification to live, work, travel, or own property yet the statist would have us believe that one does need a government identification to do all these things and because immigrants can't easily obtain one legally citizens are somehow being fiscally cheated.

Build a Walmart

The entire length of the border. Employees use the back door, customers use the front door.

Ron Paul Was Right


To the down vote.

Ron Paul Was Right

my immigration plan

first we have 4 "lines"
1st line for those who wish to be citizens
2nd line for those who only wish to work here
3rd line for those who are here to visit.

All those who don't want employment, don't want to be citizens and aren't on vacation will need to take the 4th line back to Mexico or their home country wherever it is.

No walls, no military on the border. Allow all who want to enter the US to enter for vacation work or citizenship.
They wont illegally enter if they can legally enter.
This not only goes for Mexicans but all people of the world.
We should welcome everyone.

Most Mexican I have known just want to work , send money to their families in Mexico, save some money and then go back home and retire. I d rather they send US dollars they worked for back to Mexico, then our government sending aid.

As for security, we obviously need to change our foreign policy, to lessen the threat of blow back terrorism and End the Drug War.

I'm for freedom...

...so the only borders I approve of are the ones surrounding your person and properties.

I certainly don't support some arbitrarily-imposed government border.

Skin Heads! (humor)

Give the job of boarder security to the Skin Heads! They'd do it for free, they'd do the job with pride, and the process of immigration into the US would be back to the way it was for generations: You have to have a sponsor to come in, you are on a 1-year probation, you must pass an English proficiency exam after 1 year here...Ellis Island is your ONLY point of entry. Keep out the undesired and welcome those who would contribute to the betterment of America. End the free-bees!!! Australia has done something similar...they have a big immigration problem with SE Asians...Australian authorities no longer want dish washers and lawn mowers...they welcome engineers and physicians. Boat-loads of illegals are routinely turned away at sea by the Australian Navy.

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

Secure the border against what?

It's anti-capitalist to support the flow of goods and capital but oppose the flow of labor.

The ones who are here illegally are illegal only because it's illegal to come here. It's a farcical, circular argument. The borders should be open.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

open the border

There is no libertarian reason to secure the border.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran

Unsecure the border

And completely abolish the welfare state.

No train to Stockholm.

Google 'libertarian blue card idea'

Learn how to both protect the borders and at the same time, allow maximum amount of freedom across the border.

Or look here: http://www.dailypaul.com/177064/open-borders-still-a-good-li...

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

The Border should be secured.

I'm thinking Great Wall of China, with Korean barb wire and landmine zone along with electrification and shoot-to-kill guard towers with night vision.

I have met some of those people who cross the border with only a tourist visa and access to $50k cash, let the visa expire, marry an American woman, have kids, work a job, buy a house. They even try to change our culture and language by encouraging ice hockey and saying "eh".

East Germany Did It Quite Well

Minefields, guard towers, concrete walls, barbed wire, machine guns, motion sensors, guard dogs, roving patrols. Today's technology would make it even more difficult for Americans to escape. Of course the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts would present a challenge, but I'm sure the government could make it very difficult if it wanted to.

Walled In - Video

Here ya go: http://vimeo.com/13151380

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Open the Borders!! Welcome all of the Human Race!

Big problems associated with Immigration include:
1. Welfare State-Solution: end it through education
2. War on Drugs- Solution: end it through education
3. Laws restrcting ownership of weapons- Solution: 3-d printers lol and a better understanding of the 2nd Amendmant through education
4. Misunderstanding of property rights- Solution: reestablish a proper understanding of property rights, including the right of the property owner to defend his/her own property

I was born in the United States of America, "Land of the Free." And though our Bill of Rights are consistently abused, the United States offers freedoms other countries do not have - be it religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. If I wasn't born in the US and didn't want to live under the rule of a tyrant, who are you to tell me I cannot enter your country? The reality is the limitations prevent many from entering sometimes based simply on geographic location. I don't think keeping people out is consistent with the principles of Liberty. And I don't think its ethical. I don't believe in breaking laws and believe respect for the law is important. So my solution would be to take off any limits.

I don't have the time tonight and perhaps others could argue the point better, but it is not only ethical, it also provides many economic benefits.

Before I go I want to stress that the post below suggesting Drones was very disturbing!?!?!?

weird how you stress the

weird how you stress the education so much and also the american political tradition, and don't realize the difficulty created by inviting everyone on the planet lol. you must be a quick teacher. or a slow learner, or you're not good at counting.

time for me to bow out of the debate. been going on 2 days w no progress. people will learn the only way they ever do, painful experience.

i'm sure the internet forum discussion of what is TRUE LIBERTARIANISM will be going on 40 years on, when the two parties are tripping over each other to parcel out the last tidbits of property of the former middle class, to appease the 500 million + barely governable, half literate, ineducable, unemployable, police state managed mob of mouths to feed, while the elite live in its walled off, well guarded communities, as usa devolves into one giant third world nightmare.

peace for now!

The best way to secure

the border is to end the welfare state. As a general statement, years ago the hardest working came here for opportunity, now they come for handouts.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

They still come for opportunity

Most don't come for handouts but if they are offered most people do not refuse.

Agree - offer unlimited opportunity to contribute and benefit. There's a lady in NY Harbor who has something to say on the subject...

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo


Thanks for saying this so i didn't have to.
Costs no one anything. Harms no one. Provides the desired outcome.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

No.7's picture

The answer is very simple, bring the troops home

The entire border of America is 24,915 Miles long including Alaska, Hawaii, Shoreline, and Lakes/rivers on the border as well as the Canadian and Mexican border. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf

As of December 30th 2012 the United States has 1,388,028 troops deployed overseas http://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/

1,388,028 troops divided by 24,915 miles equals 55.71 or 55 troops per mile.

55.71 divided by 3 equals 18.57 or 18 troops per mile on the border 24/7 each working a normal 8 hour shift.

Do I need to call Watson or would you prefer Scooby Doo?

Bring our boys home and rebuild America first!


The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

fireant's picture

Spot on.

It wouldn't take that many though. Two teams of two in a vehicle per mile would do the trick.

Undo what Wilson did

Is militarizing the border a sign of a free nation?


No.7's picture

Do "signs of a free nation" matter if the problems are solved?

I'm not into omens, divine signs, or wive's tales. I like results.

Putting the troops on the border to me means that less foreign people grow up hating Americans, less illegal drugs, guns, and people come across the border, and more Americans are here to help other Americans during times of crises and defend the homeland under any attack. Troops on the border means that more of our nation's bravest, finest, and most loyal to the Constitution are here to face any federal aggression.

This country was born out of militarized towns where everyone volunteered. One of the biggest motivators for me is the constant reminder that thousands of Tennessee 'Volunteers' before me gave their lives to create, defend, and honor this country and everything it stands for.

To answer your question; Yes, a militarized nation is a free nation.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Now, we are getting to the crux...

"Putting the troops on the border to me means that less foreign people grow up hating Americans, less illegal drugs, guns, and people come across the border, and more Americans are here to help other Americans during times of crises and defend the homeland under any attack. Troops on the border means that more of our nation's bravest, finest, and most loyal to the Constitution are here to face any federal aggression."

How would less foreigners grow up hating Americans with the US having militarized borders? There's the argument that at least we're not occupying there countries, but that notion didn't stop people in countries (such as the US) from looking down upon countries with militarized borders such as East Germany.

"Prohibition would be more effective" is hardly a libertarian argument. In reality, prohibition would still be an utter failure.

"Guns coming across the border" - Why is that a problem? Is it that these are "undocumented" guns - guns that the feds don't know about? That sounds like support for a central government database.

Preventing "people from crossing the border"? As long as no trespassing is taking place, how is that against libertarian principles? Suppose Pedro calls John Doe and arranges to buy some property somewhere in the country. Pedro makes good on the deal and transfers the payment to Doe's account thereby making him the rightful owner of the concerned property. Why should Pedro be forbidden from traveling to and living on his property?

"...more Americans are here to help other Americans during times of crises and defend the homeland under any attack." What realistic concerns do we face regarding an invasion or attack that would require a militarized border? I agree that if a standing military is to exist that it should be kept within the borders of the states but that has little to do with militarizing the borders. We're the most armed nation in the world. A ground invasion would be suicide for a foreign force, and it does no good to bombard a country with bombs if you can never set foot on its soil.

There's nothing wrong with a volunteer force, imo. A volunteer army is much more effective than an army of slaves. People fighting to preserve freedom will (presumably) fight much harder than a people fighting because they were forced to do so.

However, militarizing the borders is a completely different issue. A voluntary force can exist without a militarized border.

"Hey, look at America! They are the freest nation in the world! That's why their military must keep everyone out at the point of a gun! Oh, how we admire them!"

every post you make is rife

every post you make is rife with nonsense.

east germany etc had borders to keep people in. borders to protect intrusion are standard everywhere. fences make good neighbors. if you think people will hate us in other countries for having borders.... and yet still want to come here?... and you would credit this hatred with merit... wheres your head?

then you extrapolate the idea of prohibition of goods in market demand with prohibiting wholesale movement of peoples and whole cohorts of nations across borders without the time, chance or intention of integrating into the culture of the host country....

talking with you is like playing pin the correction on the donkey... i quit.