Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Environmentalist Want to Block US Security Fence
Topic Started: Dec 3 2003, 08:46 AM (130 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
Environmentalists in California are trying to block a federal plan to build a new security fence to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States from Mexico.

The 14-mile fence would accompany an existing 40-mile fence that has been credited with causing a massive drop in illegal border crossings since its construction in 1993.

Supporters of the fence say that the increasing number of terrorists who are at large means the United States must be even more vigilant at its borders.

But environmentalists argue that the construction of a fence would disrupt the local ecosystem, cause erosion problems and damage the area where the Pacific Ocean meets the Tijuana River (search), now inhabited by rare birds and insects.


[OPINION]Again, do we need any further evidence to show that radical environmentalism is just a vehicle for the left and socialism. Communism is a word that carries a lot of negative baggage so it has been repackaged and called environmentalism. The target of radical environmentalism is not clean air and water but to stifle capitalism. One of the goals of the left is to open the borders to illegals and let them vote so that we get more democrats in office and this is the intent of this latest crap.[/OPINION]

Anyway, since when are birds and insects stopped by a fence, they get in my yard all the time. :huh:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
This doesn't surprise me one bit. I've said that environmentalists were Socialists and Communists for years. Have you ever heard of the term "watermelon" to describe them? It means: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

At the same time, these "environmentalists" also want to bring in more illegal immigration in the hopes that it will swell voter rolls (another spinoff of the Clinton Administration's Motor Voter Act of 1993).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
^^^^^^^

While I am sure there are a percentage of socialism in environmentalism. I doubt that is the intention of all of them.

I see the merits in not wanting a fence put up in terms of maintaining a beautiful and well preserved environment so I am sorry I can not attribute the whole idea to socialism since I am not a socialist and yet see merit in the idea.

Just because the idea has the unfortunate side affect of allowing a greater number of illegals into the area and so into the country, and that these illegals may be terrorists. Does not necessarily mean by default that the environmentalists want to see the end of capitalism through terrorist acts, it could simple mean they believe the environment is worth protecting even at the cost of terrorist attacks. That while they would not condone the attacks they believe losing the environment is to high a price to prevent them.

Making a statement like this is just as blind IMO as the left saying the only reason we went into Iraqi is for the Oil. Sure there are some who's only happens from this war comes from Oil gain, but that is not the only reason, nor is it a big reason, nor do many subscribe to that reason.

The question is not about capitalism vs socialism. It is about preventing terrorist attacks vs the environment. Which is more important? what do we stand to lose and what do we stand to gain? Do the loses out weight the gains or visa-versa?

My opinion is that in order to prevent terrorist activity in this country we are going to have to make a lot harder decisions with unfavorable out comes, more so then we have done this far. And while the environment may be a casualty in this endeavor it is still worth doing. I don’t want to see a fence around America but even more I don’t want to die or lose my way of living.

Quote:
 
Anyway, since when are birds and insects stopped by a fence, they get in my yard all the time. :huh:


I doubt this is your run of the mill house fence, or else it wouldn’t be that effective would it. But there is also the fact that they need to build the fence. Brining in heave and dirty machinery into that area.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Did you ever notice that everything that the environmentalist want to do to save the environment has the 'unfortunate' side effect of harming capitalism and freedom?

This is not a coincidence. Your average unbathed, dope smoking, sign-toting enviro-activist is not in cohoots with the KGB, but radical environmentalism has at its roots the effort by the communists to undermine the west.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
That's just it, the fence won't stop most animals. Larger, non-burrowing mammals would most likely be greatly affected by it, but I don't know exactly what of that type lives in the area and their migration pattern to say that this would be a major impact. If, as in segments of the other fence mentioned, it turns out to be mostly a chain-link type construct almost every species will find a way around it (including the human migrants).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus