You have two separate things here Maggie.

The link you provided deals only with establishing a border crossing at the adobe pueblo of Boquillas del Carmen, a town of approximately 58 souls. The Administration wants to spend $2.3 million so those folks can wade across the Rio Grande as they already do, but call it legal. Seems like an example of the typical logic and reasoning ability of the current administration.

As to the other point concerning reducing security along the entire length of the border, well, that too seems like a fine example of the brilliant thinking in Washington these days.

Apparently having supplied the cartels with innumerable weapons through the Fast and Furious effort to destabilize Mexico, the Administration now appears to want to import the violence across the border into the States.

Living here along the border, and being acquainted with friends who have had family members kidnapped and held for ransom; being familiar with others who were trapped in buildings in Mexico as the thugs roamed the streets looking for Americans to kidnap, and having heard of folks who were extorted for money in the restaurants of Mexico, it seems only fair we get the same treatment here.

After all, Obama did promise to "fundamentally transform" the United States. An unsecured border would certainly aid in that transformation.

This would give impetus to Obama for his "National Security" force he said he wants to develop, which would be better trained and better equipped than the military. They might even wear distinctive shirts...probably brown.

No doubt, they would protect us from the violence of the cartels. Sounds like a plan to me (albeit, not a very good one).

---

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

[quote=D.Kerrigan]I can't believe something as simple and straight forward as the proposed unmanned border crossing can be so politicised. This is being done to allow a small, remote, Mexican village access to services on this side of the border. Please read the whole article and spare most of us the diatribe. Finally, look at your own quote and think about it.[/quote

OK. Just curious. So if you're ............... let's say.... someone who wants to get into this country for terrorist purposes, why wouldn't you look at this as a GREAT opportunity? Wouldn't you not use it as an opportunity? If not, why not?

---

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan

Ben Franklin said "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither". The 2.3 million funds additional border patrol in the park. Again, please read the whole article, in addition it benefits the U.S. side also. Of course you may have missed that in the article. I wish people would not operate out of fear and bigotry but would look at all sides.

We've had similar in the UK for years now. It's called the Channel Tunnel. I think it's all about resources and expense.

---

"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon" Suzanne Ertz

The expense appears to be for more than just the crossing. The building will also house park facilities and provide services to park visitors (i.e., U.S. tourists one assumes). It will be manned by park personnel.

The crossing will, according to the Park Service, make their conservation duties within the park easier. It will reduce roundabout driving, necessitated by the lack of a crossing. Presumably, it would thus produce a small, ongoing reduction in park costs. In the long run, this might pay back or at least offset costs of construction. The Park Service also suggests that a crossing would facilitate cross-border conservation efforts.

I note the Customs and Border Patrol also seems to support this, so the presumed experts in security seem to find this appropriate and safe.

The one local merchant they spoke with seems to believe this would be a boost for his business. Assuming the figures accurate, it seems a small positive effect on the local economy might ensue in addition to the benefits to the Mexican citizens.

While not proof-positive the project should be approved, the above suggest the issue is worth at least sober reflection and some in-depth investigation before being vetoed out-of-hand.