Mexicans are big on government.
Borders are the defining lines of government, and those of a certain size didn't exist (or weren't able to be maintained) until governments became big enough to do so. If we take away the real or perceived jurisdiction over land, does it then become easier or harder to have big governments?
Maybe not the UK, but the USA is a relatively large chunk of land. Arguing for a tax payer funded border around such a huge area, is in essence an argument for the very existence of a big government of some sort. See any possible irony and/or hypocrisy going on here?
If someone wants badly enough to live in a "gay webmasters only" or whatever community, I don't think the best course of action is for them to rely on nanny government to make it happen or to maintain it, especially if they don't want others relying on Obama for health care and such.
Instead they could look at what the Amish have done. They allow visitors and live within the US, but the average Amish person probably has no idea what is going on in Afghanistan or who the Bloods and Crips are. They've found a self-reliant type of way to band together and live without worrying about those things, for the most part.
And they practically vote 100% Democrat.
Well, not quite near 100%, and also appealing to them is likely going to become more and more of a Republican strategy in upcoming years.
