Border patrol stopped six immigrants suspected of terrorism in first half of 2018: NBC

[Saladin4]

If you're referring to the West Bank barrier, there are three differences that make all the difference:

1. The West Bank wall is about 280 miles long. The proposed border wall would be close to 2000 miles long--about 7 times the length.
2. The West Bank wall is a multi-layer barrier; it has multiple fences, vehicle ditches, and other obstacles on either side, and because it is shorter, it is patrolled more often than we could feasibly patrol our southern border.
3. Most importantly, the territory it encloses is occupied by the Israeli army. They have about 8,000 solider there. To cover the land area in Mexico we'd need to cover at the same density, we'd need to send about 400,000 soldiers into Northern Mexico, and that many would need to stay there all the time.

Now, if we could man the wall with enough support personnel, I'd agree it'd be effective. But without that piece, we're far better off spending the proposed 5 billion dollars on other protection measures. Better, of course, would be to remove the economic conditions that cause the influx of immigrants, but both Mexican and American elites benefit from those arrangements too much to really do that.

American Elites?....You mean corporations?...Businesses?...etc.....Should the government levy heavy fines against them??...

 

[JustHanging]

The thought of "middle easterners" going undetected among latino migrants is absurd....Besides there are much easier ways of getting into the United States as the Saudi Hijackers proved

It's the Norther border, that's the problem. Support a Northern wall, build it NOW!

Look at this (That's the USA on the left, Canada on the right):

 

[ashurbanipal]

American Elites?....You mean corporations?...Businesses?...etc.....Should the government levy heavy fines against them??...

Yes, that's who I mean. Yes, if you're familiar with the history of the expansion of the Maquiladores in Northern Mexico after the ratification and implementation of NAFTA, I think you'd probably agree that there are some of those who deserve some kind of punishment, morally speaking. Legally speaking, however, I don't think the infrastructure or framework to punish them exists.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Hmmm, 15 minutes delay versus 0 seconds delay. Which do YOU say is more of a delay?

Depends on how you're measuring. Certainly, 15 minutes is a greater number of minutes than 0 minutes. However, if we're measuring in terms of practical impact, they're so close to the same as to be nearly indistiguishable. A good analogy would be this: suppose you're given a forced choice. You can have zero cents to your name (that is, literally all your wealth would be removed), or fifteen cents to your name (that is, literally all your wealth would be removed, but you'd be allowed to keep a dime and a nickel). Sure, you'd probably choose to have the fifteen cents, but would your situation be all that different between the two options, really?

Now, if we could station garrisons along the length of the border such that a fairly sizable force could appear at any point along the wall in 15 minutes or less, then the wall would be worthwhile. However, that would require some very significant manpower.

All security is designed around delay time.

Why don't jewelry stores just leave all their jewelry in the glass displays? Anyone with a metal grinder can cut open a safe. Why do you think they use safes since your opinion must be they are worthless?

And what is all the nonsense about wanting people to lock up their firearms? I cut into one of my gun safes when the electronic lock failed and it took less than 15 minutes. Probably I should just throw the gun safes away using your reasoning.

Bad analogies. If help of any kind (including the business owners, to take the jewelry store case) was on average at least three hours away, then a safe that took 15 minutes to open with minimal tools would indeed be an extraneous expense. Of course, one would be downright foolish to leave a bunch of jewelry three hours away from help, but that's the situation we're already in at the border. Along most of its length, as I understand it, it would take about three hours to get someone out to respond to a known incursion. 15 minutes either way, especially if we're talking about well-funded terrorists (which was the subject of my post), is meaningless.

We'd be better off spending that money some other way.

 

[Saladin4]

Yes, that's who I mean. Yes, if you're familiar with the history of the expansion of the Maquiladores in Northern Mexico after the ratification and implementation of NAFTA, I think you'd probably agree that there are some of those who deserve some kind of punishment, morally speaking. Legally speaking, however, I don't think the infrastructure or framework to punish them exists.

That's the real problem...Too many get offered jobs, too much profit from the cheap labor.....A Wall won't stop that

 

[Mongidig]

The terrorism cry isn't very persuasive, at least when it comes to the wall. 41 suspected terrorists were stopped at the northern border, and yet there is no cry to build a wall there or put another 20,000 agents along that 4,000 mile stretch.

I'm thinking because those coming from Canada are a little more civilized and less likely to leach off of our kindness.

 

[JasperL]

I'm thinking because those coming from Canada are a little more civilized and less likely to leach off of our kindness.

The terrorists are more civilized?

 

[JasperL]

Israel has a wall and it's 99.9999% effective against all the things you mentioned.

That and all other comments like it are nonsense, really. What makes a "wall" effective, including the Great Wall of China (to the extent it was effective) are people. If their 'wall' is that effective it's because they've militarized the border and have guards all up and down it 24/7/365, and the 'wall' is just a piece of that, something that allows their constant guards a little more time to respond to people crossing, or attempting to remove or otherwise defeat the 'wall.'

 

[Born Free]

If you're referring to the West Bank barrier, there are three differences that make all the difference:

1. The West Bank wall is about 280 miles long. The proposed border wall would be close to 2000 miles long--about 7 times the length.

Stop the lying, no one has said the will cover the entire border. Period

2. The West Bank wall is a multi-layer barrier; it has multiple fences, vehicle ditches, and other obstacles on either side, and because it is shorter, it is patrolled more often than we could feasibly patrol our southern border.

Now I really like this statement. You want no wall, so there is just a line in the sand and you say we could not feasible patrol our southern border. Thus we need a damn wall.

3. Most importantly, the territory it encloses is occupied by the Israeli army. They have about 8,000 solider there. To cover the land area in Mexico we'd need to cover at the same density, we'd need to send about 400,000 soldiers into Northern Mexico, and that many would need to stay there all the time.

I'm OK with that. Great send in the troops.

Now, if we could man the wall with enough support personnel, I'd agree it'd be effective.

Good we agree.

But without that piece, we're far better off spending the proposed 5 billion dollars on other protection measures. Better, of course, would be to remove the economic conditions that cause the influx of immigrants, but both Mexican and American elites benefit from those arrangements too much to really do that.

Are you suggesting we STOP our economic growth so that illegals don't want to come here. Your saying we should be like Guatemala

 

[Born Free]

That and all other comments like it are nonsense, really. What makes a "wall" effective, including the Great Wall of China (to the extent it was effective) are people. If their 'wall' is that effective it's because they've militarized the border and have guards all up and down it 24/7/365, and the 'wall' is just a piece of that, something that allows their constant guards a little more time to respond to people crossing, or attempting to remove or otherwise defeat the 'wall.'

OK if that is what it takes with a wall.

What would it take without a wall, just a line in the sand.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Stop the lying, no one has said the will cover the entire border. Period

I'm not sure why you accuse me of lying. Are you saying you want a wall with one or more huge gaps? If you maintain that a wall will be effective because it's a wall, I don't understand how a wall with gaps would somehow keep people out. If a wall is to be effective at all, it's got to be closed--that's kinda the point. If there are larger-than-person-sized gaps in the wall, it will be rather less effective. I always thought that was the idea, that the wall would go from the Pacific to the Gulf.

Now I really like this statement. You want no wall, so there is just a line in the sand and you say we could not feasible patrol our southern border. Thus we need a damn wall.

Oh, I think it's entirely feasible we could effectively patrol our southern border. If we, say, spent about 5.6 billion extra dollars hiring and equipping border patrol, using drone surveillance, etc. I think we'd suddenly be a lot more effective.

I'm OK with that. Great send in the troops.

That'd be a lot of troops. We'd have to pull out of most of the rest of the world, and that would not be a very good idea.

Are you suggesting we STOP our economic growth so that illegals don't want to come here. Your saying we should be like Guatemala

If our economic growth depends on the sort of stuff that went on after NAFTA in northern Mexico, then yes, we should. I think, however, we could find a solution that would benefit the people of Mexico and the people of the United States, rather than a few at the top.

 

[AncientGeek]

OK if that is what it takes with a wall.

What would it take without a wall, just a line in the sand.

This wall?



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-sawed-n956856

 

[Saladin4]

This wall?

View attachment 67247743

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-sawed-n956856

Too funny...That was easy

 

[Born Free]

I'm not sure why you accuse me of lying. Are you saying you want a wall with one or more huge gaps? If you maintain that a wall will be effective because it's a wall, I don't understand how a wall with gaps would somehow keep people out. If a wall is to be effective at all, it's got to be closed--that's kinda the point. If there are larger-than-person-sized gaps in the wall, it will be rather less effective. I always thought that was the idea, that the wall would go from the Pacific to the Gulf.

I take it you have no ideas what a natural barrier is.

Oh, I think it's entirely feasible we could effectively patrol our southern border. If we, say, spent about 5.6 billion extra dollars hiring and equipping border patrol, using drone surveillance, etc. I think we'd suddenly be a lot more effective.

Your thinking is wrong. You have no barrier to even slow down a rush across the border by a 100 or 1,000 or more people running across the border that all there is, is a line in the sand. Drones are fine with a wall as the illegals would have to scale the wall if possible. Once a Drone spots illegals attempting to come over the agents have time to respond. With no wall a 1,000 people just run over the line in the sand at night and scatter in the desert.

That'd be a lot of troops. We'd have to pull out of most of the rest of the world, and that would not be a very good idea.

The solution is a wall.

If our economic growth depends on the sort of stuff that went on after NAFTA in northern Mexico, then yes, we should. I think, however, we could find a solution that would benefit the people of Mexico and the people of the United States, rather than a few at the top.

So your answer is to kill our economy so that illegals aliens have no desire to enter our country. I've heard it all now. We're all supposed to live a life of poverty so that no one wants to come here.

 

[Born Free]

This wall?

View attachment 67247743

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-sawed-n956856

Great picture, love it. That picture tells me that illegals had to do a lot of work to cut open that fence so that a person could only go through one at the time. Now compare that to just a line in the sand so that thousands of illegals can charge across our border anywhere they want.

 

[Saladin4]

Great picture, love it. That picture tells me that illegals had to do a lot of work to cut open that fence so that a person could only go through one at the time. Now compare that to just a line in the sand so that thousands of illegals can charge across our border anywhere they want.

Did the Middle Eastern terrorists you are so afraid of do that?....Now even the White House is walking back the 4,000 Lie...Move on

 

[Born Free]

Did the Middle Eastern terrorists you are so afraid of do that?....Now even the White House is walking back the 4,000 Lie...Move on

Answer the question, I repeat.

"Great picture, love it. That picture tells me that illegals had to do a lot of work to cut open that fence so that a person could only go through one at the time. Now compare that to just a line in the sand so that thousands of illegals can charge across our border anywhere they want."

 

[AncientGeek]

Great picture, love it. That picture tells me that illegals had to do a lot of work to cut open that fence so that a person could only go through one at the time. Now compare that to just a line in the sand so that thousands of illegals can charge across our border anywhere they want.

Wall or open border is a false choice.

Republicons - Tax the middle class, Borrow More and give a Free Ride to corporations and rich people.

 

[Born Free]

Wall or open border is a false choice.

I think you've proven just how false you are.

Republicons - Tax the middle class, Borrow More and give a Free Ride to corporations and rich people.

Liberals call the middle class deplorables, you borrow 10 trillion in just 8 yrs and presided over the worst economic recovery in US History.

As for the Free Ride why is it the Rich and corporations pay so much:

The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/04/15/how-much-do-the-top-1-percent-pay-of-all-taxes/

You need to bone up on some facts

 

[ashurbanipal]

I take it you have no ideas what a natural barrier is.

I thought the point of the wall is that we already have tens of thousands of individuals willing to cross rivers, climb over mountains, and cross hundreds of miles of deserts to enter this country. Those "natural barriers" aren't really doing anything...which of course makes it really weird to think that a wall (which is just another barrier) would make a difference. I don't know how much time you've spent near the southern border, but I've been over most of it, and it's generally not hospitable country.

Your thinking is wrong. You have no barrier to even slow down a rush across the border by a 100 or 1,000 or more people running across the border that all there is, is a line in the sand.

Well...except for those natural barriers...

Drones are fine with a wall as the illegals would have to scale the wall if possible. Once a Drone spots illegals attempting to come over the agents have time to respond. With no wall a 1,000 people just run over the line in the sand at night and scatter in the desert.

They get over or through the wall in 15 minutes or less. That's a negligible result for a lot of money--money that could be better spent producing much better results.

The solution is a wall.

You brought up the West Bank wall--a "wall" that is actually a series of barriers that is patrolled more frequently than we can (at current funding levels) patrol the proposed wall.

My point was those other differences to which I pointed make all the difference if the question is whether a wall at our southern border would be effective. It would be if we could patrol it and occupy the land on the opposite side at roughly the same rate as the Israelis. But doing that would be much more expensive than the wall itself. The wall, by itself, would be wasted money.

So your answer is to kill our economy so that illegals aliens have no desire to enter our country. I've heard it all now. We're all supposed to live a life of poverty so that no one wants to come here.

That's a hyperbolic distortion of what I wrote, and you know it. As far as I can tell:

1. We were doing just fine before NAFTA
2. The prosperity brought to us by NAFTA has mostly benefitted a few people...as have most of the economic gains since Reagan.
3. That prosperity (i.e. the part brought to us by NAFTA) has, in the meantime, been substantially the result of immoral action on the part of some of our corporations. It's a no-brainer that we shouldn't continue with that.

 

[Born Free]

I thought the point of the wall is that we already have tens of thousands of individuals willing to cross rivers, climb over mountains, and cross hundreds of miles of deserts to enter this country. Those "natural barriers" aren't really doing anything...which of course makes it really weird to think that a wall (which is just another barrier) would make a difference. I don't know how much time you've spent near the southern border, but I've been over most of it, and it's generally not hospitable country

.

I've seen the wall many times. So all the things you see are "natural barriers" that aren't doing anything. All I can say is you've seen nothing.

They get over or through the wall in 15 minutes or less. That's a negligible result for a lot of money--money that could be better spent producing much better results.

You have to prove to me that the new wall that is proposed which is steel spikes that are 30' tall, anyone can get through in just 15 minutes. Prove it. But without that wall, you only have a line in the sand that can be crossed in less than a second.

You brought up the West Bank wall--a "wall" that is actually a series of barriers that is patrolled more frequently than we can (at current funding levels) patrol the proposed wall.

All you libs talk about is more patrol, now you say more patrol will not do the job and a line in the sand is better than a wall.

My point was those other differences to which I pointed make all the difference if the question is whether a wall at our southern border would be effective. It would be if we could patrol it and occupy the land on the opposite side at roughly the same rate as the Israelis. But doing that would be much more expensive than the wall itself. The wall, by itself, would be wasted money.

A border wall is more effective than a line in the sand. With just a line you'll have thousands at a time crossing our border at night scattering everywhere. Christ we have a wall in San Diego which is not that good and their shooting tear gas at them, take the wall down and thousands will be running everywhere.

 

[Grand Mal]

Liberals call the middle class deplorables, you borrow 10 trillion in just 8 yr blahblahblah...

See the crap you spout here, the absolute lies that roll off your tongue like your Dear Leader taught you, crap like this is why you're not taken seriously.

 

[Born Free]

See the crap you spout here, the absolute lies that roll off your tongue like your Dear Leader taught you, crap like this is why you're not taken seriously.

Maybe you can clarify who Crooked Hillary called deplorables. Was it not every republican?

 

[Grand Mal]

Maybe you can clarify who Crooked Hillary called deplorables. Was it not every republican?

Maybe you can clarify why you would say 'liberals' and 'middle class' when you meant Clinton and Trump supporters.
Was that a mistake? Or a lie?

 

[HumblePi]

https://thehill.com/latino/424221-b...pected-of-terrorism-in-first-half-of-2018-nbc



Ah Sarah, the lies one spins
6, not hordes, Trumps claims as usual were bogus
Cue the Trumpettes, well they found 6, cue the where were most tracked at??? - Airports

But the bottom line is that those six weren't actual terrorists. They were six people that were stopped at the border because they either came from a known terrorist country like Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. Some of them were stopped because of the method of travel they used to get to the border. Some had ping-ponged from a country such as Libya for example, then flew to Spain then to South America, to Mexico then to the U.S. border. That raises red flags and they're either detained for further questioning and allowed to enter or they're turned around and sent back. So the 'six terrorists' were not found to be carrying bombs, had blueprints for airports, or had any other type of terrorism activities connected to them.