Democrats scream foul when an invader on the border dies.

[Oborosen]

They are literally going to the border to claim asylum, which is legal. Most want a shot at legal immigration. This is not rocket science. If you were in their shoes you would be doing the same. Just so happens you are on the other side of the border and luckier and privileged. I will repeat what I said... I don’t blame anyone trying for a better life. I have heard one too many horror stories from my husband and his family and yes they came here legally but what makes you think others are not trying to do the same? To claim asylum you need to go to the border, which is what they are TRYING to do. Despite the constant threads I keep seeing that claim they are “intruders”, “criminals” etc that’s just wrong. In fact most immigrants are willing to work hard to earn a living and contribute to society. That often gets overlooked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

((*HINT* You know nothing about me. Not how my luck has played out, nor how privileged you believe my life has been. So I would suggest you try not and go down that road.))

What we've been seeing is hardly any of that at all. If they present themselves at the crossings and declare their intent to seek asylum there on the spot, then that is by all means no issue. However a majority of these people who are declaring asylum, are the ones who get caught in the attempt of crossing the border. Which I don't know if you've checked lately, makes them a criminal in the eyes of our legal system.

We can have sob stories about what these people are fleeing and where they are coming from all we want. But the issue remains that we just don't know and the more we looking into these groups, like the caravan that just recently arrived. We can see that not all of them are fleeing the same things as someone else that may be in worse conditions. Even that young child that was plastered on TIME magazine for over a month, turned out to be a whole hearted lie. Her mother had kidnapped her, paid the smugglers to get her across the border and all for what, a job?
She left her husband and two older children behind. A husband, mind you. That had a decent job and was able to support her and her children. Yet she snatched one up and traveled to America, only to be caught at the border.

I am not saying that there aren't people who need to actually come here for asylum. But the way things have been going, those numbers are mostly likely more skewed in favor of those just looking for free crap at this point.

 

[PleasantValley]

You have a very strange obsession with “criminal invaders”. Did it ever occur to you that these people are not all criminal, and most likely a very small percentage? What are you reading to make these conclusions? Let me give you an example. My husband who immigrated here from El Salvador in 1988 (at age 6) left his country because of constant violence in his hometown. His house was getting shot up on the daily, he watched his uncle get shot and die right before his innocent eyes. His mom did the right thing in bringing his family here, did she not? He has made an amazing life here, owns his own business, has college degrees and supports his family so I can be home with the kids. The hardest working man I’ve ever met. Did it ever occur to you that maybe some of the people trying to come into the US are just like my husband, fleeing from danger and to start a better life... and not criminals. Most of the people trying to claim asylum are in similar circumstances. It is human nature to run from danger. And coming to the border is literally their only way of trying to become a US citizen, so I don’t blame them for trying. This insane notion that they are all criminals trying to infiltrate our country is pure propaganda and you’re falling for all of it. All I’m asking you to do is try to change your point of view and don’t generalize and group all immigrants into the same “criminal” category. There are bad people in all parts of the world. If you are going to assume all Mexicans and Central Americans are evil, do you assume the same about Americans? I bet not. It’s asinine. Not everyone is evil, not everyone is bad, and no one should be blamed from fleeing danger and trying for a better life. Compassion.....try it sometime. It won’t hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...except those who say they voted for Trump.
THEY are all 100% evil and bad as evidenced by posts here.
THEY are not deserving of civility, deserve to be hated, and are a threat to children.
I have heard it all here on this site simply for saying i voted for the "orange one".

...and I don't even like him, but all this and worse is what I deserve for filling in one box instead of another.

Oh, I am also uneducated and hate all humanity...all for the same reason.
I have been told this too.

I did not even comment on the NAZI and RACIST labels being slapped on my forehead for voting my choice in an election.

Your personal thoughts?

Pardon me...Where are my manners? Welcome to the forum, PoliSciXtina. I do not believe i have had the pleasure of your acquaintance.
:2wave:

 

[Nickyjo]

Yet when a criminal invader kills an American, they are stone quiet. Have you heard Pelosi or Schumer comment on the policeman killed by the criminal illegal in Calif. Have you heard Pelosi comment on Kate Steinle being killed by a criminal illegal, and then get off scott free????????????

He was overcharged and acquitted in the Steinle case. Your complaints should be directed to the prosecutors. And you have a beef with a child “invader on the border”? Much like the Jewish invaders in the 1930s or Cuban invaders in the 1960s. Get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You mind citing the moment he actually does this?

Thread title.

 

[Luckyone]

Yet when a criminal invader kills an American, they are stone quiet. Have you heard Pelosi or Schumer comment on the policeman killed by the criminal illegal in Calif. Have you heard Pelosi comment on Kate Steinle being killed by a criminal illegal, and then get off scott free????????????

Since when are "children" invaders?

Your "Logical" nick is a misnomer as there has been absolutely no logics to anything you have said so far. You are a blind supporter of Trump, no . matter how illogical it may be.

I have a suggestion for you: Change your nick to "puppet". That way we can relate to you from the very start

 

[eohrnberger]

They don't scream foul every time an illegal immigrant on the border dies, though maybe they should.

Is it the fault of CBP that a foreign adult makes the decision to cross the border illegally, a crossing of desert well known to be dangerous?

They do scream foul when a child in the custody of US Customs and Border Protection dies, and rightly so.

Is it the fault of CBP that a foreign adult makes the decision to take their child (alleged child anyway) across the border illegally, a crossing of desert well known to be dangerous?
That when the child is taken into CBP custody that they health is already dangerously compromised?
And this is the fault of CBP somehow?
Making these decisions that led to this outcome?

And when an illegal immigrant murders a police officer, he is arrested and charged with murder, and rightly so. Why would you scream foul when a murderer is charged with murder?

Because the illegal immigrant shouldn't even be in the country.

By the logic of accountability that you exhibit, the all the American citizen deaths caused by illegal immigrants trace directly back to Dem's obstruction of securing the border, which, as CBP experts and boots on the ground keep insisting, requires a secure physical barrier, AKA a wall.

Rather unsurprising that Democrats and the left value and promote expert's opinions and assessments only when the align with party political talking points.

 

[lwf]

Is it the fault of CBP that a foreign adult makes the decision to take their child (alleged child anyway) across the border illegally, a crossing of desert well known to be dangerous?
That when the child is taken into CBP custody that they health is already dangerously compromised?
And this is the fault of CBP somehow?
Making these decisions that led to this outcome?

I didn't say that. I said they cried foul when a child dies in their custody, and rightly so. Not because CBP murdered the child, or because they caused the child to be there, but because they were/are responsible for the well-being of people in their care. This doesn't mean that the good men and women of Customs and Border Protection are at fault, it means, among other things, that maybe the money Donald Trump is demanding for a wall would be better spent on increasing the funding of Customs and Border Protection.

Because the illegal immigrant shouldn't even be in the country.

Granted, but it is impossible to keep every illegal immigrant out of the U.S. And the majority of illegal immigrants enter the country on a visa. This combined with the fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at a lesser rate than natural born Americans makes it hypocritical to scream foul about an illegal immigrant who commits a murder and not the thousands of Americans who commit murder every year. The only reason to do this that makes any sense is an irrational fear of immigrants.

By the logic of accountability that you exhibit, the all the American citizen deaths caused by illegal immigrants trace directly back to Dem's obstruction of securing the border, which, as CBP experts and boots on the ground keep insisting, requires a secure physical barrier, AKA a wall.

The House Democrats are not obstructing the securing of the border. They are preventing an unjustified government spending increase, as is their job. That money is your tax money and a wall would be pissing it away. You are mistaken than the experts want a wall. What the CBP experts and boots on the ground really want if you ask them is more manpower. When they are told there isn't enough funding to hire more officers, then they suggest a physical barrier as a secondary measure. A physical barrier is always an inferior security measure to a human guard. The number of illegal immigrants who would be turned away by a even a 40' wall topped with razor wire along a half-mile section of the border is a tiny fraction of the number who would be turned away by a few cameras and armed officers with a jeep. It is the equivalent of spending a quarter less money for a three-quarters inferior product. It is irresponsible spending. If you want the border secured, your money would go much farther investing in manpower.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yet when a criminal invader kills an American, they are stone quiet. Have you heard Pelosi or Schumer comment on the policeman killed by the criminal illegal in Calif. Have you heard Pelosi comment on Kate Steinle being killed by a criminal illegal, and then get off scott free????????????

Yes, and Trump cultists are dead silent when white supremacist thugs murder police officers or other Americans. By your own "logic" the Trump cult supports white supremacists.

Are you sure that's the level of "logic" you want applied?

 

[eohrnberger]

What the CBP experts and boots on the ground really want if you ask them is more manpower. When they are told there isn't enough funding to hire more officers, then they suggest a physical barrier as a secondary measure. A physical barrier is always an inferior security measure to a human guard.

Actually the two compliment each other quite well. We should do them both, considering the ever increasing numbers of illegal aliens illegally crossing the US Southern border.

The number of illegal immigrants who would be turned away by a even a 40' wall topped with razor wire along a half-mile section of the border is a tiny fraction of the number who would be turned away by a few cameras and armed officers with a jeep. It is the equivalent of spending a quarter less money for a three-quarters inferior product. It is irresponsible spending. If you want the border secured, your money would go much farther investing in manpower.

The cost of illegal aliens to US citizen tax payers dwarfs the cost of a physical barrier, dwarfs the cost of additional CBP manpower.

New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually | IRLI‎
Adwww.irli.org/‎
Immigration Reform Law Institute serves as a public-interest advocacy law firm. Founded In 1986.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. | the Cost of Illegal Aliens | CIS.org‎
Adwww.cis.org/‎
Is the cost of illegal immigration higher than a border wall? Donate Online. Founded In 1985. Highlights: Independent Research Organization, Founded In 1985, Providing Internship Program.
​

My position is not that CBP should be denied additional manpower. I'm more than willing to support that along WITH a physical barrier, to the specifications deemed to be most effective, with implementation and CBP procedures to enhance that effectiveness to the level that is practical, cost effective and possible.

 

[eohrnberger]

I didn't say that. I said they cried foul when a child dies in their custody, and rightly so. Not because CBP murdered the child, or because they caused the child to be there, but because they were/are responsible for the well-being of people in their care. This doesn't mean that the good men and women of Customs and Border Protection are at fault, it means, among other things, that maybe the money Donald Trump is demanding for a wall would be better spent on increasing the funding of Customs and Border Protection.

Rightly so? No, not rightly so.

There has been no demonstration of neglect on the part of CBP. The children in question are arriving with severe medical problems that their 'parents' (accompanying adults) have ignored to the point the child is already near death (advanced case of Sepsis in the case I'm recalling). So sorry, but no, this falls squarely on the so called adult who made the decision to drag the child on the difficult and dangerous trip ignoring the child's medical condition.

Granted, but it is impossible to keep every illegal immigrant out of the U.S. And the majority of illegal immigrants enter the country on a visa. This combined with the fact that illegal immigrants commit violent crimes at a lesser rate than natural born Americans makes it hypocritical to scream foul about an illegal immigrant who commits a murder and not the thousands of Americans who commit murder every year. The only reason to do this that makes any sense is an irrational fear of immigrants.

21%


Administration officials have noted that roughly one in five inmates in federal prison are foreign-born, and that the vast majority of those people are in the United States illegally. They argue such statistics show the dangers illegal immigration poses to society. "The illegal immigrant crime rate in this country should be zero," US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement earlier this year. "Every crime committed by an illegal alien is, by definition, a crime that should have been prevented."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/03/us/immigrants-crime-numbers/index.html

Apples and oranges to compare citizen crime rate vs. illegal alien crime rate. A more pertinent comparison would be illegal alien crime rate against the number of illegal aliens that could be kept out of the country, as Session's statement rings true, regardless if it is impossible to keep all illegal aliens out of the country. By definition, a crime committed by an illegal alien is a crime that could have been prevented from occurring at the border and denying the illegal alien entry to even commit the crime.

 

[eohrnberger]

The House Democrats are not obstructing the securing of the border. They are preventing an unjustified government spending increase, as is their job. That money is your tax money and a wall would be pissing it away. You are mistaken than the experts want a wall.

Physical border walls across the planet have proven themselves as being effective, yet, I'm supposed to believe the fact free leftist media and Democrat's assertion that they don't work? :lamo

I'll let the CBP officers speak for themselves.

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds - Washington Times
[url]https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-fi...[/URL]
Apr 2, 2018 - Border Patrol agents overwhelmingly support Trump's wall in new survey ... White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, right, talks with Rep. ... they can't be much clearer: They want more wallsalong the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump With Border Patrol, ICE Officials: 'Without a Wall, You Cannot ...
[url]https://www.cnsnews.com/.../trump-border-patrol-ice-officials-without-wall-you-cann...[/URL]
2 days ago - Trump With Border Patrol, ICE Officials: 'Without a Wall, You Cannot ... flanked by Border Patrol officials, stressed the need for a border wall.

Border Patrol official says Trump's proposed wall would be 'absolutely ...
[url]https://thehill.com/.../418214-border-patrol-official-says-trumps-proposed-border-wo...[/URL]
Nov 26, 2018 - Border Patrol official says Trump's proposed wall would be ... Sexton on "Rising" when asked if Border Patrol agents wanted a wall to be built.
​

Congress pissing away billions? Seems what they specialize in.

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico - AP News
https://www.apnews.com/0fcda32812024680ad98676379c47233
Dec 18, 2018 - MEXICO CITY (AP) — The United States pledged $5.8 billion in aid and ... in Central America, and another $4.8 billion in development aid for southern Mexico. ... investment for the stay-at-home effort doesn't require congressional approval, ... and mobilize $2 billion in additional funds for projects in southern Mexico that are ...
​

Billions in funding for other nations, some probably used to fund their border walls, yet none for US border security, including a physical barrier?
I'm having trouble relating to these spending priorities.

This is looking less and less like good governance and more and more like decisions and positions motivated purely by political posturing, i.e. Deny Trump any 'wins' 'by any means necessary' (regardless of the number of American citizens put at risk).
Again, I'm having trouble relating to these priorities.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Invader? How precious!
Except it's not. It's a fascist attempt to cast destitute refugees as fearsome attackers. Demonising the "other" as the cause of the miserable existence of the masses instead of the real cause, the ruling swamp creatures from Donald's lagoon. How easily led are some of those masses!

 

[lwf]

Actually the two compliment each other quite well. We should do them both, considering the ever increasing numbers of illegal aliens illegally crossing the US Southern border.

The wall compliments border guards a little bit better than a "Keep Out" sign does. And it is thousands of times the cost. Crossing the Rio Grande on foot takes almost as much time as, and probably more effort than, scaling a border wall with a couple of ladders.

And I think you meant to say "ever decreasing" numbers of illegal aliens crossing the border.

The cost of illegal aliens to US citizen tax payers dwarfs the cost of a physical barrier, dwarfs the cost of additional CBP manpower.

New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually | IRLI‎
Adwww.irli.org/‎
Immigration Reform Law Institute serves as a public-interest advocacy law firm. Founded In 1986.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. | the Cost of Illegal Aliens | CIS.org‎
Adwww.cis.org/‎
Is the cost of illegal immigration higher than a border wall? Donate Online. Founded In 1985. Highlights: Independent Research Organization, Founded In 1985, Providing Internship Program.
​

My position is not that CBP should be denied additional manpower. I'm more than willing to support that along WITH a physical barrier, to the specifications deemed to be most effective, with implementation and CBP procedures to enhance that effectiveness to the level that is practical, cost effective and possible.

The point is that it is more cost effective without the wall. Any wall money would end up stopping more border crossings if it were instead used exclusively to support CBP manpower. The decrease in border crossings that would result from a wall would be marginal at best, and not worth the cost. The decrease in border crossings that would result from increased manpower would be orders of magnitude greater.

I've said before: (Ignoring the diplomatic and cultural ramifications) If Mexico was stupid enough to actually pay for the wall in its entirety without any decrease in Customs and Border Protection, be my guest. There would probably be a few less pregnant, elderly, and infirm crossing the border each year with their families. Fine, as long as its free to Americans. The number of terrorists, MS-13 members, and sex and drug traffickers would be exactly the same. When you tell me that its going to cost American taxpayers billions and not make America any safer, then I have a serious problem with it.

Make no mistake: A border wall would make America marginally less Latino, but it would not make America any safer.

Physical border walls across the planet have proven themselves as being effective, yet, I'm supposed to believe the fact free leftist media and Democrat's assertion that they don't work?

I dispute that walls across the planet have proven themselves as being effective. Walls throughout history certainly have been, but they are now a relic from a time when aluminum extension ladders and travel visas were not easily available to any who wanted to cross them.

Apples and oranges to compare citizen crime rate vs. illegal alien crime rate. A more pertinent comparison would be illegal alien crime rate against the number of illegal aliens that could be kept out of the country, as Session's statement rings true, regardless if it is impossible to keep all illegal aliens out of the country. By definition, a crime committed by an illegal alien is a crime that could have been prevented from occurring at the border and denying the illegal alien entry to even commit the crime.

I don't argue for open borders. I argue against a wall. The bottom line is that the types of illegal border crossers that have the ability and inclination to commit violent crimes on American soil CANNOT be kept out by a wall. Any who believe this are living in a dream world. If you can bypass a 40' razor wire wall in 15 minutes with two or three of your buddies and a couple of aluminum extension ladders, then you are fooling yourself if you think that younger more athletic men can't do it even faster.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . . .
I dispute that walls across the planet have proven themselves as being effective. Walls throughout history certainly have been, but they are now a relic from a time when aluminum extension ladders and travel visas were not easily available to any who wanted to cross them.

this is a 764 kilometer wall between Turkey and Syria, funded by none other than the European Union.
Turkey shares an 822 kilometer border with Syria, a country which has suffered bombardment from all angles since 2011, including several EU member states. The wall runs through the provinces of Sanliurfa, Gaziantep, Kilis, Hatay, Mardin and Sirnak and incorporates physical, electronic and advanced technology layers.

The physical layer includes modular concrete walls, patrol routes, manned and unmanned towers and passenger tracks.

While the EU and its loyal followers persistently preach that any form of borders are racist, many will be shocked to learn that the construction of this wall was largely funded by the 28-member state union.
The EU-funded wall that nobody wants to talk about

. . .

. . .

https://www.amren.com/news/2019/01/border-walls-work-2/

Ronna McDaniel
✔@GOPChairwoman





We've seen huge drops in illegal traffic in places we've built barriers w/ Mexico:
- San Diego (built 1992): Dropped 92%
- El Paso (built 1993): Dropped 95%
- Tucson (built 2000): Dropped 90%
- Yuma (built 2005): Dropped 95%
@realDonaldTrump is right to push for more security.

GOP Chairwoman Destroys All Opposition to the Border Wall with Devastating Statistics

This town is proof that Trump’s wall can work - Juarez

"Walls don't work". :lamo

You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish. Me? I prefer facts, thanks.

 

[JustHanging]

Yet when a criminal invader kills an American, they are stone quiet. Have you heard Pelosi or Schumer comment on the policeman killed by the criminal illegal in Calif. Have you heard Pelosi comment on Kate Steinle being killed by a criminal illegal, and then get off scott free????????????

Dude, Trump has you scared to death of an imaginary boogieman.

Suck it up.

 

[JustHanging]

Me? I prefer facts, thanks.

Don't speak such nonsense. If you cared about facts you would be citing reputable studies showing that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall is a cost effective strategy for limiting illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Instead you believe whatever Trump tells you to believe. Of course, you could prove me wrong and link to those reputable studies.

 

[eohrnberger]

Don't speak such nonsense. If you cared about facts you would be citing reputable studies showing that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall is a cost effective strategy for limiting illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Instead you believe whatever Trump tells you to believe. Of course, you could prove me wrong and link to those reputable studies.

Well not there's an empty set of ad-hominem attacks. Ignored all the citations of current day successful walls, have you?
You seem to argue like a liberal, or a leftist, . . . or something.

 

[lwf]

This town is proof that Trump’s wall can work - Juarez

"Walls don't work". :lamo

You are free to hold whatever opinion you wish. Me? I prefer facts, thanks.

Correlation does not imply causation. You are comparing apples and oranges. If you believe that the only thing that was changed was that a wall was erected in all of those scenarios, you are unfamiliar with the history of each one. I would argue that those graphs would be identical if you kept everything else that was changed between the time before the wall and the time after (massive surge in manpower at the border, total denial of visas, etc.) and didn't have a wall at all.

 

[Acadia]

Yet when a criminal invader kills an American, they are stone quiet. Have you heard Pelosi or Schumer comment on the policeman killed by the criminal illegal in Calif. Have you heard Pelosi comment on Kate Steinle being killed by a criminal illegal, and then get off scott free????????????

Kamala Harris was quick on the draw to tweet about the victims killed in the California bowling alley. But complete radio silence when it comes to a police officer killed in cold blood by an illegal thug who should have had his ass deported.

 

[lwf]

Kamala Harris was quick on the draw to tweet about the victims killed in the California bowling alley. But complete radio silence when it comes to a police officer killed in cold blood by an illegal thug who should have had his ass deported.

Do you feel that criticizing one incident of violence and not others is indicative of something?

 

[eohrnberger]

Correlation does not imply causation. You are comparing apples and oranges. If you believe that the only thing that was changed was that a wall was erected in all of those scenarios, you are unfamiliar with the history of each one.

I made no such assertion (build a wall and abandon it), but have made the assertion that effective procedures WITH a wall are effective. Check back a few posts of mine.

I would argue that those graphs would be identical if you kept everything else that was changed between the time before the wall and the time after (massive surge in manpower at the border, total denial of visas, etc.) and didn't have a wall at all.

Well, you're on your own on that one then. Good luck.

 

[lwf]

I made no such assertion (build a wall and abandon it), but have made the assertion that effective procedures WITH a wall are effective. Check back a few posts of mine.

I agree:

Effective procedures with a wall are effective.
Effective procedures without a wall are nearly as effective.
If the wall is free, let's have a wall alongside our effective procedures.
If a wall costs billions of tax dollars, let's instead use that money to have more effective procedures.

Thought experiment:

It costs $100 to keep squirrels out of your attic using a plastic owl at 80% effectiveness.
It costs $90 to keep squirrels out of your attic using a screen at 20% effectiveness.
You have $120 to spend. Your wife wants the security of a screen because Donald Trump told her it was necessary to keep the squirrels out.

Which do you purchase?

 

[Acadia]

Do you feel that criticizing one incident of violence and not others is indicative of something?

It's reprehensible that Kamala Harris stayed silent on a fallen police officer in her state. Sickening.

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree:

Effective procedures with a wall are effective.
Effective procedures without a wall are nearly as effective.
If the wall is free, let's have a wall alongside our effective procedures.
If a wall costs billions of tax dollars, let's instead use that money to have more effective procedures.

Lost me with "Effective procedures without a wall are nearly as effective. " I'd have to see some hard data on that. So far the data that I've found would indicate that a wall by itself is pretty effective, and with supporting procedures even more so.

Thought experiment:

It costs $100 to keep squirrels out of your attic using a plastic owl at 80% effectiveness.
It costs $90 to keep squirrels out of your attic using a screen at 20% effectiveness.
You have $120 to spend. Your wife wants the security of a screen because Donald Trump told her it was necessary to keep the squirrels out.

Which do you purchase?

No offense, but I'd shoot the ****ers. :mrgreen:

If you want to consider the cost to the tax payer, which is reasonable, you can't really avoid these data:

New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually | IRLI‎
Adwww.irli.org/‎
Immigration Reform Law Institute serves as a public-interest advocacy law firm. Founded In 1986.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. | the Cost of Illegal Aliens | CIS.org‎
Adwww.cis.org/‎
Is the cost of illegal immigration higher than a border wall? Donate Online. Founded In 1985. Highlights: Independent Research Organization, Founded In 1985, Providing Internship Program.
​

So even if building walls along the border where they'd be effective (mainly due to terrain), the cost of the wall is dwarfed.

 

[lwf]

Lost me with "Effective procedures without a wall are nearly as effective. " I'd have to see some hard data on that. So far the data that I've found would indicate that a wall by itself is pretty effective, and with supporting procedures even more so.

I would argue the reverse of that: Boots on the ground are very effective, a wall is marginally more so. I would also argue that the effectiveness of a concrete wall or 'steel slats' is approximately equal to the effectiveness of a 7' chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Both require one to two ladders (at least for someone of average strength in the fence scenario,) and some means of crossing the barbed wire, (heavy piece of carpet or rubber, or bolt cutters.) In the case of the wall, you just have to climb a bit higher. If one is orders of magnitude cheaper, and provides comparable benefit, why not go the cheaper route?

If you want to consider the cost to the tax payer, which is reasonable, you can't really avoid these data:


New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually | IRLI‎
Adwww.irli.org/‎
Immigration Reform Law Institute serves as a public-interest advocacy law firm. Founded In 1986.

No argument from me that illegal immigration is costly to tax payers. My argument is that a wall is a cost-effective solution.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. | the Cost of Illegal Aliens | CIS.org‎
Adwww.cis.org/‎
Is the cost of illegal immigration higher than a border wall? Donate Online. Founded In 1985. Highlights: Independent Research Organization, Founded In 1985, Providing Internship Program.


So even if building walls along the border where they'd be effective (mainly due to terrain), the cost of the wall is dwarfed.

This study is based on an estimate that a wall alone would prevent on average 16,000 to 20,000 border crossings per year over the next 10 years. According to the data in the study, one can estimate approximately 75,000 illegal immigrants per year successfully make it across the border. (The rest being apprehended by border patrol.) If we take the article's estimates and figures at face value, then the wall would have at best approximately a 25% success rate. This means that one in four people would be deterred. For reasons I stated earlier, I believe this to be a gross overestimation. The only individuals that would reasonably be deterred are those who are physically unable to climb ladders. The required ability to cross the Sonora or Chihuahua desert and then the Rio Grande on foot would argue against these people representing 25% of illegal immigrants.