• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Put up or shut up: Questions for advocates of completing a wall on the US southern border

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Questions for wall advocates:
If be built a border wall (or fencing) that makes continuous the man-made physical barrier on the US' southern border​

  • [*=1]What is your methodology for determining whether that wall was successful?

    • [*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?

      • [*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
      [*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
    [*=1]What is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Walls work and it's been proved over and over across the world.


San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control

April 6, 2006

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Put up or shut up: Questions for advocates of completing a wall on the US southern border

You have neither the right to demand that I justify my beliefs nor the right to demand that I remain silent.

BOO
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
This is what you call a grand success!


He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.
 

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
65,715
Reaction score
50,187
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Questions for wall advocates:
If be built a border wall (or fencing) that makes continuous the man-made physical barrier on the US' southern border​

  • [*=1]What is your methodology for determining whether that wall was successful?

    • [*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?

      • [*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
      [*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
    [*=1]What is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?

I've been all over the world. I have yet to encounter a wall that is impermeable. The closest to that value is the Israeli barrier where lethal force is permitted.

I see little point in spending tens of billions on a wall that can somewhat easily be defeated. Trumps Wall would be, for all practical purposes, an extremely expensive border marker.

It would be far wiser to financially assist troubled nations in Central America than to simply toss money at the symptoms that manifest at the US border.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,298
Reaction score
29,705
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Questions for wall advocates:
If be built a border wall (or fencing) that makes continuous the man-made physical barrier on the US' southern border​

  • [*=1]What is your methodology for determining whether that wall was successful?

    • [*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?

      • [*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
      [*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
    [*=1]What is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?

Trump actually gave the parameters for measuring success of a wall when he cited the Israeli's percentages as well as percentages for various places along the US border where the wall has been built.

You can hear what he said in a video of his WH meeting with Nancy and Chuck.

As far as dollars ROI, all we have is speculation and estimates based on anticipated reductions in taxpayer money going to illegal aliens. I don't have a link handy, but I think I saw one that indicated taxpayer money going to illegal aliens is quite significant. Heck, the savings would likely pay for the wall many times over.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Walls work and it's been proved over and over across the world.


San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control

April 6, 2006

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."

That's not a methodology for determining whether the wall (or anything) is/was successful.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,298
Reaction score
29,705
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've been all over the world. I have yet to encounter a wall that is impermeable. The closest to that value is the Israeli barrier where lethal force is permitted.

I see little point in spending tens of billions on a wall that can somewhat easily be defeated. Trumps Wall would be, for all practical purposes, an extremely expensive border marker.

It would be far wiser to financially assist troubled nations in Central America than to simply toss money at the symptoms that manifest at the US border.

Not being impermeable is not the same as easily be defeated.

Just saying...

The Trump administration, when they were accepting bids for designs, didn't require a wall to be impermeable. They required it to take more than an hour to break through...among other things. That doesn't sound like they are accepting a wall that can easily be defeated.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,883
Reaction score
10,168
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Trump no longer wants a wall, that was so <Dec 2018. Now it's a "Steel Slat Barrier" which will no longer need a ladder, just some acetylene torches.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076239448461987841

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful!


Du-SEdLX4AEZc6G.jpg


2:14 PM - 21 Dec 2018
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump no longer wants a wall, that was so <Dec 2018. Now it's a "Steel Slat Barrier" which will no longer need a ladder, just some acetylene torches.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076239448461987841

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful!


Du-SEdLX4AEZc6G.jpg


2:14 PM - 21 Dec 2018

Wall or artistic "steel slat barrier," whichever it be, I'm merely seeking folks' answers to the questions in the OP.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,436
Reaction score
23,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump no longer wants a wall, that was so <Dec 2018. Now it's a "Steel Slat Barrier" which will no longer need a ladder, just some acetylene torches.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076239448461987841

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

A design of our Steel Slat Barrier which is totally effective while at the same time beautiful!


Du-SEdLX4AEZc6G.jpg


2:14 PM - 21 Dec 2018

The Wharton School of Civil Engineering? No visible means of support..........
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,157
Reaction score
33,046
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A wall won't matter unless it's properly enforced. That only works in a few places (ie, NK/SK; Israel/Gaza) and even then, you get tunnels under one of the two. It's simply not feasible to do that along the entire US-Mexico border, especially given the terrain. (Indeed, it's not feasible to have wall on all of the terrain).

Otherwise, there are ropes, ladders, tunnels, oh right and BOATS. So we'd also have to wall off the coastline for quite a distance. But wait.... couldn't they just pay smugglers to take them farther out into the gulf or up the pacific?





Yeah. Not gonna happen. The wall won't work. The wall won't be built. That's why people pretend to want it.






Wall or artistic "steel slat barrier," whichever it be, I'm merely seeking folks' answers to the questions in the OP.

You're not going to get that because they haven't thought about it. They don't have to. They know they're not getting their big stupid ****ing wall. They also know that if the spending isn't there for the wall, it could never possibly be there for the massive recruitment, infrastructure/supply-chain, and more that would be required to police the wall in such a way that technology from thousands of years ago won't defeat it (ropes, shovels, ladders, and the dreaded Drug Catapult).

If any wall-supporter actually tried to honestly think about it, they would see that it might be just about the dumbest possible way of addressing illegal immigration, second only to the idea of locking them all up for deportation proceedings than deporting them (and by that I mean, look at what it cost - including sunk costs of doing stuff like building prisons - to keep 2.3 million Americans in jail. Now extrapolate to keeping another 8-15 million illegals in jail for a few years, or more likely decades, as all those cases churn through the courts PLUS the cost of deporting (bussing/planes/ships/etc)).

There are sensible ways to approach this but they'll never be talked about. Illegal immigration is the perfect tool used to attack the left, which apart from a few on the very farthest fringes do not want literal "open borders" will oppose an idiotic expensive idea like a wall. So they can demand the wall knowing their idea will never be tested in practice and they can attack "the left" for opposing it. It's a WIN-WIN for them.




They lie.
 
Last edited:

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,438
Reaction score
8,709
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A wall won't matter unless it's properly enforced. That only works in a few places (ie, NK/SK; Israel/Gaza) and even then, you get tunnels under one of the two. It's simply not feasible to do that along the entire US-Mexico border, especially given the terrain. (Indeed, it's not feasible to have wall on all of the terrain).

Otherwise, there are ropes, ladders, tunnels, oh right and BOATS. So we'd also have to wall off the coastline for quite a distance. But wait.... couldn't they just pay smugglers to take them farther out into the gulf or up the pacific?





Yeah. Not gonna happen. The wall won't work. The wall won't be built. That's why people pretend to want it.








You're not going to get that because they haven't thought about it. They don't have to. They know they're not getting their big stupid ****ing wall. They also know that if the spending isn't there for the wall, it could never possibly be there for the massive recruitment, infrastructure/supply-chain, and more that would be required to police the wall in such a way that technology from thousands of years ago won't defeat it (ropes, shovels, ladders, and the dreaded Drug Catapult).

Never doubt the possibility of ill conceived plans to come to fruition.

;)

I'm not against border security, but I'd like a better pitch than "give me $25 billion because I couldn't get the money from Mexico and...walls work!"
 
Last edited:

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
17,563
Reaction score
6,970
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A wall won't matter unless it's properly enforced. That only works in a few places (ie, NK/SK; Israel/Gaza) and even then, you get tunnels under one of the two. It's simply not feasible to do that along the entire US-Mexico border, especially given the terrain. (Indeed, it's not feasible to have wall on all of the terrain).

Otherwise, there are ropes, ladders, tunnels, oh right and BOATS. So we'd also have to wall off the coastline for quite a distance. But wait.... couldn't they just pay smugglers to take them farther out into the gulf or up the pacific?
I'm not aware of a single person that has ever made the claim that a wall (or any border security measure for that matter) is 100% effective - so I have no idea why you're going on about that.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,157
Reaction score
33,046
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A wall won't matter unless it's properly enforced. That only works in a few places (ie, NK/SK; Israel/Gaza) and even then, you get tunnels under one of the two. It's simply not feasible to do that along the entire US-Mexico border, especially given the terrain. (Indeed, it's not feasible to have wall on all of the terrain).

Otherwise, there are ropes, ladders, tunnels, oh right and BOATS. So we'd also have to wall off the coastline for quite a distance. But wait.... couldn't they just pay smugglers to take them farther out into the gulf or up the pacific?





Yeah. Not gonna happen. The wall won't work. The wall won't be built. That's why people pretend to want it.




Xelor:

Wall or artistic "steel slat barrier," whichever it be, I'm merely seeking folks' answers to the questions in the OP.

You're not going to get that because they haven't thought about it. They don't have to. They know they're not getting their big stupid ****ing wall. They also know that if the spending isn't there for the wall, it could never possibly be there for the massive recruitment, infrastructure/supply-chain, and more that would be required to police the wall in such a way that technology from thousands of years ago won't defeat it (ropes, shovels, ladders, and the dreaded Drug Catapult).

If any wall-supporter actually tried to honestly think about it, they would see that it might be just about the dumbest possible way of addressing illegal immigration, second only to the idea of locking them all up for deportation proceedings than deporting them (and by that I mean, look at what it cost - including sunk costs of doing stuff like building prisons - to keep 2.3 million Americans in jail. Now extrapolate to keeping another 8-15 million illegals in jail for a few years, or more likely decades, as all those cases churn through the courts PLUS the cost of deporting (bussing/planes/ships/etc)).

There are sensible ways to approach this but they'll never be talked about. Illegal immigration is the perfect tool used to attack the left, which apart from a few on the very farthest fringes do not want literal "open borders" will oppose an idiotic expensive idea like a wall. So they can demand the wall knowing their idea will never be tested in practice and they can attack "the left" for opposing it. It's a WIN-WIN for them.




They lie.

I'm not aware of a single person that has ever made the claim that a wall (or any border security measure for that matter) is 100% effective - so I have no idea why you're going on about that.

^
I'm not aware of where in my post I claimed that someone thinks the wall will be "100% effective." If you're going to attack someone for supposedly mischaracterizing things, you probably shouldn't mischaracterize what they said.

You should probably also attempt to address the actual unedited subject.
 

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,436
Reaction score
23,957
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A wall won't matter unless it's properly enforced. That only works in a few places (ie, NK/SK; Israel/Gaza) and even then, you get tunnels under one of the two. It's simply not feasible to do that along the entire US-Mexico border, especially given the terrain. (Indeed, it's not feasible to have wall on all of the terrain).

Otherwise, there are ropes, ladders, tunnels, oh right and BOATS. So we'd also have to wall off the coastline for quite a distance. But wait.... couldn't they just pay smugglers to take them farther out into the gulf or up the pacific?





Yeah. Not gonna happen. The wall won't work. The wall won't be built. That's why people pretend to want it.








You're not going to get that because they haven't thought about it. They don't have to. They know they're not getting their big stupid ****ing wall. They also know that if the spending isn't there for the wall, it could never possibly be there for the massive recruitment, infrastructure/supply-chain, and more that would be required to police the wall in such a way that technology from thousands of years ago won't defeat it (ropes, shovels, ladders, and the dreaded Drug Catapult).

If any wall-supporter actually tried to honestly think about it, they would see that it might be just about the dumbest possible way of addressing illegal immigration, second only to the idea of locking them all up for deportation proceedings than deporting them (and by that I mean, look at what it cost - including sunk costs of doing stuff like building prisons - to keep 2.3 million Americans in jail. Now extrapolate to keeping another 8-15 million illegals in jail for a few years, or more likely decades, as all those cases churn through the courts PLUS the cost of deporting (bussing/planes/ships/etc)).

There are sensible ways to approach this but they'll never be talked about. Illegal immigration is the perfect tool used to attack the left, which apart from a few on the very farthest fringes do not want literal "open borders" will oppose an idiotic expensive idea like a wall. So they can demand the wall knowing their idea will never be tested in practice and they can attack "the left" for opposing it. It's a WIN-WIN for them.




They lie.

Two of two:

https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/...a/news-story/3a9e0f533bea64d8167ceeb02076bf3f
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,157
Reaction score
33,046
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Never doubt the possibility of ill conceived plans to come to fruition.

;)

I'm not against border security, but I'd like a better pitch than "give me $25 billion because I couldn't get the money from Mexico and...walls work!"

Well, we have border security. The question is the cost-benefit of more, and the type.

But really, the focus should be on the reason people come here. We can't stop people seeking asylum (even if we wanted to. Do we?) without ending asylum. But we can stop people coming here for jobs by cutting off the ability to get a job.

Things like e-verify, perhaps greater systems. Increase resources devoted to enforcing immigration law but do it against the employers of illegals. Ramp up penalties against employers of illegals. Etc.





We can't deport or wall our way out of things, but we certainly can alter the calculation an employer makes when deciding whether to employ illegals.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
16,295
Reaction score
5,541
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Questions for wall advocates:
If be built a border wall (or fencing) that makes continuous the man-made physical barrier on the US' southern border​

  • [*=1]What is your methodology for determining whether that wall was successful?

    • [*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?

      • [*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
      [*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
    [*=1]What is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?

The Senate just passed a $867 billion dollar farm bill. Are you demanding the same cost accounting as you seem to insist on for the wall which would cost 35 times less?
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
That's not a methodology for determining whether the wall (or anything) is/was successful.

So it was very successful but some don't want to accept that. OK I completely understand your position.
 

Common Sense 1

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
12,878
Reaction score
7,162
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
That's not a methodology for determining whether the wall (or anything) is/was successful.

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.
 

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
4,930
Reaction score
2,174
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Senate just passed a $867 billion dollar farm bill. Are you demanding the same cost accounting as you seem to insist on for the wall which would cost 35 times less?


If you're talking about the $5 Billion requested in this budget, it's closer to 170 times less.
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,438
Reaction score
8,709
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, we have border security. The question is the cost-benefit of more, and the type.

But really, the focus should be on the reason people come here. We can't stop people seeking asylum (even if we wanted to. Do we?) without ending asylum. But we can stop people coming here for jobs by cutting off the ability to get a job.

Things like e-verify, perhaps greater systems. Increase resources devoted to enforcing immigration law but do it against the employers of illegals. Ramp up penalties against employers of illegals. Etc.





We can't deport or wall our way out of things, but we certainly can alter the calculation an employer makes when deciding whether to employ illegals.


I think that's where you start, because that's the demand. When the economy went to the toilet in 2008, the immigration rate dropped significantly so cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants replicates that scarcity and then some.
 
Top Bottom