- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Put up or shut up: Questions for advocates of completing a wall on the US southern border
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 is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?
[*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?[*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
[*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
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 is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?
[*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?[*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
[*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
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."
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.
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!
2:14 PM - 21 Dec 2018
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!
2:14 PM - 21 Dec 2018
The Wharton School of Civil Engineering? No visible means of support..........
Wall or artistic "steel slat barrier," whichever it be, I'm merely seeking folks' answers to the questions in the OP.
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).
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.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?
So what? Nobody is trying to build an impermeable wall.I've been all over the world. I have yet to encounter a wall that is impermeable.
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.
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.
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!"
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 is the rationale that makes your methodology sound?
[*=1]What's your quantitative measure of success for the wall?[*=1]What's the net ROI -- in dollars and in terms of a ratio -- associated with your cost-benefit calculations?
[*=1]How will you calculate the wall's performance?
That's not a methodology for determining whether the wall (or anything) is/was successful.
That's not a methodology for determining whether the wall (or anything) is/was successful.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?