Why I appose a wall

[OscarLevant]

I'm not suggesting that this is the way things actually work but what if you had just TONS of meth, cocaine and heroin you wanted to smuggle into the US. You might try to smuggle the majority of it across checkpoints where the government has all kinds of manpower and technology to detect it OR you might send a bunch of loads across such checkpoints in an effort to overwhelm the available law enforcement resources or....and this is just crazy thinking...you might send a few loads through the checkpoints with the idea that if they get through, great, if they don't, well at least that means moving more law enforcement to those checkpoints which opens the opportunity for you to run a whole lot of small loads across open sections of the border or catapult it across walled sections of the border or drop it in the ocean off the coast. If 25% of the stuff you send across the checkpoints gets busted you're still coming out ahead and you're coming out WAY ahead if the sacrifice of that 25% of the 10% you're sending over means that 90% of the other 90% which is going across open borders gets through.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of drugs coming to the US via the southern is through ports of entry.

You could spend 50 billion dollars, confiscate via eminent domain every mile of the border, and build the wall, and it won't stem the flow of drugs.

 

[Mycroft]

Even if it does, the money goes farther that way.

If you have $120 and can spend $100 on a plastic owl that keeps squirrels out of your attic with an 80% success rate, or $80 on a mesh screen with a 25% success rate, would you 'splurge' for the owl? Isn't your money going farther by spending on the thing that works the best?

So. Give me the numbers on the wall and the manpower. Make your case.

 

[Mycroft]

The wall without massively increased manpower is ****ing useless.


Ladders, Ropes, Shovels, Trucks, Boats, and the like are not liberal myths. They are real things that exist in the world.

Depending on the barrier, those things may or may not be useful.

 

[Mycroft]

There are more than enough personnel currently at the ports of entry. I repeat, a wall will do NOTHING to stem the flow of drugs.

In fact, why are cartels producing and selling drugs?

Because AMERICANS are BUYING THEM.

Make them legal, in a controlled environment, here in America, and this will stop the flow of drugs.

Since Marijuana is now legal in many states, the Pot flow from Mexico to the US has been drastically reduced.

There is the answer, and until Repubs and Dems wake up to the fact that PROHIBITION is the reason for drug cartels and the reason people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are fleeing persecution from these cartels and apply for asylum in America, the problem will only continue.

Now you are moving into off topic land.

Dismissed.

 

[Mr Person]

Depending on the barrier, those things may or may not be useful.

It will be useless. It would have to be manned extensively, all 2,000 miles. That will cost an incredible amount, and it will only be directed at about 25% of those unlawfully present anyway. The bulk overstay visas.

This is just a show.

 

[Grokmaster]

The simple fact is that the vast majority of drugs coming to the US via the southern is through ports of entry.

You could spend 50 billion dollars, confiscate via eminent domain every mile of the border, and build the wall, and it won't stem the flow of drugs.

Why would a WALL NOT STOP it, or severely curtail it?

 

[iguanaman]

Neither party, nor the president, wants TRUE solutions to immigration problems. Notice for 2 years under Republican control not ONE TIME did Republicans mention to mandate the use of E-Verify. There is a reason folks and a reason why Trump wants his "symbolic" wall which is inefficient for the price tag instead of REAL immigration reforms to combat illegal immigration.

Exactly. This is nothing but a stunt to appease Trumps dwindling base who actually believed his lies about immigration and the mystical wall. Trump never even attempted any plans, proposals, or funding for the wall in his 2 years in office and it was not until he lost the House that he started this nonsense about a blank check for $5.6 Billion for who knows what or 800,000 Americans will be held hostage indefinitely.

 

[Grokmaster]

It will be useless. It would have to be manned extensively, all 2,000 miles. That will cost an incredible amount, and it will only be directed at about 25% of those unlawfully present anyway. The bulk overstay visas.

This is just a show.

30ft tall, w/concertina wire at the top, will discourage/defeat 95% of attempted crossings.

 

[independentusa]

Your message says you want to eliminate the borders entirely and however many tens or hundreds of millions of impoverished and uneducated people who want to come here to live off our social programs and compete downward on salaries for jobs should be let in.

All the rest are just words explaining why you want to eliminate the United States as a nation and instead make it the world's dumping ground for their country's poor people.

No, my message is to use modern methods to keep illegals out of the country and it will cost half as much as building whatever trump agrees to. You are the one who seems to be stupid enough to think that a wall will do anything. God, it is hard to talk to people who are such Trump cultists that they do not understand what is actually happening at the border. It is not an emergency, those days are long gone if they ever were.

 

[iguanaman]

Why would a WALL NOT STOP it, or severely curtail it?

What wall? How many miles will it be? Where will it go? What will it be made of? Who is going to build it?

 

[independentusa]

30ft tall, w/concertina wire at the top, will discourage/defeat 95% of attempted crossings.

And the coyotes will just cut holes in the steel as they have in the present fencing or they will just tunnel under the fence. With 2,000 miles of fencing, they can easily hide such entrances and just move people across. Yu just don't get it, a fence is practically useless against coyotes.

 

[Grokmaster]

What wall? How many miles will it be? Where will it go? What will it be made of? Who is going to build it?

30 ft. high, w/concertina wire at the top. 100 miles across every major port of entry , extending in either direction, which will force the smugglers into open, rural areas, making them far easier to discern via drones, aircraft, etc..

 

[RAMOSS]

Did you know that the US used taxpayer money to build a wall in Jordan? It's for the purpose of stopping arms smugglers (not so different than drug smugglers), refugees (not so different than people who illegally cross the border) and Islamic State fighters (not so different that hardened criminals).

It's true. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ow-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out

I wonder if Obama, who supported giving that money to Jordan, and the Dems and Reps in Congress, who voted to give Jordan that money, agree with you that walls are not effective or that the money spent isn't worth it?

Maybe they'll say it's more important to protect Jordan than it is to protect the US?

There is a difference between a 150M wall that is highly manned, and a 2000 mile wall that isn't. The wall in Jordon is mostly in unobstructed land, while that is not the case between the U.S. and Mexico. So, you are trying to compare entirely different situations there.

 

[independentusa]

Prosecute business owners who hire illegal workers. Ensure that non legal residents can't get access to social funded benefits.




Problem solved.

If you know anything about illegals in this country, you would know that they have "documentation" aplenty. they probably have three or four documents that they could give to an employer. How is an employer supposed to know when they are real or forged. If they are real you are a racists and they will sue, so what to do?

 

[Lutherf]

The simple fact is that the vast majority of drugs coming to the US via the southern is through ports of entry.

You could spend 50 billion dollars, confiscate via eminent domain every mile of the border, and build the wall, and it won't stem the flow of drugs.

Do you know that's a fact or are you relaying what you've been told?

As I've said before, the wall is a tool to be used in the job of border security. There are sections of the border where it's practical and other sections where it's impractical. Even in areas that there is a wall we also need manpower to apprehend people who try to breech it. We also need to revise our immigration policy so that people who want to come here to work in blue collar trades can do so easily and legally. If my great grandfather could come here as a mason or a carpenter then others should be allowed to do the same. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to come here unconditionally and they SHOULD NOT be allowed to stay indefinitely or bring their family with them. However, if we present a path to come here legally and work then they can get their LPR status and, eventually, citizenship in a reasonable amount of time. Once they are LPRs they should be able to sponsor immediate family descendants and once they become citizens I have no problem with them sponsoring immediate family ancestors. There must, however, be a process.

One of the stumbling blocks for unskilled workers coming here is that they are only eligible if they are filling a position for which no other qualified labor is available in the US. That's an incredibly tough bar for a potential employer to get over and it means that immigrants who are only employable in such jobs have a VERY difficult time coming here and working legally. If we reduce eligibility requirements there is the possibility that US citizen unskilled laborers will have more competition in their job market and wages will be dragged down. However, with a labor market that's picking up steam that isn't as much of an issue.

 

[iguanaman]

30 ft. high, w/concertina wire at the top. 100 miles across every major port of entry , extending in either direction, which will force the smugglers into open, rural areas, making them far easier to discern via drones, aircraft, etc..

Who has made that proposal and when? How much will it cost?

 

[JustHanging]

We're not going to build a wall. Keep up.

Let's move on to more recent times where Trump has shown his willingness to compromise with the obstructing Democrats.
He's agreed to a steel fence/barrier. The costs are minimal compared to the costs of turning the blind eye to what's coming over our border illegally; drugs, cartels, gangs, people with criminal pasts, people who have no regard or respect of the rule of law, and human (child, women) traffickers.

Btw... a steel fence, (see quote below), will seriously help diminish illegal migration over our borders. Of course, we need more boots on the ground, and the latest technology doesn't hurt.



https://www.borderfacts.com/

That's fine.

But I have yet to see any evidence that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's "wall" is a cost effective strategy for limiting illegal immigration or drug smuggling. Can you provide any?

If not, why would you support it?

 

[JustHanging]

30 ft. high, w/concertina wire at the top. 100 miles across every major port of entry , extending in either direction, which will force the smugglers into open, rural areas,...

Nope. Tunnels.

Maybe someone should tell Donald?

 

[lwf]

So. Give me the numbers on the wall and the manpower. Make your case.

Department of Homeland Security estimates its current border apprehension success rate at 81%.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0718_PLCY_FY2017-Border-Security-Metrics-Report.pdf

The largest estimate I've ever seen for the possible success rate of a proposed border wall (which came from a slanted conservative study that I believe was grossly overestimated) was about 25%. Unfortunately, I couldn't find this particular study. All of the reputable studies I could find for effectiveness of a border wall suggest a much lower percentage:

https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/09/why-a-border-wall-would-do-little-besides-waste-money.html

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-impractical-expensive-ineffective-plan

You might find this thesis interesting:

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=808155

It concludes that in heavily populated urban areas, fencing is a viable option assuming insufficient border patrol agents, (as is the case) but in remote areas it is not a viable option. Raising the cost of that fence in the former case or expanding the fence area in the latter would be a waste of money.

 

[Mycroft]

There is a difference between a 150M wall that is highly manned, and a 2000 mile wall that isn't. The wall in Jordon is mostly in unobstructed land, while that is not the case between the U.S. and Mexico. So, you are trying to compare entirely different situations there.

If our wall is immoral, why is the Jordan wall not immoral? They both serve the same purpose. The only difference is in scale.

 

[JustHanging]

Ensure that non legal residents can't get access to social funded benefits.




Problem solved.

Really? You wouldn't care if children, for the reason of place of birth, died on the sidewalks outside of hospitals?

 

[OscarLevant]

Do you know that's a fact or are you relaying what you've been told?

As I've said before, the wall is a tool to be used in the job of border security. There are sections of the border where it's practical and other sections where it's impractical. Even in areas that there is a wall we also need manpower to apprehend people who try to breech it. We also need to revise our immigration policy so that people who want to come here to work in blue collar trades can do so easily and legally. If my great grandfather could come here as a mason or a carpenter then others should be allowed to do the same. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to come here unconditionally and they SHOULD NOT be allowed to stay indefinitely or bring their family with them. However, if we present a path to come here legally and work then they can get their LPR status and, eventually, citizenship in a reasonable amount of time. Once they are LPRs they should be able to sponsor immediate family descendants and once they become citizens I have no problem with them sponsoring immediate family ancestors. There must, however, be a process.

One of the stumbling blocks for unskilled workers coming here is that they are only eligible if they are filling a position for which no other qualified labor is available in the US. That's an incredibly tough bar for a potential employer to get over and it means that immigrants who are only employable in such jobs have a VERY difficult time coming here and working legally. If we reduce eligibility requirements there is the possibility that US citizen unskilled laborers will have more competition in their job market and wages will be dragged down. However, with a labor market that's picking up steam that isn't as much of an issue.

DHS data, afaik

 

[OscarLevant]

Do you know that's a fact or are you relaying what you've been told?

As I've said before, the wall is a tool to be used in the job of border security. There are sections of the border where it's practical and other sections where it's impractical. Even in areas that there is a wall we also need manpower to apprehend people who try to breech it. We also need to revise our immigration policy so that people who want to come here to work in blue collar trades can do so easily and legally. If my great grandfather could come here as a mason or a carpenter then others should be allowed to do the same. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to come here unconditionally and they SHOULD NOT be allowed to stay indefinitely or bring their family with them. However, if we present a path to come here legally and work then they can get their LPR status and, eventually, citizenship in a reasonable amount of time. Once they are LPRs they should be able to sponsor immediate family descendants and once they become citizens I have no problem with them sponsoring immediate family ancestors. There must, however, be a process.

One of the stumbling blocks for unskilled workers coming here is that they are only eligible if they are filling a position for which no other qualified labor is available in the US. That's an incredibly tough bar for a potential employer to get over and it means that immigrants who are only employable in such jobs have a VERY difficult time coming here and working legally. If we reduce eligibility requirements there is the possibility that US citizen unskilled laborers will have more competition in their job market and wages will be dragged down. However, with a labor market that's picking up steam that isn't as much of an issue.

There's a labor shortage on farms because of immigration policy

 

[Lutherf]

There's a labor shortage on farms because of immigration policy

Seasonal, agricultural labor is a whole different category. I also suspect that the "refugees" seeking asylum at our border aren't coming here to pick carrots and grapefruit.

 

[Mycroft]

Department of Homeland Security estimates its current border apprehension success rate at 81%.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0718_PLCY_FY2017-Border-Security-Metrics-Report.pdf

The largest estimate I've ever seen for the possible success rate of a proposed border wall (which came from a slanted conservative study that I believe was grossly overestimated) was about 25%. Unfortunately, I couldn't find this particular study. All of the reputable studies I could find for effectiveness of a border wall suggest a much lower percentage:

https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/09/why-a-border-wall-would-do-little-besides-waste-money.html

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-impractical-expensive-ineffective-plan

You might find this thesis interesting:

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=808155

It concludes that in heavily populated urban areas, fencing is a viable option assuming insufficient border patrol agents, (as is the case) but in remote areas it is not a viable option. Raising the cost of that fence in the former case or expanding the fence area in the latter would be a waste of money.

I asked for manpower numbers. Not apprehension success rates.

That thesis is interesting, even though it only covers two localized areas in Arizona. The conclusion, of course, is a judgment call and it doesn't take into account the kind of barrier that Trump and DHS want.

One thing about the judgment is that it doesn't seem to consider changes in behavior of the various people who cross illegally. For example, if the wall/fencing is upgraded in one area, what's to stop them from moving to another, less protected, location to cross? Do we want to play constant whack-a-mole? Or, should we just take care of the whole border now?