Conservative Political Forum

I'm not a fan of the wall at the Mexican border. I've worked first-hand on projects to establish electronics to guard the borders - both Mexico and Canada. A contractor had this great idea to put in a wide-angle camera that could scan a broad range - keeping the costs down. The camera reportedly cost about $8k. The story (unconfirmed) is that the camera went missing over the period of a month.

A wall won't do much better. It will be circumvented without enough staff to monitor and patrol - people will go under and stuff will be flung over. If we put in electronics to watch, it will get taken and sold. And if we did manage to staff 2000 miles of wall, what then? When we capture people there will tremendous processing manpower to put them back - and they will probably try again.

The political capital is enormous. The financial cost to build, maintain, man, and police are over-the-top. It would be so much better to put the funds into other infrastructure - roads and bridges.

The problem lies with those who hire and house the illegals. The funds / energy might be better spent on steep penalties. How about if someone is caught hiring illegals then those responsible are sent to Mexico for some time - via agreement with the Mexican president?

Is there any hope that this might go a better direction? Has anyone heard of other conservative voices pitching a better alternative than a wall?

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
I'm not a fan of the wall at the Mexican border. I've worked first-hand on projects to establish electronics to guard the borders - both Mexico and Canada. A contractor had this great idea to put in a wide-angle camera that could scan a broad range - keeping the costs down. The camera reportedly cost about $8k. The story (unconfirmed) is that the camera went missing over the period of a month.

A wall won't do much better. It will be circumvented without enough staff to monitor and patrol - people will go under and stuff will be flung over. If we put in electronics to watch, it will get taken and sold. And if we did manage to staff 2000 miles of wall, what then? When we capture people there will tremendous processing manpower to put them back - and they will probably try again.

The political capital is enormous. The financial cost to build, maintain, man, and police are over-the-top. It would be so much better to put the funds into other infrastructure - roads and bridges.

The problem lies with those who hire and house the illegals. The funds / energy might be better spent on steep penalties. How about if someone is caught hiring illegals then those responsible are sent to Mexico for some time - via agreement with the Mexican president?

Is there any hope that this might go a better direction? Has anyone heard of other conservative voices pitching a better alternative than a wall?

I'd like to microchip the illegals like we do with those humpback whales, and then slingshot them back over the border.

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
I'm not a fan of the wall at the Mexican border. I've worked first-hand on projects to establish electronics to guard the borders - both Mexico and Canada. A contractor had this great idea to put in a wide-angle camera that could scan a broad range - keeping the costs down. The camera reportedly cost about $8k. The story (unconfirmed) is that the camera went missing over the period of a month.

A wall won't do much better. It will be circumvented without enough staff to monitor and patrol - people will go under and stuff will be flung over. If we put in electronics to watch, it will get taken and sold. And if we did manage to staff 2000 miles of wall, what then? When we capture people there will tremendous processing manpower to put them back - and they will probably try again.

The political capital is enormous. The financial cost to build, maintain, man, and police are over-the-top. It would be so much better to put the funds into other infrastructure - roads and bridges.

The problem lies with those who hire and house the illegals. The funds / energy might be better spent on steep penalties. How about if someone is caught hiring illegals then those responsible are sent to Mexico for some time - via agreement with the Mexican president?

Is there any hope that this might go a better direction? Has anyone heard of other conservative voices pitching a better alternative than a wall?

Your argument against a wall merely enforces the reason for a wall.
Can't steal surveillance equipment when they have to deal with a wall coming and going. Build the wall where necessary, install monitoring equipment, have drones surveil it's entire length while linked to satellites and track those sneaking in.
Oh, and tunneling is easy to spot with ground sensing monitors.

The wall is estimated to cost 12 billion, while programs to feed, house and track illegals are over 100 billion. We already have laws re: hiring illegals, just enforce them.
Now, what did you want to do again?

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 02:09:19 PM
I'm not a fan of the wall at the Mexican border. I've worked first-hand on projects to establish electronics to guard the borders - both Mexico and Canada. A contractor had this great idea to put in a wide-angle camera that could scan a broad range - keeping the costs down. The camera reportedly cost about $8k. The story (unconfirmed) is that the camera went missing over the period of a month.

A wall won't do much better. It will be circumvented without enough staff to monitor and patrol - people will go under and stuff will be flung over. If we put in electronics to watch, it will get taken and sold. And if we did manage to staff 2000 miles of wall, what then? When we capture people there will tremendous processing manpower to put them back - and they will probably try again.

The political capital is enormous. The financial cost to build, maintain, man, and police are over-the-top. It would be so much better to put the funds into other infrastructure - roads and bridges.

The problem lies with those who hire and house the illegals. The funds / energy might be better spent on steep penalties. How about if someone is caught hiring illegals then those responsible are sent to Mexico for some time - via agreement with the Mexican president?

Is there any hope that this might go a better direction? Has anyone heard of other conservative voices pitching a better alternative than a wall?

No system is going to work 100%.  Even the Berlin Wall did not work 100%, and it was manned and had land mines.  BUT, a reasonably designed wall will certainly cut back border crossers by a significant percentage. I'd guess at LEAST 50%, probably closer to 70-80%. The saving from cutting border crossers by 50% will pay for the wall within a couple years. If crossers are cut by 80%, the wall will pay for itself in less than one year.

And I'll repeat what has been said MANY MANY times on this topic: there are already laws on the books making it illegal to employ illegal immigrants. What has been lacking is enforcement. And it will not take anything so drastic as removing someone's citizenship. A couple days jail time and imposition of fines heavy enough to offset any potential savings from hiring illegals, and that practice will disappear in a fortnight.

Although, the concept of exporting politicians who interfere with the enforcement of our immigration laws bears some thought.....

Quote from: Solar on February 16, 2017, 02:18:39 PM
Your argument against a wall merely enforces the reason for a wall.
Can't steal surveillance equipment when they have to deal with a wall coming and going. Build the wall where necessary, install monitoring equipment, have drones surveil it's entire length while linked to satellites and track those sneaking in.
Oh, and tunneling is easy to spot with ground sensing monitors.

The wall is estimated to cost 12 billion, while programs to feed, house and track illegals are over 100 billion. We already have laws re: hiring illegals, just enforce them.
Now, what did you want to do again?

Uh - Solar - you can be so exasperating - open up alternatives a little. You have to admit that Taxed had a novel idea - microchips and a catapult back. Zewazir point out that this has been around in discussion for awhile so I'm amiss in not finding the background. I just thought there might be some fresh ideas.

Instead we'll build a $12B wall (plus overruns and slipped schedules) and then pay some fraction of the $100B (if that's a real number) as the illegals figure out how to circumvent.

Military border enforcement via weaponized drone might be a way, but it's too hard to manage just getting the bad guys. Plus, it's much too harsh wounding or killing a guy who's just trying to make a few bucks for his family. I'm not that severe - but that softness is also part of the problem as the illegals know we have a heart.

The forum has convinced me of this: Put the money on the laws and rigorously enforce. Leave the wall for another day if the enforcement isn't enough. Put some of the money into badly needed infrastructure.

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 03:04:32 PM
Uh - Solar - you can be so exasperating - open up alternatives a little. You have to admit that Taxed had a novel idea - microchips and a catapult back. Zewazir point out that this has been around in discussion for awhile so I'm amiss in not finding the background. I just thought there might be some fresh ideas.

Instead we'll build a $12B wall (plus overruns and slipped schedules) and then pay some fraction of the $100B (if that's a real number) as the illegals figure out how to circumvent.

Military border enforcement via weaponized drone might be a way, but it's too hard to manage just getting the bad guys. Plus, it's much too harsh wounding or killing a guy who's just trying to make a few bucks for his family. I'm not that severe - but that softness is also part of the problem as the illegals know we have a heart.

The forum has convinced me of this: Put the money on the laws and rigorously enforce. Leave the wall for another day if the enforcement isn't enough. Put some of the money into badly needed infrastructure.

How am I exasperating, is it that you have a problem debating?
As I stated, enforce the law on the books, one other point, remove all incentives to entering illegally.
But a wall is without saying, way past due. We demanded it in the 40s, the 60, 80s, passed it in 2000 and the leftists in the GOP cut its funding.
Now ask yourself, why would they do that, when they waste so much of our treasure on housing and feeding these people?
Gee, could it be, even they know a wall would make it harder to sneak into the country?

IMO, the best reason for a big, tall wall - besides keeping invaders OUT or slowing them down - think of the people who own property on the border, which has become useless.

Quote from: Hoofer on February 16, 2017, 03:31:50 PM
IMO, the best reason for a big, tall wall - besides keeping invaders OUT or slowing them down - think of the people who own property on the border, which has become useless.

Maybe we could finally eliminate that "Constitution Free Zone" that runs along the border...
What a stupid idea that was in the first place, though I understand why they did it, but all it does now is effect Americans and steal their God given Rights.

We do have laws on the books dealing with immigration.

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY
Previous Document | Next Document
INA: ACT 212 - GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND
INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY

Sec. 212. [8 U.S.C. 1182]

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise
provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs
are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United
States:

(1) Health-related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien-

(i) who is
determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health
significance; 1b

(ii) 1except as provided in subparagraph (C) 1a who seeks admission as an
immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, and who has failed to present documentation of
having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall
include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus
and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any
other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the
Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices,

(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney
General)-

(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the
disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or
welfare of the alien or others, or

(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior
associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property,
safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur
or to lead to other harmful behavior, or

(iv) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict, is
inadmissible.

(B) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of certain clauses of
subparagraph (A), see subsection (g).

(C) 1EXCEPTION FROM IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENT FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN 10 YEARS
OF AGE OR YOUNGER.--Clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a child
who--

(i) is 10 years of age or younger,

(ii) is described in section subparagraph (F) or (G) of section
101(b)(1)(F),
and
1c

(iii) is seeking an immigrant visa as an immediate relative under section
201(b), if, prior to the admission of the child, an adoptive parent or
prospective adoptive parent of the child, who has sponsored the child for
admission as an immediate relative, has executed an affidavit stating that the
parent is aware of the provisions of subparagraph (A)(ii) and will ensure that,
within 30 days of the child's admission, or at the earliest time that is
medically appropriate, the child will receive the vaccinations identified in
such subparagraph.

(2) Criminal and related grounds.-

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or
who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the
essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense)
or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or
regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a
controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only
one crime if-

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the
crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or
correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the
date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of
application for admission to the United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was
convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that
the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not
exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime,
the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months
(regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

(B) Multiple criminal convictions.-Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses
(other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was
in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of
misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for
which the aggregate sentences to confinement 2 were 5 years or more is
inadmissible.

(C) 2aCONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TRAFFICKERS- Any alien who the consular officer
or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe--

(i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in
any listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 802)), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister,
conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such
controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so; or

(ii) is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i),
has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from
the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known
that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is
inadmissible.

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-

(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to
engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the
date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,

(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10
years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status)
procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the
purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10- year period) received,
in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or

(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful
commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution, is inadmissible.

(E) Certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted
immunity from prosecution.-Any alien-

(i) who has committed in the United States at any time a serious criminal
offense (as defined in section
101(h)),

(ii) for whom immunity from criminal jurisdiction was exercised with respect
to that offense,

(iii) who as a consequence of the offense and exercise of immunity has
departed from the United States, and

(iv) who has not subsequently submitted fully to the jurisdiction of the
court in the United States having jurisdiction with respect to that offense, is
inadmissible.

(F) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of certain
subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).

(G) 2b2cFOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED PARTICULARLY
SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- Any alien who, while serving as a
foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any
time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section
3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is
inadmissible.

(H) 2bbSIGNIFICANT TRAFFICKERS IN PERSONS-

(i) IN GENERAL- Any alien who commits or conspires to commit human
trafficking offenses in the United States or outside the United States, 42 or
who the consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
State, 42 or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been
a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with such a
trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in the section
103 of such Act, is inadmissible.

(ii) BENEFICIARIES OF TRAFFICKING- Except as provided in clause (iii), any
alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to
believe is the spouse, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i),
has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from
the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known
that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is
inadmissible.

(iii) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN SONS AND DAUGHTERS- Clause (ii) shall not apply
to a son or daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the benefit
described in such clause.

(I) 2bbbMONEY LAUNDERING- Any alien--

(i) who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to
believe, has engaged, is engaging, or seeks to enter the United States to
engage, in an offense which is described in section 1956 or 1957 of title 18,
United States Code (relating to laundering of monetary instruments); or

(ii) who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows is, or has been, a
knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in an
offense which is described in such section; is inadmissible.

(3) Security and related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General
knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to
engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to
espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export
from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,

(ii) any other unlawful activity, or

(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
unlawful means, is inadmissible.

(B)
Terrorist activities-

(i) 3
4
4aIN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity,

(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland
Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely
to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));

(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or
serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--

(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or

(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist
activity;

(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or
(II) of clause (vi);

(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III),
unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien
did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization;

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse
or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1)
of title 18, United States Code) from or on behalf of any organization that, at
the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in
clause (vi)); or

(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this
subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible
occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible.

An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

4 (ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (IX)
4d of clause(i) does not apply to a spouse
or child--

(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity
causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to
believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible
under this section.

4 (iii)
TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term "terrorist
activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where
it is committed (or which, if 4 it had been committed in the United States,
would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which
involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft,
vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue
to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a
governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or
implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined
in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of
such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any-

(aa) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(bb) explosive, 4 firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than
for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or
indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage
to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

(iv) 44bENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the
term "engage in terrorist activity" means, in an individual capacity or as a
member of an organization-

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an
intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the
solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know,
and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist
organization;

(V) to solicit any individual--

(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;

(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I)
or (vi)(II); or

(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III)
unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he
did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization; or

(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know,
affords material support, including a safe house, transportation,
communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit,
false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological,
or radiological weapons), explosives, or training--

(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has
committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause
(vi) or to any member of such an organization; or

(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any
member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have
known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.

5 (v) REPRESENTATIVE DEFINED.-As used in this paragraph, the term
"representative" includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization,
and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or
its members to engage in terrorist activity.

(vi) 5a4cTERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in this section, the term
'terrorist organization' means an organization?

(I) designated under section
219;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the
Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney
General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization,
after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in
subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not,
which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described
in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

(C) Foreign policy.-

(i) In general.-An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United
States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is
inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for officials.-An alien who is an official of a foreign
government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a
foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election
for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or
conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of
the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if
such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United
States.

(iii) Exception for other aliens.-An alien, not described in clause (ii),
shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into
the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or
expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or
associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of
State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a
compelling United States foreign policy interest.

(iv) Notification of determinations.-If a determination is made under clause
(iii) with respect to an alien, the Secretary of State must notify on a timely
basis the chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives and of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign
Relations of the Senate of the identity of the alien and the reasons for the
determination.

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-

(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated
with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate
thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an
alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the
satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the
membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under
16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment,
food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such
purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membership.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien
because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the
satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that-

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least-

(aa) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(bb) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien
whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of
a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(iv) Exception for close family members.-The Attorney General may, in the
Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case
of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of
a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure
family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is
not a threat to the security of the United States.

(E) 5aaaPARTICIPANTS IN NAZI PERSECUTION, GENOCIDE, OR THE COMMISSION OF
ANY ACT OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING

(i) Participation in nazi persecutions.-Any alien who, during the period
beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of,
or in association with-

(I) the Nazi government of Germany,

(II) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi
government of Germany,

(III) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the
Nazi government of Germany, or

(IV) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany,
ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any
person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is
inadmissible.

(ii) Participation in genocide.-Any alien who
5aaa ordered, incited,
assisted, or otherwise participated 5ab in genocide, as defined in section
1091(a) of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible.

(iii) 5aaa COMMISSION OF ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS- Any
alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted,
or otherwise participated in the commission of--

(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States
Code; or

(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as
defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C.
1350 note), is inadmissible.

5aa (F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the
Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has
been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United
States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could
endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

(G) 41 RECRUITMENT OR USE OF CHILD SOLDIERS- Any alien who has engaged in
the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title
18, United States Code, is inadmissible.

(4) Public charge.-

(A) In general.-Any
alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for
a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for
admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public
charge is inadmissible.
6

(B) Factors to be taken into account.- (i)
In determining whether an alien is
excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General
shall at a minimum consider the alien's-

(I) age;

(II) health;

(III) family status;

(IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and

(V) education and skills

(ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the
Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section
213A
for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

(C) Family-Sponsored immigrants.-Any alien who seeks admission or adjustment
of status under a visa issued under section 201(b)(2) or
203(a) is excludable
under this paragraph unless-

((i) the alien has obtained-

(I) status as a spouse or a child of a United States citizen pursuant to
clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) or section 204(a)(1)(A), or

(II) classification pursuant to clause (ii) or (iii) of section
204(a)(1)(B);

6aa

(III) 6aa classification or status as a VAWA self-petitioner; or

(ii) the person petitioning for the alien's admission
6aa (and any additional
sponsor required under section
213A(f) or any alternative sponsor permitted
under paragraph (5)(B) of such section) has executed an affidavit of support
described in section
213A with respect to such alien.

(D) Certain employment-based immigrants.-Any alien who seeks admission or
adjustment of status under a visa number issued under section 203(b) by virtue
of a classification petition filed by a relative of the alien (or by an entity
in which such relative has a significant ownership interest) is excludable under
this paragraph unless such relative has executed an affidavit of support
described in section
213A with respect to such alien.

(E)
6ab Special Rule for Qualified Aliens. - Subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) shall not apply to an alien who -

(i) is a VAWA self-petitioner;

(ii) is an applicant for, or is granted, nonimmigrant status
under section 101(a)(15)(U); or

(iii) is a qualified alien described in section 431(c) of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1641(c)).

(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-

(A) Labor certification.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the
purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the
Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and
the Attorney General that-

(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or
equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and
available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United
States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled
labor, and

(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and
working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.

(ii) Certain aliens subject to special rule.-For purposes of clause (i)(I),
an alien described in this clause is an alien who-

(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or

(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.

(iii) 7PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES-

(I) In general.-A certification made under clause (i) with
respect to a professional athlete shall remain valid with respect to the athlete
after the athlete changes employer, if the new employer is a team in the same
sport as the team which employed the athlete when the athlete first applied for
certification.

(II) Definition.-For purposes of subclause (I), the term "professional
athlete" means an individual who is employed as an athlete by-

(aa) a team that is a member of an association of 6 or more
professional sports teams whose total combined revenues exceed $10,000,000 per
year, if the association governs the conduct of its members and regulates the
contests and exhibitions in which its member teams regularly engage; or

(bb) any minor league team that is affiliated with such an association.

(iv) 7LONG DELAYED ADJUSTMENT APPLICANTS- A certification made under clause
(i) with respect to an individual whose petition is covered by section
204(j)
shall remain valid with respect to a new job accepted by the individual after
the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a
similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification was
issued.

(B) Unqualified physicians.-An alien who is a graduate of a medical school
not accredited by a body or bodies approved for the purpose by the Secretary of
Education (regardless of whether such school of medicine is in the United
States) and who is coming to the United States principally to perform services
as a member of the medical profession is inadmissible, unless the alien (i) has
passed parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners Examination (or
an equivalent examination as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services) and (ii) is competent in oral and written English. For purposes of the
previous sentence, an alien who is a graduate of a medical school shall be
considered to have passed parts I and II of the National Board of Medical
Examiners if the alien was fully and permanently licensed to practice medicine
in a State on January 9, 1978, and was practicing medicine in a State on that
date.

(C) Uncertified foreign health-care workers
7 Subject to subsection (r),
any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing
labor as a health-care worker, other than a physician, is excludable unless the
alien presents to the consular officer, or, in the case of an adjustment of
status, the Attorney General, a certificate from the Commission on Graduates of
Foreign Nursing Schools, or a certificate from an equivalent independent
credentialing organization approved by the Attorney General in consultation with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, verifying that-

(i) the alien's education, training, license, and experience-

(I) meet all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for entry into
the United States under the classification specified in the application;

(II) are comparable with that required for an American health-care worker of
the same type; and

(III) are authentic and, in the case of a license, unencumbered;

(ii) the alien has the level of competence in oral and written English
considered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with
the Secretary of Education, to be appropriate for health care work of the kind
in which the alien will be engaged, as shown by an appropriate score on one or
more nationally recognized, commercially available, standardized assessments of
the applicant's ability to speak and write; and

(iii) if a majority of States licensing the profession in which the alien
intends to work recognize a test predicting the success on the profession's
licensing or certification examination, the alien has passed such a test, or has
passed such an examination.

For purposes of clause (ii), determination of the standardized tests required
and of the minimum scores that are appropriate are within the sole discretion of
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and are not subject to further
administrative or judicial review.

(D) Application of grounds.-The grounds of inadmissibility of aliens under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to immigrants seeking admission or
adjustment of status under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b).

(6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators.-

(A)

8ALIENS PRESENT WITHOUT admission or parole.-

(i) In general.-An alien present in the United States without being admitted
or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than
as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for certain battered women and children.-Clause (hall not
apply to an alien who demonstrates that-

(I) the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner;
6aa

(II)(II)(a) the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a
spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse's or parent's family residing in
the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced
to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien's child has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the
active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of
the spouse's or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien
when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty
and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and

(III) there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty
described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien's unlawful entry into the
United States.

(B) Failure to attend removal proceeding.-Any alien who without reasonable
cause fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to
determine the alien's inadmissibility or deportability and who seeks admission
to the United States within 5 years of such alien's subsequent departure or
removal is inadmissible.

(C) Misrepresentation.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a
material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a
visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit
provided under this Act is inadmissible.

(ii)

9FALSELY CLAIMING CITIZENSHIP-

(I) IN GENERAL- Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented,
himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or
benefit under this Act (including section
274A) or any other Federal or State
law is inadmissible.

(II) EXCEPTION- In the case of an alien making a representation described in
subclause (I), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an
adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether
by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States
prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time
of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not
be considered to be inadmissible under any provision of this subsection based on
such representation.

(iii) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (I).

(D) Stowaways.-Any alien who is a stowaway is inadmissible.

(E) Smugglers.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced,
assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the
United States in violation of law is inadmissible.

(ii) Special rule in the case of family reunification.-Clause (i) shall not
apply in the case of alien who is an eligible immigrant (as defined in section
301(b)(1) of the Immigration Act of 1990), was physically present in the United
States on May 5, 1988, and is seeking admission as an immediate relative or
under section
203(a)(2) (including under section 112 of the Immigration Act of
1990) or benefits under section
301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 if the
alien, before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided
only the alien's spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to
enter the United States in violation of law.

(iii) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (d)(11).

(F) Subject of civil penalty.-

(i) In general.-An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of
section
274C is inadmissible.

(ii)(ii) Waiver authorized.-For provision
authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (d)(12).
10

(G) Student visa abusers.-An alien who obtains the status of a nonimmigrant
under section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) and who violates a term or condition of such
status under section
214(l)
is excludable until the alien has been outside the United States for a
continuous period of 5 years after the date of the violation.
11

(7) Documentation requirements.-

(A) Immigrants.-

(i) In general.-Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, any
immigrant at the time of application for admission-

(I) who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry
permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document
required by this Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel
document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required
under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section
211(a) or

(II) whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of
section 203, is inadmissible.

(ii) Waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see
subsection (k).

(B) Nonimmigrants.-

(i) In general.-Any nonimmigrant who-

(I) is not in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six months from
the date of the expiration of the initial period of the alien's admission or
contemplated initial period of stay authorizing the alien to return to the
country from which the alien came or to proceed to and enter some other country
during such period, or

(II) is not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing
identification card at the time of application for admission, is inadmissible.

(ii) General waiver authorized.-For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i),
see subsection (d)(4).

(iii) GUAM AND
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS VISA WAIVER- For provision authorizing waiver of clause
(i) in the case of visitors to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, see subsection (l).
38

(iv) VISA WAIVER 11 PROGRAM.-For authority to waive the requirement of
clause (i) under a 11a program, see section
217.

(8) Ineligible for citizenship.-

(A) In general.-Any immigrant who is permanently ineligible to citizenship is
inadmissible.

(B) Draft evaders.-Any person who has departed from or who has remained
outside the United States to avoid or evade training or service in the armed
forces in time of war or a period declared by the President to be a national
emergency is inadmissible, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to an
alien who at the time of such departure was a nonimmigrant and who is seeking to
reenter the United States as a nonimmigrant.

(9) 12ALIENS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.-

(A) Certain aliens previously removed.-

(i) Arriving aliens.-Any alien who has been ordered removed under section
235(b)(1) or at the end of proceedings under section 240 initiated upon the
alien's arrival in the United States and who again seeks admission within 5
years of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or
subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an
aggravated felony) is inadmissible.

(ii) Other aliens.-Any alien not described in clause (i) who-

(I) has been ordered removed under section
240 or any other provision of law,
or

(II) departed the United States while an order of removal was outstanding,
and who seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien's departure or
removal (or within 20 years of such date in the case of a second or subsequent
removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated
felony) is inadmissible.

(iii) Exception.-Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply to an alien seeking
admission within a period if, prior to the date of the alien's reembarkation at
a place outside the United States or attempt to be admitted from foreign
contiguous territory, the Attorney General has consented to the alien's
reapplying for admission.

(B) 13ALIENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT.-

(i) In general.-Any alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence) who-

(I) was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180
days but less than 1 year, voluntarily departed the United States (whether or
not pursuant to section
244(e)) prior to the commencement of proceedings under
section
235(b)(1) or section
240, and again seeks admission within 3 years of
the date of such alien's departure or removal, or

(II) has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more,
and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien's
departure or removal from the United States is inadmissible.

(ii) Construction of unlawful presence.-For purposes of this paragraph, an
alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is
present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay
authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled.

(iii) Exceptions.-

(I) Minors.-No period of time in which an alien is under 18 years of age
shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence in
the United States under clause (i).

(II) Asylees.-No period of time in which an alien has a bona fide application
for asylum pending under section
208 shall be taken into account in determining
the period of unlawful presence in the United States under clause (i) unless the
alien during such period was employed without authorization in the United
States.

(III) Family unity.-No period of time in which the alien is a beneficiary of
family unity protection pursuant to section
301 of the Immigration Act of 1990
14 shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence
in the United States under clause (i).

(IV) Battered women and children.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who
would be described in paragraph (6)(A)(ii) if "violation of the terms of the
alien's nonimmigrant visa" were substituted for "unlawful entry into the United
States" in subclause (III) of that paragraph.

(V) 13aVICTIMS OF A SEVERE FORM OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS- Clause (i) shall
not apply to an alien who demonstrates that the severe form of trafficking (as
that term is defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)) was at least one central reason for the alien's unlawful
presence in the United States.

(iv) Tolling for good cause.-In the case of an alien who-

(I) has been lawfully admitted or paroled into the United States,

(II) has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status
before the date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney
General, and

(III) has not been employed without authorization in the United States before
or during the pendency of such application, the calculation of the period of time
specified in clause (i)(I) shall be tolled during the pendency of such
application, but not to exceed 120 days.

(v) Waiver.-The Attorney General has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in
the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States
citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is
established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of
admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the
citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien. No court shall have
jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the Attorney General regarding a
waiver under this clause.

(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who-

(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period
of more than 1 year, or

(II) has been ordered removed under section
235(b)(1), section
240, or any
other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States
without being admitted is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more
than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United
States if, prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United
States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a6aa the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying
for admission.

(iii) 6aaWAIVER- The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the
application of clause (i) in the case of an alien who is a VAWA self-petitioner
if there is a connection between--

(I) the alien's battering or subjection to extreme cruelty; and

(II) the alien's removal, departure from the United States, reentry or
reentries into the United States; or attempted reentry into the United States.

(10) 15MISCELLANEOUS.-

(A) Practicing polygamists.-Any immigrant who is coming to the United States
to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

(B) Guardian required to accompany helpless alien.-Any alien-

(i) who is accompanying another alien who is inadmissible and who is
certified to be helpless from sickness, mental or physical disability, or
infancy pursuant to section
232(c), and

(ii) whose protection or guardianship is determined to be
required by the alien described in clause (I), is inadmissible.
16

(C) International child abduction.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien who, after entry
of an order by a court in the United States granting custody to a person of a
United States citizen child who detains or retains the child, or withholds
custody of the child, outside the United States from the person granted custody
by that order, is inadmissible until the child is surrendered to the person
granted custody by that order.

16a
  (ii) ALIENS SUPPORTING ABDUCTORS AND RELATIVES OF ABDUCTORS. -- Any
alien who--

(I) is known by the Secretary of State to have intentionally assisted an
alien in the conduct described in clause (i),

(II) is known by the Secretary of State to be intentionally providing
material support or safe haven to an alien described in clause (i), or

(III) is a spouse (other than the spouse who is the parent of the abducted
child), child (other than the abducted child), parent, sibling, or agent of an
alien described in clause (i), if such person has been designated by the
Secretary of State at the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, is
inadmissible until the child described in clause (i) is surrendered to the
person granted custody by the order described in that clause, and such person
and child are permitted to return to the United States or such person's place of
residence.

(iii) EXCEPTIONS. -- Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply--

(I) to a government official of the United States who is acting within the
scope of his or her official duties;

(II) to a government official of any foreign government if the official has
been designated by the Secretary of State at the Secretary's sole and
unreviewable discretion; or

(III) so long as the child is located in a foreign state that is a party to
the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at
The Hague on October 25, 1980.

(D) 17UNLAWFUL VOTERS-

(i) IN GENERAL- Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State,
or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is
inadmissible.

(ii) EXCEPTION- In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or
local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of
a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien
(or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or
was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently
resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien
reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen,
the alien shall not be considered to be inadmissible under any provision of this
subsection based on such violation.

(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid
taxation.-Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially
renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney
General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding
taxation by the United States is excludable.
18

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 03:04:32 PM
The forum has convinced me of this: Put the money on the laws and rigorously enforce. Leave the wall for another day if the enforcement isn't enough. Put some of the money into badly needed infrastructure.

Then you are misreading the forum. Enforcing the laws already on the books is definitely needed, especially laws which forbid employment of people who enter the country illegally. But with the exception of the employment laws, enforcement of immigration laws has a significant cost associated with it. It takes money to find, arrest, process, temporarily house and feed, and transport back home the millions of people who enter illegally every year. These costs are one of the BS excuses used by the left to support amnesty. (Of course they then neglect the cost of providing them with education, welfare, etc...) Estimated costs of deporting illegal immigrants vary, but a 2011 report gives an estimate of $12,500 to arrest, detain, and deport an illegal immigrant. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-estimate-deportation-costs-12500-person)

There are numerous articles on the costs of mass deportation of those currently residing in the U.S. illegally which use an estimate of $10,000 per person, but the use of mass deportation is not what I am talking about. So I am using the official $12,500 estimate given by Customs Enforcement deputy director Kumar Kibble given to congress in 2011.

At the estimated price of $12,500 per person, the wall only needs to prevent 1,000,000 people from crossing our border illegally to pay for itself.  Assuming the wall only cuts illegal border crossings in half, (IMO a very low estimate if a wall is properly designed) then we would save the costs of some 360,000 per year. The wall pays for itself in less than 3 years.  Assuming the wall cuts illegal border crossings by 80% (a much more realistic estimate, IMO) we would save deportation costs of some 575,000 people per year, and the wall pays for itself in less than two years.

And that's just the costs of deportation. Add in the savings to communities and states from NOT having to deal with all those illegal immigrants BEFORE they are arrested, detained, and deported, and the total savings would very likely pay for the wall within a single year.

Quote from: Solar on February 16, 2017, 03:16:35 PM
How am I exasperating, is it that you have a problem debating?
As I stated, enforce the law on the books, one other point, remove all incentives to entering illegally.
But a wall is without saying, way past due. We demanded it in the 40s, the 60, 80s, passed it in 2000 and the leftists in the GOP cut its funding.
Now ask yourself, why would they do that, when they waste so much of our treasure on housing and feeding these people?
Gee, could it be, even they know a wall would make it harder to sneak into the country?

We're on the same page ... except for the wall.

My exasperation is that a debate assumes that rational points of view will at least be considered. I agree with a deterrent as another line of difficulty, but the wall is so, so costly and the cost is ongoing and the games to cross will just escalate. So why not put the energy on enforcement of those who bring them over and force the demand to zero. But you indicated a trade of $12B for the wall against $100B for current costs. But the costs are much more than that due to the other factors mentioned earlier. You can't seem to disagree but admit the points are valid.

It sounds like you'll get your way - Trump will build the wall in spite of less costly alternatives because his word is on the line.

Thanks for digging out the laws. It would have taken awhile for me to find - if I ever found them. Very helpful.

You don't need the snarky side ... you know your way around this stuff and sharing your knowledge (teaching) is much more helpful / encouraging to useful dialogue. That's a complement if you didn't notice.

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 05:31:37 PM
We're on the same page ... except for the wall.

My exasperation is that a debate assumes that rational points of view will at least be considered. I agree with a deterrent as another line of difficulty, but the wall is so, so costly and the cost is ongoing and the games to cross will just escalate. So why not put the energy on enforcement of those who bring them over and force the demand to zero. But you indicated a trade of $12B for the wall against $100B for current costs. But the costs are much more than that due to the other factors mentioned earlier. You can't seem to disagree but admit the points are valid.

I'll paint a picture maybe you can understand. This is your dream home, you worked hard for it.
You own a beautiful home in a nice neighborhood, huge private, immaculately landscaped parcel with tall hedges, no fence needed, Hell, the contractor didn't even install door locks.
The neighbor sells to the city, they turn the house into a homeless shelter.
You come home, only to find tents all over your property, feces in your living room, your landscaping ripped out and used for bedding, and the place is a mess and authorities claim their hands are tied, there's nothing they can do.
Your complaints are met with insults of "Bigot", snob!
So you install a security system, only to find it gone the next night.
Just imagine what a fence would do, add to that, door locks.

QuoteIt sounds like you'll get your way - Trump will build the wall in spite of less costly alternatives because his word is on the line.

Thanks for digging out the laws. It would have taken awhile for me to find - if I ever found them. Very helpful.

You don't need the snarky side ... you know your way around this stuff and sharing your knowledge (teaching) is much more helpful / encouraging to useful dialogue. That's a compliment if you didn't notice.

I'm a Ca native, I've lived with this problem for nearly 50 years, no, we didn't have it in the early 60s and with one party giving them free birthing at hospitals, welfare, and food, while the other party feigns contempt for their actions.
To think, all we had to do was build a border fence and enforce the laws, take away the bait and the problem would solve itself.
But unless you build a wall, you're merely herding cats, because they'll just see it as an open invitation unless you slam the door in their face.
Sometimes it's not what you say, but what you do that carries the most weight.....

Quote from: topside on February 16, 2017, 05:31:37 PM
We're on the same page ... except for the wall.

My exasperation is that a debate assumes that rational points of view will at least be considered. I agree with a deterrent as another line of difficulty, but the wall is so, so costly and the cost is ongoing and the games to cross will just escalate. So why not put the energy on enforcement of those who bring them over and force the demand to zero. But you indicated a trade of $12B for the wall against $100B for current costs. But the costs are much more than that due to the other factors mentioned earlier. You can't seem to disagree but admit the points are valid.

It sounds like you'll get your way - Trump will build the wall in spite of less costly alternatives because his word is on the line.

Thanks for digging out the laws. It would have taken awhile for me to find - if I ever found them. Very helpful.

You don't need the snarky side ... you know your way around this stuff and sharing your knowledge (teaching) is much more helpful / encouraging to useful dialogue. That's a complement if you didn't notice.

You are assuming that the people who employ illegal immigrants are the only enticement to their entry into this country.  There are others, including states like CA that deliberately treat illegal immigrants as citizenry (better than the citizenry - the illegals get the free stuff, the citizens have to pay for it.) Separation of powers make it extremely difficult for the federal government to bring CA (and others) to task for their actions. And, no, I do not believe changing the balance of powers even farther in favor of federal authority is the answer to that, as shifting our republic to even more federal power has its own unintended consequences. As such, thinking that if we only end illegal employment will bring illegal immigration to zero is not a defensible argument.

What we need is both: a significant physical barrier to cross our border, AND enforcement of laws to decrease the enticement to cross over.  Decreased enticement PLUS a wall to discourage those who think they can flout the law. The savings in deportation costs by themselves will pay for the wall over just a few years, with the added savings to our economic infrastructure as frosting on the cake.

To not put in a wall is ridiculous and quite frankly, not an option. We need to build a barrier WALL and then DEPORT them all!  Right now, there are areas of the wall, that the illegals can catapult over or take a ladder and climb over.  We need a substantial barrier wall built like they have erected along the border in Israel.  Once the wall is built there needs to be a trench dug about 3 feet in from the wall and that trench should contain land mines.  Another 5 feet or so in from that we need to have manpower in place; foot soldiers, drones and cameras.  Most importantly, we need to announce that the United States of America has adopted a zero tolerance for illegal immigration and land mines are in place as well as foot soldiers who are allowed to shoot at anyone making it across the mine field.  I can almost guarantee that reports of one or two casualties sent to the countries surrounding the border (mainly Mexico) and our illegal immigration problem will be solved.

While this wall is being built, President Trump should stop ALL immigration into this country.  Once the barrier wall is built, set quotas to allow LEGAL immigration into the U.S. from various different 'qualified' non-terrorist countries.

Quote from: zewazir on February 16, 2017, 07:48:47 PM
You are assuming that the people who employ illegal immigrants are the only enticement to their entry into this country.  There are others, including states like CA that deliberately treat illegal immigrants as citizenry (better than the citizenry - the illegals get the free stuff, the citizens have to pay for it.) Separation of powers make it extremely difficult for the federal government to bring CA (and others) to task for their actions. And, no, I do not believe changing the balance of powers even farther in favor of federal authority is the answer to that, as shifting our republic to even more federal power has its own unintended consequences. As such, thinking that if we only end illegal employment will bring illegal immigration to zero is not a defensible argument.

What we need is both: a significant physical barrier to cross our border, AND enforcement of laws to decrease the enticement to cross over.  Decreased enticement PLUS a wall to discourage those who think they can flout the law. The savings in deportation costs by themselves will pay for the wall over just a few years, with the added savings to our economic infrastructure as frosting on the cake.

It's really bad here in Ca. My wife works fraud in govt, she said it's against the law for a welfare worker to ask for proof of citizenship, in other words, anyone can walk in, and walk out with a monthly check, free health care, as well as free food, even you, even me, a guy that retired ages back, they pretty much can't make you prove who you are.

Incentives, what's that? :glare:

According to Piglosi, those that want a wall are fear mongers!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/want-a-border-wall-nancy-pelosi-says-youre-just-a-fear-monger

Quote from: patriotlass on February 16, 2017, 09:18:54 PM
According to Piglosi, those that want a wall are fear mongers!

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/want-a-border-wall-nancy-pelosi-says-youre-just-a-fear-monger

The same brain dead donkey's sphincter who thinks we have to pass laws before we're allowed to know what they say.  I'd care more about the opinion of pond scum that hers.

Quote from: taxed on February 16, 2017, 02:10:37 PM
I'd like to microchip the illegals like we do with those humpback whales, and then slingshot them back over the border.

Howsabout use them for sandbags, in northern California? When the waters recede just float the bodies downstream and let Baja take care of it. 

I think we have a new open borders lib among us.

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 17, 2017, 04:22:49 AM
I think we have a new open borders lib among us.

Topside? I think he's just young and bought into the left's argument and has yet to actually use his own critical thought.
Wonder where he stands on sanctuary cities or if he's even thought it through yet. :biggrin:

Quote from: zewazir on February 16, 2017, 05:09:05 PM
Then you are misreading the forum. Enforcing the laws already on the books is definitely needed, especially laws which forbid employment of people who enter the country illegally. But with the exception of the employment laws, enforcement of immigration laws has a significant cost associated with it. It takes money to find, arrest, process, temporarily house and feed, and transport back home the millions of people who enter illegally every year. These costs are one of the BS excuses used by the left to support amnesty. (Of course they then neglect the cost of providing them with education, welfare, etc...) Estimated costs of deporting illegal immigrants vary, but a 2011 report gives an estimate of $12,500 to arrest, detain, and deport an illegal immigrant. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-estimate-deportation-costs-12500-person)

There are numerous articles on the costs of mass deportation of those currently residing in the U.S. illegally which use an estimate of $10,000 per person, but the use of mass deportation is not what I am talking about. So I am using the official $12,500 estimate given by Customs Enforcement deputy director Kumar Kibble given to congress in 2011.

At the estimated price of $12,500 per person, the wall only needs to prevent 1,000,000 people from crossing our border illegally to pay for itself.  Assuming the wall only cuts illegal border crossings in half, (IMO a very low estimate if a wall is properly designed) then we would save the costs of some 360,000 per year. The wall pays for itself in less than 3 years.  Assuming the wall cuts illegal border crossings by 80% (a much more realistic estimate, IMO) we would save deportation costs of some 575,000 people per year, and the wall pays for itself in less than two years.

And that's just the costs of deportation. Add in the savings to communities and states from NOT having to deal with all those illegal immigrants BEFORE they are arrested, detained, and deported, and the total savings would very likely pay for the wall within a single year.

That's one model. Here's another.

First, two (unverified) pieces of data from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/: There are about 11.1M illegals in the U.S. and of those about 8M are working (illegally). BTW - that data is from 2014 and I'm surprised that the data stops there ... did BO make them stop counting?

Say the we enforce the laws and we start enforcing the laws. Then about 80% of these will stop out of fear of punishment. So say about 1000 businesses are stubborn. If we spend $1M per business enforcing harshly then we spend about $1B to stop the impetus of hiring illegals and stop those crossing to work illegally. The annual expense would go down over time. And we don't have to build, maintain, monitor, and police a wall continually.

This approach still has a problem due to smuggling of drugs and human trafficking. In fact, we do enforce those laws but the payoffs are so lucrative for the bad guys that it's a more difficult problem to stop whether wall or not. The wall is much more effective for that problem though.

Still, I think you will admit it's such a tremendous cost. The $12B is just the entry fee. Just think about monitoring and actively collecting those crossing over a 2000 mile range! It might be possible for enough investment, but just that sounds nearly impossible. And we haven't even counted the northern border if we're serious about stopping easy crossovers from terrorists.

I need to think through your numbers some more - it's a feasible model as well. Not sure which is more accurate though ... i'm still considering. Probably a mix.

But 2000 miles! Seems nearly impossible to keep up with even just looking at that number - on the surface does not seem like the most obvious Plan A. It sure seems like electronic surveillance might be the way to monitor. But you still have the collection and enforcement side. But that only works if we allow the drones to come in and take out the violators in some way. We need a three-day tranquilizer so a minimal staff can go an pick up the smugglers.

There is also this W-band transmitter that I saw - basically puts an assailant in terrible pain. I wonder if you positioned these every mile and controlled them remotely if the smugglers wouldn't get deterred. Nah - they have enough funds to make and wear protective suit. But maybe we get the problem down low enough. Electronics only works if you can damage the crossovers and protect the equipment. You have to damage those crossing to buy time to go pick them up ... plus convince them to stop coming.

I guess that if you tell the illegals that you are going to maim those crossing as part of the war on drugs then they at least know what they are up against. Then you put in protective surveillance on the ground and bring in drones to strike at any crossing. That is probably the most cost effective solution.

Fighting the illegals problem and the drug and human trafficking problem really splits the approach. But if we sweep one up with the worst one, then the picture gets simpler for me anyway.

Quote from: Solar on February 16, 2017, 07:58:21 PM
It's really bad here in Ca. My wife works fraud in govt, she said it's against the law for a welfare worker to ask for proof of citizenship, in other words, anyone can walk in, and walk out with a monthly check, free health care, as well as free food, even you, even me, a guy that retired ages back, they pretty much can't make you prove who you are.

Incentives, what's that? :glare:

Yeah - that's a problem and the problem was increased by OB crusade. That has to be changed too - an easy call there to require valid IDs for the handouts. BTW - thank your wife for stepping in and working that hard area.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 04:26:31 AM
Topside? I think he's just young and bought into the left's argument and has yet to actually use his own critical thought.
Wonder where he stands on sanctuary cities or if he's even thought it through yet. :biggrin:

Really? I think you guys just like trying to get a rise out of me. Not young - I'm just not thinking so one dimensional as you are. I say illegals, you say wall. There are probably about ten reasonable options and I think this ONE option (the wall) is very costly and will just up the games at the border.

No - I'm actually moving to harder Tea than you guys in some of my ideas. We package the problem under the war on drugs, warn all that we're doing it, and use electronic surveillance and action to do bodily harm to any crossing.

And here's another thought that builds advantage. If we build a wall, we end up with 2000 miles of steel. If we work the problem electronically and as humane as possible (still maiming crossovers), we can automate it over time. Then it also gives us a way to do advanced military development and benefits the war on terror too. Now we get two advances for one development. So, enforce the laws immediately (jacks or better), put in a patrolled DMZ with remote surveillance and punishment (shoot crossovers), and advance the tech over time so that robotics can monitor, patrol, and enforce under user command.

For the record, I only heard of sanctuary cities in the past couple years. I live in Ohio - not near any border although illegals are everywhere in the country. When I first heard of sanctuary cities, I thought it was a joke. Still can't believe that it's being allowed by our government.

Some of the folks on this board get tired of hearing this, but here I go once again.

Whenever I enter into discussion about "the wall" I always mention the story of the Manchu general who breached the Greatest Wall of all....the great Wall of China. He did so NOT by force of arms but by Bribing the Chinese General.

He supposedly remarked that "Walls are only as good as the men who man them"

I compare this whole Chinese opera to the modern day situation with illegal aliens. WE DO NOT HAVE GOOD MEN MANNING THE WALLS, I don't mean the border patrol, I mean the people in Washington and elsewhere who, like the CHinese General are betraying their country, the previous admin completely abandon any pretext at enforcing the law and betrayed us all by allowing untold millions of illegals to enter and stay, thus encouraging more.

In many laces they have Usurped our country and, I personally believe, they have corrupted our political system and installed illegal Govts in some areas....California being just one.

You can build whatever kind of wall you want, put camera's on it, drone camera's, land mines or shoulder to shoulder border guards etc etc. BUT unless WASHINGTON changes their attitude, until the TRAITORS who support sanctuary cities change their tune or all get throw in jail where they belong, YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD MEN MANNING THE WALLS

A wall becomes a moot point.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 05:37:34 AM
Really? I think you guys just like trying to get a rise out of me. Not young - I'm just not thinking so one dimensional as you are. I say illegals, you say wall. There are probably about ten reasonable options and I think this ONE option (the wall) is very costly and will just up the games at the border.

No - I'm actually moving to harder Tea than you guys in some of my ideas. We package the problem under the war on drugs, warn all that we're doing it, and use electronic surveillance and action to do bodily harm to any crossing.

And here's another thought that builds advantage. If we build a wall, we end up with 2000 miles of steel. If we work the problem electronically and as humane as possible (still maiming crossovers), we can automate it over time. Then it also gives us a way to do advanced military development and benefits the war on terror too. Now we get two advances for one development. So, enforce the laws immediately (jacks or better), put in a patrolled DMZ with remote surveillance and punishment (shoot crossovers), and advance the tech over time so that robotics can monitor, patrol, and enforce under user command.

For the record, I only heard of sanctuary cities in the past couple years. I live in Ohio - not near any border although illegals are everywhere in the country. When I first heard of sanctuary cities, I thought it was a joke. Still can't believe that it's being allowed by our government.

??  The concept of a wall is to avoid doing bodily harm.  Though I talk of shooting those caught coming across, and land mines ... a substantial and significant barrier WALL needs to be put in place so that we don't have to use force.  A visual barrier wall, sends a clear message of do not enter.  Posting signs with surveillance while actually leaving the border open, accomplishes little.  There was an organization that collected money and would place American flags all along the border and put in some cameras, but if you don't have the manpower to combat all those coming across; cameras are futile.  It's much more difficult to try to climb over a significant physical barrier than it is to cross over land that is being monitored with cameras. 

Out of curiosity do you work for a robotics or surveillance company?

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 05:22:52 AM
Yeah - that's a problem and the problem was increased by OB crusade. That has to be changed too - an easy call there to require valid IDs for the handouts. BTW - thank your wife for stepping in and working that hard area.

Sadly, they can use a fake ID, the worker is not allowed to verify their identity.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 05:37:34 AM
Really? I think you guys just like trying to get a rise out of me. Not young - I'm just not thinking so one dimensional as you are. I say illegals, you say wall. There are probably about ten reasonable options and I think this ONE option (the wall) is very costly and will just up the games at the border.

No - I'm actually moving to harder Tea than you guys in some of my ideas. We package the problem under the war on drugs, warn all that we're doing it, and use electronic surveillance and action to do bodily harm to any crossing.

And here's another thought that builds advantage. If we build a wall, we end up with 2000 miles of steel. If we work the problem electronically and as humane as possible (still maiming crossovers), we can automate it over time. Then it also gives us a way to do advanced military development and benefits the war on terror too. Now we get two advances for one development. So, enforce the laws immediately (jacks or better), put in a patrolled DMZ with remote surveillance and punishment (shoot crossovers), and advance the tech over time so that robotics can monitor, patrol, and enforce under user command.

For the record, I only heard of sanctuary cities in the past couple years. I live in Ohio - not near any border although illegals are everywhere in the country. When I first heard of sanctuary cities, I thought it was a joke. Still can't believe that it's being allowed by our government.

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that the border stretches across miles, and endless miles of open desert, it does not!
Farms and ranches run the length of the border in places, people's property trampled, crops destroyed, all because the pols refuse to seal the damn border.
As I pointed out quite clearly with the home ownership and the invasion of "your" property being destroyed, in hope that maybe you'd see the urgency of the issue. But no, you think it's OK to set up auto gun turrets, put the lives of Americans at risk in the process, think nothing of the criminal element looking for hostages as they flee authorities or the occasional pedophile sneaking across for a quickie.
Noooo, a wall would be too costly, yet not once do you consider the lives of the innocents being taken on a regular basis all because we didn't close the gate first.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 05:09:38 AM
That's one model. Here's another.

First, two (unverified) pieces of data from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/: There are about 11.1M illegals in the U.S. and of those about 8M are working (illegally). BTW - that data is from 2014 and I'm surprised that the data stops there ... did BO make them stop counting?

Say the we enforce the laws and we start enforcing the laws. Then about 80% of these will stop out of fear of punishment. So say about 1000 businesses are stubborn. If we spend $1M per business enforcing harshly then we spend about $1B to stop the impetus of hiring illegals and stop those crossing to work illegally. The annual expense would go down over time. And we don't have to build, maintain, monitor, and police a wall continually.

This approach still has a problem due to smuggling of drugs and human trafficking. In fact, we do enforce those laws but the payoffs are so lucrative for the bad guys that it's a more difficult problem to stop whether wall or not. The wall is much more effective for that problem though.

Still, I think you will admit it's such a tremendous cost. The $12B is just the entry fee. Just think about monitoring and actively collecting those crossing over a 2000 mile range! It might be possible for enough investment, but just that sounds nearly impossible. And we haven't even counted the northern border if we're serious about stopping easy crossovers from terrorists.

I need to think through your numbers some more - it's a feasible model as well. Not sure which is more accurate though ... i'm still considering. Probably a mix.

But 2000 miles! Seems nearly impossible to keep up with even just looking at that number - on the surface does not seem like the most obvious Plan A. It sure seems like electronic surveillance might be the way to monitor. But you still have the collection and enforcement side. But that only works if we allow the drones to come in and take out the violators in some way. We need a three-day tranquilizer so a minimal staff can go an pick up the smugglers.

There is also this W-band transmitter that I saw - basically puts an assailant in terrible pain. I wonder if you positioned these every mile and controlled them remotely if the smugglers wouldn't get deterred. Nah - they have enough funds to make and wear protective suit. But maybe we get the problem down low enough. Electronics only works if you can damage the crossovers and protect the equipment. You have to damage those crossing to buy time to go pick them up ... plus convince them to stop coming.

I guess that if you tell the illegals that you are going to maim those crossing as part of the war on drugs then they at least know what they are up against. Then you put in protective surveillance on the ground and bring in drones to strike at any crossing. That is probably the most cost effective solution.

Fighting the illegals problem and the drug and human trafficking problem really splits the approach. But if we sweep one up with the worst one, then the picture gets simpler for me anyway.

Good grief!  You think we are not already spending money monitoring the border and "actively collecting" (personally, I would use the term interdicting) illegal border crossers along a 2000 (actually a bit under 1600) mile border WITHOUT a wall to help?  I think you are not looking at the total picture.  You argue as if having a wall will INCREASE the expenses of patrolling and interdicting our border. That argument makes zero sense.  How is patrolling a wall more expensive than patrolling an uncontrolled border?  In every scenario I can think of, patrolling a wall will be cheaper than patrolling an open border, and will bring about more positive results - without having to hurt anyone. The first effect of a good barrier will be to discourage most from even trying to cross. The second effect will be to make it far easier to patrol and interdict because it will take crossers time to scale the wall, thus slowing them down enough to catch them, if not in the act of climbing the wall, at least soon after having scaled it. They won't have enough time to approach the wall, scale it, get down the other side AND get far enough away to evade capture before the patrol gets there.  Conversely, with an open border crossers have nothing to slow them down, and are long gone by the time a patrol gets there, assuming their crossing was detected in the first place.

And shifting the argument to focus on those already in the US does not help your point at all.  Obviously building a wall is not going to do anything about those who have already entered the US illegally. Frankly, enforcing the laws against employing those people won't do much about those already here, either.  You think they're going to take the attitude "Well, can't get work, so may as well go back to Mexico!"  Ummm ...... I don't think so. We'll just end up with a whole lot more of them on welfare sucking up taxpayer dollars. Bottom line: dealing with those already here is a whole nuther topic from the purpose of building a wall.  The wall is to prevent us facing a situation where we are trying to deal with 50 million illegals a decade from now.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 06:15:49 AM
Sadly, they can use a fake ID, the worker is not allowed to verify their identity.

Exactly.

Quote from: zewazir on February 17, 2017, 10:53:34 AM
Good grief!  You think we are not already spending money monitoring the border and "actively collecting" (personally, I would use the term interdicting) illegal border crossers along a 2000 (actually a bit under 1600) mile border WITHOUT a wall to help?  I think you are not looking at the total picture.  You argue as if having a wall will INCREASE the expenses of patrolling and interdicting our border. That argument makes zero sense.  How is patrolling a wall more expensive than patrolling an uncontrolled border?  In every scenario I can think of, patrolling a wall will be cheaper than patrolling an open border, and will bring about more positive results - without having to hurt anyone. The first effect of a good barrier will be to discourage most from even trying to cross. The second effect will be to make it far easier to patrol and interdict because it will take crossers time to scale the wall, thus slowing them down enough to catch them, if not in the act of climbing the wall, at least soon after having scaled it. They won't have enough time to approach the wall, scale it, get down the other side AND get far enough away to evade capture before the patrol gets there.  Conversely, with an open border crossers have nothing to slow them down, and are long gone by the time a patrol gets there, assuming their crossing was detected in the first place.

And shifting the argument to focus on those already in the US does not help your point at all.  Obviously building a wall is not going to do anything about those who have already entered the US illegally. Frankly, enforcing the laws against employing those people won't do much about those already here, either.  You think they're going to take the attitude "Well, can't get work, so may as well go back to Mexico!"  Ummm ...... I don't think so. We'll just end up with a whole lot more of them on welfare sucking up taxpayer dollars. Bottom line: dealing with those already here is a whole nuther topic from the purpose of building a wall.  The wall is to prevent us facing a situation where we are trying to deal with 50 million illegals a decade from now.

How is it he misses the simple fact, that a wall stops vehicles from crossing at high rates of speed.
A wall limits their ability to flee once on our side.

Hmmmm, what have I been saying?

Study Finds Trump's Wall Could Pay For Itself More Than 8 Times Over

QuoteIn a blow to left-wing amnesty advocates who say President Donald Trump's proposed border wall would be fiscally irresponsible, a new study out from the Center for Immigration Studies has found that President Donald Trump's proposed border wall only has to stop about nine to 12 percent of all illegal alien border crossers to pay for itself over the next 10 years.

In fact, the amount of money the United States would save by preventing illegal immigration at the U.S. border over next ten years could end up paying for the border wall about eight times over, according to this analysis.

More at:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/study-finds-stopping-just-12-illegal-aliens-would-pay-border-wall-0

Quote from: patriotlass on February 17, 2017, 06:01:35 AM
??  The concept of a wall is to avoid doing bodily harm.  Though I talk of shooting those caught coming across, and land mines ... a substantial and significant barrier WALL needs to be put in place so that we don't have to use force.  A visual barrier wall, sends a clear message of do not enter.  Posting signs with surveillance while actually leaving the border open, accomplishes little.  There was an organization that collected money and would place American flags all along the border and put in some cameras, but if you don't have the manpower to combat all those coming across; cameras are futile.  It's much more difficult to try to climb over a significant physical barrier than it is to cross over land that is being monitored with cameras. 

Out of curiosity do you work for a robotics or surveillance company?

I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 11:14:11 AM
How is it he misses the simple fact, that a wall stops vehicles from crossing at high rates of speed.
A wall limits their ability to flee once on our side.

Closing Arguments in Summary – I need to move on from this thread.

I'm addressing the study you found and noted in the other post - thanks for pointing it out.

Again, the laws need to be enforced – one part of the equation.

I don't agree that the wall will be effective long-term – it's a bandaid. But it's the most popular method of stopping illegals at this point. It will be helpful short-term, but the smugglers have enough money they will escalate. The other illegals will follow unless the US spends again and again.

Treating the problem as a War on Drugs and Human Trafficking will allow the necessary force to turn back or kill those who break the law at our borders. There will be an impact on the percentage of US civilians that live near the borders - they will have to move away from the DMZ. Fortunately, a large part of the border is arid and unpopulated. There are always unfortunate costs in fighting wars and some of these (like land loss) can be somewhat compensated.

A side effect is that we continue to progress in how to fight the types of wars where the enemy hides behind the civilians – both technical progress and technique progress. We double down on the return on the extensive investment.

Your story about the pedophile is emotionally wrenching - I want to stop them and all illegals. I just don't believe that the wall will work over the long term and that there are other ways that will move faster if we get more serious. Enforcement can start tomorrow. Putting more surveillance and man-power on can happen in days (maybe 60 - 90). Over a year time-frame, put up towers with manned surveillance, arm the guards in some ways (options) and stop the crossings of any kinds. Of course, the bad guys will still respond but our military is trained at stopping attacks – protecting our country. If the pedophile tries to cross, he'll bleed out in a field somewhere. That's still too good for him, but I'd settle for that.

But, under the current tides, you'll get your wall. So we'll see what happens.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:04:24 PM
Closing Arguments in Summary – I need to move on from this thread.

I'm addressing the study you found and noted in the other post - thanks for pointing it out.

Again, the laws need to be enforced – one part of the equation.

I don't agree that the wall will be effective long-term – it's a bandaid. But it's the most popular method of stopping illegals at this point. It will be helpful short-term, but the smugglers have enough money they will escalate. The other illegals will follow unless the US spends again and again.

Treating the problem as a War on Drugs and Human Trafficking will allow the necessary force to turn back or kill those who break the law at our borders. There will be an impact on the percentage of US civilians that live near the borders - they will have to move away from the DMZ. Fortunately, a large part of the border is arid and unpopulated. There are always unfortunate costs in fighting wars and some of these (like land loss) can be somewhat compensated.

A side effect is that we continue to progress in how to fight the types of wars where the enemy hides behind the civilians – both technical progress and technique progress. We double down on the return on the extensive investment.

Your story about the pedophile is emotionally wrenching - I want to stop them and all illegals. I just don't believe that the wall will work over the long term and that there are other ways that will move faster if we get more serious. Enforcement can start tomorrow. Putting more surveillance and man-power on can happen in days (maybe 60 - 90). Over a year time-frame, put up towers with manned surveillance, arm the guards in some ways (options) and stop the crossings of any kinds. Of course, the bad guys will still respond but our military is trained at stopping attacks – protecting our country. If the pedophile tries to cross, he'll bleed out in a field somewhere. That's still too good for him, but I'd settle for that.

But, under the current tides, you'll get your wall. So we'll see what happens.

What is your issue with a wall? You argue that it's a temporary fix, but last time I looked, every place on earth where an area needs protecting, a wall or fence is a first line barrier followed by dogs, guards, surveillance etc.
Your home is a perfect example. You have doors, right, locks, windows that open and close, even screens, correct?
Why do you have screens? Why not take them down, then you can spend all your time chasing down bugs and throwing them back outside, and hope they don't return.

Are you even remotely seeing how ludicrous your argument against a barrier is?

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
What is your issue with a wall? You argue that it's a temporary fix, but last time I looked, every place on earth where an area needs protecting, a wall or fence is a first line barrier followed by dogs, guards, surveillance etc.
Your home is a perfect example. You have doors, right, locks, windows that open and close, even screens, correct?
Why do you have screens? Why not take them down, then you can spend all your time chasing down bugs and throwing them back outside, and hope they don't return.

Are you even remotely seeing how ludicrous your argument against a barrier is?

So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.

So here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.

So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.

Thanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.

Jeez, all the more reason to build a wall!

QuoteSo here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.

BS! Who says that bull shit? I know who, the libs!
Of course the wall isn't effective on its own. But if you're in a firefight and the only protection around is a tree, you use it to protect yourself, and that;'s what the wall is, the first line of defense, then you have radios to call in support, drones to keep a close eye, maybe even weaponized, or in the least, fire tracking devices, netting over individuals, the skies the limit.

Quote
So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.

What is referred to as the war on drugs has been an obvious failure considering we still have drugs, but that's no reason to stop punishing those bringing them into the country.

QuoteThanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?

Nope, it's here forever. :biggrin:

This was one of the trains headed for our border. Just one, there were many more.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.inquisitr.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2Fmexican-train-derail-migrants.jpg&hash=e809615c92609e6918dcc17cb83beb17f524236a)

What maintenance?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yannarthusbertrand2.org%2Findex2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_datsogallery%26amp%3Bfunc%3Dwmark%26amp%3Bmid%3D1363&hash=260742f694a9f012d195a600a84d143f4972d3fe)

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

Just a thought, I've worked in Law Enforcement and Private security for more than 30 years, often alongside the tech people, I saw the advances in technology that greatly improved and made more effective enforcement. But here is one thing that "wire heads" (I say that with affection   :thumbup:  ) sometimes don't get. Technology is just a tool, for a tool to be efficient, you still have to have a human being behind it to apply it.

As I have said previously in my previous post about "walls", they are only as good as the men who man them, the technology will only serve us so well but unless we have the will, the effort to truly rid out country of illegals, the "heart" to do it, all the best whistles and bells you can put up mean squat.

Another thing about a wall (which I support) is that it is a PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER. It sends a message, a sorely needed one...STAY OUT....You are NOT wanted or welcomed here. The mere fact that Trump WILL BUILD THE WALL will prevent a lot of people from even attempting to cross the border.  This resolve has already created a "panic" among illegals, fueled by the sensationalist Media, many are looking to the leave the US or not even try coming here.

Paying for the wall could be accomplished by simply taxing the weekly or monthly remittence to source countries for the illegals, millions upon millions go out every payday as they send money "back home", tax it at 20% and see how fast it adds up. Then again, I'd reduce or withhold some of the foreign aid to various source countries and apply it to "the wall".
UP the fee's on visa's, work permit's and even put up a toll at entrances along the "Wall".

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

That's what I kind of thought.  I am curious though as to how or why you don't think a barrier wall is necessary??  A barrier wall is a physical and psychological symbol of "DO NOT ENTER".  The secondary tools of robotics, drones, cameras, manpower, etc. along the wall won't be as effective without a barrier wall.

Quote from: Ms.Independence on February 17, 2017, 07:31:20 PM
That's what I kind of thought.  I am curious though as to how or why you don't think a barrier wall is necessary??  A barrier wall is a physical and psychological symbol of "DO NOT ENTER".  The secondary tools of robotics, drones, cameras, manpower, etc. along the wall won't be as effective without a barrier wall.

I'm not sure it's true that other approaches wouldn't be effective enough without building the 1600 mile wall - a huge feat. Although the Great Wall of China was 5500 miles long - so there is president on the feasibility of such a long wall. But there is no question that once the investment is made, the wall will be a psychological deterrent.

Clearly laws need to be enforced - it's hard to see families get broken up but that's the cost when you just ignore the laws. The previous administrations should be the ones taking the heat for the broken families because they let them form by ignoring the laws.

Based on data others on this forum provided, it appears that the financial numbers support throwing the wall and other measures at the immigrant problem. I would just add to the approach re-declaring it a war on drugs, trafficking, and terror then allowing use of lethal force as required - basically a military operation - a major deterrent for the non-bad illegals and a necessary response to the bad guys.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.

So here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.

So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.

Thanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?

What I do not understand is your assumption that building a wall somehow indicates that the plan is to totally depend on that wall to keep illegal border crossers out - be they illegal immigrants or drug smugglers or what have you.  Why do you assume that?  Of course we will continue to patrol the borders. Plus there are plans in place to start properly enforcing other immigration laws, including penalizing people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. In short, the overall plan is to hit the situation from all sides. You say patrolling the wall will be expensive, but I also call question to that conclusion. Patrolling a wall can be accomplished in a similar manner to patrolling an open border - only doing so will be significantly easier because patrols can concentrate on known weak areas of the wall, whereas currently the entire open border is one 1500 mile long weak area. It will be cheaper to maintain surveillance sensors and cameras because they will be protected by that same wall. And unless you are anticipating crossers blowing up large sections of the wall, I do not see how the wall itself will be all that expensive to maintain. Again - how did you arrive at the conclusion it will be expensive to maintain?

Now, if I were in charge of planning, I would set up 20 or so patrol stations approximately equidistant from each other, each station containing a surveillance team who watch for data coming from the wall's sensors, and two fast response teams. Every station will be manned 24/7. Each fast response team would be comprised of 3 patrol officers and a pilot who would be responsible for a fast attack helicopter. The set up will be arranged so all teams will be less than 20 minutes away from any area of their patrol responsibility. Sensors in the wall go off, The surveillance officers conclude significant human activity approaching the wall from the south, and the response team jumps in their copter and are on scene before the crossers even get to the top of the wall, let alone over it. If the crossers insist on coming over, they get tased as soon as they reach the ground and unceremoniously dumped back on the other side. If they are smugglers, as opposed to immigrants, they get a ride to the pokey while their stuff is dumped to the desert winds.  A year or so of that, and you can be guaranteed attempts will dwindle to a small fraction of what we see today.

The biggest cost of enforcing immigration laws deals with the deportation process. We have the expense of arresting illegals, detaining them, legal costs of determining their status and sentencing to deportation, further detainment costs, transportation costs, etc. etc. etc.  That is why the costs of building the wall can be compensated for by only reducing the numbers that come into the US illegally by a relatively small percentage. So the idea is to keep them from entering in the first place, and a wall is the best avenue we have for slowing the flow.

As others pointed out, a wall is a psychological barrier as well as a real physical barrier.  Just having that wall there will cause a lot of wannabes to call off any attempt as a bad deal.  I'd be willing to estimate that factor alone would reduce attempts by more than the percentage needed to make the wall pay for itself.  Add in the effects of patrols being more able to catch people in the process of entering - since the wall will slow them down just getting over the wall, AND put them on foot once they're across, and we're looking at LEAST a 50% drop in successful illegal crossings. Then add in new enforcement orders that diminish those willing to hire them once they get here, and we lose another 10% or so. Fast track the deportation process, and we drop another 10%.

But without the wall, none of the other factors will have nearly as big an impact, because it will still be way too easy to slip in and avoid the law.

As such, building the wall is quite likely to end up being one of the wisest expenditures we have made since the Louisiana Purchase.

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 08:27:29 PM
I'm not sure it's true that other approaches wouldn't be effective enough without building the 1600 mile wall - a huge feat. Although the Great Wall of China was 5500 miles long - so there is president on the feasibility of such a long wall. But there is no question that once the investment is made, the wall will be a psychological deterrent.

Clearly laws need to be enforced - it's hard to see families get broken up but that's the cost when you just ignore the laws. The previous administrations should be the ones taking the heat for the broken families because they let them form by ignoring the laws.

Based on data others on this forum provided, it appears that the financial numbers support throwing the wall and other measures at the immigrant problem. I would just add to the approach re-declaring it a war on drugs, trafficking, and terror then allowing use of lethal force as required - basically a military operation - a major deterrent for the non-bad illegals and a necessary response to the bad guys.

I don't have the figures or research at hand anymore, but if you consider that amount of money that we have thrown at supporting illegals in this country for years (at least the last decade), I can almost guarantee that the figure far exceeds what the wall is going to cost.  Also, remember innocent lives of American citizens have been taken by illegals; you can't put a cost on that.  I believe that a physical wall will also deter the drugs and arms trafficking -- draining the swamp will also be a great help. 

Also remember having a physical wall IS a barrier between the 'illegals' the Mexican cartel and any sort of U.S. military or surveillance operation.

Fox story relevant to this topic ...
Timely report:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/texas-border-residents-mixed-over-whether-need-finished-wall.html

There is a video ... below is the text minus some of the embedded stuff. Wow, a report that actually considered what the residents think. Not that popular opinion should drive it - we need to enforce the laws. But the data is interesting to look through.

But I would (now) ask those that don't see the need for the wall ... why not both. Why not solve this problem with all the tools available ... and affordable given the current costs.

If President Trump gets his way, there will soon be a complete border wall in Hudspeth County, Texas -- and while not everybody claims they need it, most do say it could be a big help for law enforcement.

"It will make it easier for border patrol to catch illegals. And I'm not opposed to immigration, but I want legal immigration," said Craige Miller, who's lived in Hudspeth County for 65 years and whose farm sits directly on the border.

The Millers have a family farm in Fort Hancock. Half of it has a border fence, half does not. The Millers have goats, horses, and grow cotton. The family does a lot of the work with the help of a small staff.

According to the Millers, workers set up five miles of fence in their backyard during the Bush administration and it's helped deter illegal immigration. They wish the wall was completed during that project. Their biggest concern is drug trafficking.

"It stopped the illegals passing through considerably," said Miller.

The numbers back him up. According to Border Patrol data for the El Paso sector, which covers El Paso County, Hudspeth County and New Mexico, there were more than 122,000 Border Patrol apprehensions in 2005 and 2006. The number dropped sharply in 2007 to 75,464, and again in 2008 to 30,312, bottoming out at 9,678 in 2012. All of those areas have fencing.

Fencing in Texas begins in El Paso and continues 40 miles outside of town until it ends near Tornillo. There's an 11-mile gap until it picks up again for five miles in Fort Hancock, right at the Millers' farm. After the five miles in Fort Hancock there's a 25-mile gap and the fencing goes on and off down the border.

For much of Hudspeth County, the only thing between the U.S. and Mexico is the border patrol, and some people think that's enough.

"It doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on a physical barrier and then have the upkeep and the maintenance when it's totally unnecessary because there's very little activity," said Silvestre Reyes, former chief of El Paso Border Patrol.

But while the Millers are for the creation of the wall, what they ultimately want is stronger border security. They believe that can be done with more border patrol enforcement.

"I think there should be a wall in certain places. In the metropolitan areas where they're highly populated," said Jim Ed Miller. "But out here in the middle of nowhere, we don't need the wall; we need people on the levy, on the border, guarding it."

Quote from: topside on February 21, 2017, 02:35:21 PM
Fox story relevant to this topic ...
Timely report:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/texas-border-residents-mixed-over-whether-need-finished-wall.html

There is a video ... below is the text minus some of the embedded stuff. Wow, a report that actually considered what the residents think. Not that popular opinion should drive it - we need to enforce the laws. But the data is interesting to look through.

But I would (now) ask those that don't see the need for the wall ... why not both. Why not solve this problem with all the tools available ... and affordable given the current costs.

If President Trump gets his way, there will soon be a complete border wall in Hudspeth County, Texas -- and while not everybody claims they need it, most do say it could be a big help for law enforcement.

"It will make it easier for border patrol to catch illegals. And I'm not opposed to immigration, but I want legal immigration," said Craige Miller, who's lived in Hudspeth County for 65 years and whose farm sits directly on the border.

The Millers have a family farm in Fort Hancock. Half of it has a border fence, half does not. The Millers have goats, horses, and grow cotton. The family does a lot of the work with the help of a small staff.

According to the Millers, workers set up five miles of fence in their backyard during the Bush administration and it's helped deter illegal immigration. They wish the wall was completed during that project. Their biggest concern is drug trafficking.

"It stopped the illegals passing through considerably," said Miller.

The numbers back him up. According to Border Patrol data for the El Paso sector, which covers El Paso County, Hudspeth County and New Mexico, there were more than 122,000 Border Patrol apprehensions in 2005 and 2006. The number dropped sharply in 2007 to 75,464, and again in 2008 to 30,312, bottoming out at 9,678 in 2012. All of those areas have fencing.

Fencing in Texas begins in El Paso and continues 40 miles outside of town until it ends near Tornillo. There's an 11-mile gap until it picks up again for five miles in Fort Hancock, right at the Millers' farm. After the five miles in Fort Hancock there's a 25-mile gap and the fencing goes on and off down the border.

For much of Hudspeth County, the only thing between the U.S. and Mexico is the border patrol, and some people think that's enough.

"It doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on a physical barrier and then have the upkeep and the maintenance when it's totally unnecessary because there's very little activity," said Silvestre Reyes, former chief of El Paso Border Patrol.

But while the Millers are for the creation of the wall, what they ultimately want is stronger border security. They believe that can be done with more border patrol enforcement.

"I think there should be a wall in certain places. In the metropolitan areas where they're highly populated," said Jim Ed Miller. "But out here in the middle of nowhere, we don't need the wall; we need people on the levy, on the border, guarding it."

If you build a dam on a river, and complete 99.9% of it, leaving only a tiny spot left open, what do you suppose the water is going to do?
People, like that of water, are a force to be reckoned with when they have an agenda to complete. Keep in mind the term, "Least Path of Resistance"...

It is nearly unanimous in here; build the darn wall!!! I don't care about cost.  I care about keeping out illegals so that Americans are no longer subjected to the rapes, murders, burglaries, and the economic havoc that they inflict on our country.

Quote from: zewazir on February 17, 2017, 10:53:34 AM


And shifting the argument to focus on those already in the US does not help your point at all.  Obviously building a wall is not going to do anything about those who have already entered the US illegally. Frankly, enforcing the laws against employing those people won't do much about those already here, either.  You think they're going to take the attitude "Well, can't get work, so may as well go back to Mexico!"  Ummm ...... I don't think so. We'll just end up with a whole lot more of them on welfare sucking up taxpayer dollars. Bottom line: dealing with those already here is a whole nuther topic from the purpose of building a wall.  The wall is to prevent us facing a situation where we are trying to deal with 50 million illegals a decade from now.

A interesting fact I read about a couple weeks ago is that most of the illegals that were released were released into someone's care! That person had to show they had the resources to feed and house these people but more then that they had to sign paperwork taking responsibility for them! These people could very well be on the hook to pay back the government for any welfare, doctors cost and food stamps! Under Obama they didn't have a care in the world signing this because they knew he would not inforce it! Now comes Trump!! Knowing how the Donald is about money you think he will let them of the hook?
I can see A lot of libs waking up one morning to find IRS liens on their property! I wonder if there is enough there to make the Libs pay for the Wall?

Pictures are worth a thousand words ... we need a WALL, not a dilapidated fence.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/2017/02/02/in-pictures-u-s-mexico-border-as-it-stands-now.html?wcmmode=preview#/slide/an-excavator-removes-a-fence-to-be-replaced-by-a-section-of-the-border-wall-at-sunland-park--u-s---opposite-ciudad-juarez--mexico-

No one seems willing to discuss Trump's secret weapon behind the wall:





(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flipcdn.com%2Fimages%2F2015%2F10%2F23%2F60-2.jpg&hash=7c5799068f4642a9fd2e7b53c5e19c3cd6fab97b)

Quote from: PeterR on February 23, 2017, 07:20:34 PM
No one seems willing to discuss Trump's secret weapon behind the wall:





(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flipcdn.com%2Fimages%2F2015%2F10%2F23%2F60-2.jpg&hash=7c5799068f4642a9fd2e7b53c5e19c3cd6fab97b)

*GASP*

Dick Cheney!

If you are going to do it....DO it right, they should play this over the White House speakers 24/7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3IvJIQeMBE

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 23, 2017, 08:43:57 PM
*GASP*

Dick Cheney!

Shotgun and all.

Bringing this post back for a bit. I'm considering an alternative to the wall. It's worth trying for a few years.

Just the threat of the wall has decreased illegal crossings substantially ... we've all seen the reports. War on drugs is still a problem - the threat won't turn them away so easily.

So let's use or national guard on the border and train our military there. That should be enough of a deterrant to the illegals to take it down even further ... and sustain it there. And we can learn how to fight the drug insurgency too ... if they persist. The cost is less and our nation gains in better training for our soldiers and preparedness of the guard.

As for Trump, so many are hung up on the wall promise. He can have a panel issue the findings of the recent reduction in immigrants and show how he now has a better plan based on the data. Some won't like it, but the findings to support that an alternative might be enough ... so why not run the experiment before committing to a 1600 mile wall?

Trump can also use it as a Judo move against the Dims. Research moves him to a different decision. The Dims will try to spin it their way but can't argue much since they've been pulling so hard in that direction.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi242.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff84%2Fwayne66_01%2FThe%2520O%2520and%2520T%2F16831859_1841993969350214_1175189873808705776_n_zps6mzidtj4.jpg&hash=dec2b16a3aa9206a68bc238840fd770117a0f4ab)