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
I'd like to microchip the illegals like we do with those humpback whales, and then slingshot them back over the border.
I think we have a new open borders lib among us.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sadly, they can use a fake ID, the worker is not allowed to verify their identity.
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.