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.

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?

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.

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.