If I’m flyin solo wall won’t deter me. If I’m in the walking caravans with my two kids it would be a problem I think
Ideas and policy vs. people and personality
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
You always deliver a solid, reasoned message based as a history researcher and educator backing up all comments with wanting to see more analysis of other people thoughts and extrapolations. I've respected, while being infuriated at times with your approach to posting as they are always, as I said, in the vein of a measured high school history teacher. There is a need place for that.
I want action comments, not "well analysis of other half assed attempts at a boarder failed, so it has no value at all because ... well because".
I am so tired of this stupid conversation of people not accepting a barrier ONLY because of political messaging. Every person (within reasonable measure) in congress supported and voted for a fvcking wall, and then blocked it with the "power of the purse". If that ain't some political BS I don't know what is.
Hog farmers know that fences either slow down hogs from escaping, or funnels where the hogs get out and have known for 4000 years. Only historian student sideliners or pure lairs for political gamesmanship say any different.
You play soccer, a painted line would cause you to go down grabbing your hammy
I wouldn't relate Latin immigrants to Hamas, though. Lots of families seeking a better life in el Norte.
The only connection I am trying to make is they will find a way to get through. It is like trying to keep out water, any small holes or cracks and it gets through. But in terms of who they are, a huge difference.
I don't believe you about walls. Of course, they have a purpose, and they work. I've been to the Green Zone in Baghdad and there's a wall around the Green Zone. Did it keep every bad actor out of the Green Zone? Of course not. Did it prevent incursions in any numbers that would matter? Of course, it did. Even the wall around Gaza prevented a possible larger incursion. If Israel didn't have most of its military in and around the West Bank, they would have had a quicker reaction to greatly reduce the damage done by the incursion that did happen.
Trump’s wacky plan for the federal debt
He thinks the government can refinance the national debt like a mortgage. Here's why it can't.www.google.com
As to other things, like the wall, I have heard numerous Israelis this week complain they own the most high tech wall in history and it did nothing to prevent 1000 Hamas terrorists from going over, through, and around. I know no one believes me when I say walls are big and dumb and people determined to defeat them will find ways. Heck, McNamara built an electric fence across Vietnam that could kill, didn't stop the NVA. Walls have limited purposes, in metro areas where masses could easily walk across a street. A wall stops the accidental crossing, or like a locked car door, stops the 16-year old looking to joyride. A locked car door doesn't bother a pro, a wall won't stop the gangs moving people.
Everyone wants peace in the Middle East. I don't have any idea why Israel's enemies would deal with the guy who greenlit Jerusalem being Israel's capitol. That is clearly something the Palestinians did not want, and if they had to give it up in negotiations they would expect something good back. Doing it and then getting nothing in return isn't conducive to them believing we have any interest in them or their desires/needs.
It's not THE solution. It's part of a better solution. Drone, patrols, sensors, etc. are all part of it too.
How large is the green zone compared to the US-Mexico border? How good are we at tracking small craft in the Gulf/Pacific (Israel seemed to fail that).
I said they serve purposes in cities, and in small areas like prisons. If you were in Mexico and wanted in the US, do you think the wall would stop you?
And if it is true, how can those who claim that the change in history instruction is overblown have a leg to stand on?
Here's the poll
OCTOBER HARVARD CAPS / HARRIS POLL: STRONG MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ISRAEL AGAINST HAMAS AND U.S. POLICY ON ISRAEL
/PRNewswire/ -- Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the October Harvard CAPS / Harris poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for...
www.prnewswire.com
It's insanity and then you see these long winded garbage posts that just prove how mentally absent they are. Jeezuz. Thank God it's just a few on this board. Then again who knows. Maybe they should just all move to a dem shit hole and live what they preach.
Although he sees himself as something else, he’s a common garden variety liberal troll.
It's about three-square miles which means the border fence is much longer than three miles. Barriers serve purposes on borders, because they funnel people to easier places to penetrate and where defenders know that and will be able to stop them. I don't understand why you're so resistant to this simple concept when it's tried and true and applied by defenses everywhere. It's not THE solution, but it's part of a solution to our southern border problem.
I am not a fan of static defenses, people crossing large rivers, walking a thousand miles through deserts or mountains are going to not turn around by a wall. Some will, most I think will find a way.
More people and more drones are my first choices. If we build a wall AND hiring more people and more ATVs and more drones does not seem cost effective. I do not think the wall will greatly reduce, I linked a video a couple weeks ago of three guys going over a new section with a ladder. A news crew filmed it, no one from BP showed up to catch them. A single Wal Mart ladder.
I want this stopped too. I just want it to be cost effective. Why is this the exception to not just throwing money at the problem.
Just Google crossing border wall, it is happening fairly frequently. So we still need the people or the wall is not much help.
Of course some are getting over the wall, but when you're talking over a million people a year, reducing that by hundreds of thousands is a good thing. It seems you're bound and determined to discount it because it was a Trump thing. I dislike Trump as much as anyone, but strategically placed walls are a part of the solution. We're not taking down walls along the border and neither is Israel between them and Gaza. The obvious reason is because they're part of the solution.
I haven't liked a wall much longer than Trump, probably going back to my youth gaming the Fall of France trying to figure out what the Maginot Line was doing. I like mobility, move faster than the people coming in.
One of the big fears are terrorists coming in, don't downplay men going over the wall. An ISIS will not send children and invalids.
Buy things that move quickly like drones, scan in infrared and normal, have rapid reaction forces including helos if needed. I am more worried about people trying to come in and hide than people seeking asylum who will turn themselves in.the hiders are more likely to maybe be terrorists (are terrorists going to risk being caught by turning themselves in) and are more likely to run drugs and weapons (again, a weapons runner isn't turning themselves in). The mother with 3 kids looking for BP to file for asylum is who the wall stops but they are far from our threat.
Maybe you are only accepting of a wall because of political messaging. Got a link to everyone voting for a wall?
So Mexicans are similar to hogs? You don't think they are more capable of finding ways around a wall that maybe hogs wouldn't able to? And you can't put a wall completely around Mexico like farmers do with hogs.
Every person trying to enter the country illegally should be stopped and turned away or processed properly. If you don’t have the same intentions I suppose I understand why you’d like to not have a wall at all.
I’m all for legal immigration and all against illegal immigration. I believe that’s the supposed policy of the majority of Democrats too.
Can you build a wall for same price as a mask?
I thought you guys cared about the debt
I think neither side wants to fully address the issue because it is such an effective political tool to get votes. That is seen even in the labeling of people as illegal immigrants
I think the process to legal entry and pathway to citizenship could be looked at and look at why more people aren't entering the country how they are supposed to enter when seeking asylum or citizenship.
OMG one of these is not like the other. An obvious historian posting here just will not allow himself to see the paint for trying to find the pigment. impossible, with all due respect of course.
I want them stopped, but they have a right to apply for asylum. No matter what, to handle the entire nation of Venezuela we need more courts to process far faster. We need that wall or no wall. The priority for me is to stop terrorists, we both know some people are going to get through. I would rather stop terrorists, second are people planning on living here illegally, then asylum seekers.
I suggested creating a points system and asylum seekers get points for applying elsewhere, or lose points for applying here. That is how I would tackle that part. If you enter the US, the death squad better be 10 feet behind you.
I just took a screen shot (a pick) of this (your) post which is exactly what a drone camera will do. It won't stop you from posting this stuff, or your ideas, but I have the picture of you posting it. That is exactly what your drone idea will do with other obstacles to slow people down, which is absolutly nothing except throw $$$$ at drones to change NOTHING.
But like Alhoa said, if you really dont' want to stop the traffic over the boarder, your insistence is a perfect plan just like what biden is excelling at.
There must me obstacles and funnels to direct traffic. 3:1,000,000 is a ratio beneath you Marv.
Won't walls and fences slow people down, though, so that drones and Border Patrol can catch them?
I think that's how fences work . . .@Giggitygoomanfuchu, isn't that right?
I have said we need rapid response forces, more men, and above, even helos. The drones finds and tails. I doubt most asylum seekers come with anti air capability. BP in vehicles respond. If it is too far for SUVs, use the choppers. A suspect the people coming in won't outrun drones. Hell, have drones squirt people with indelible purple ink to make it REALLY hard to hide
Seriously, I keep mentioning walls are slow and I want speed. I don't know how that gets missed as it did 3 weeks ago in a thread where repeatedly CO made the same point you did. Drones find and trail, BP is staged around the border and responds quickly. If we need it, call up the Guard to form the rapid response. Stage them around places we know to be active, depend on helicopters if the activity switches until we redeploy staging areas.
I know people think I am irrational on hating the wall, it seems the other way to me. People have decided only a wall works. After we build the wall, we still will need more drones, more agents, more SUVs, more staging basis to rapidly respond for the people that go over or around (or through as Hamas blew up a section).
I have always been a huge proponent of NASA, it greatly contributed to our scientific superiority. And a Mars mission would I still a huge source of pride we are missing. The thing is, I don't think we can afford it. I would love to, but I see a lot of needs for our dollars. If I thought the wall would save us money, or really put a stranglehold on the influx, sure. But I think it's impact will be marginal on overall numbers, especially on terrorists and drug smugglers. So we will build the wall and still double border patrol spending and the dollars will stretch even less far. If we are going to have to double BP spending, do it, and leave the giant monument out.
They are supposed to apply for asylum in the first country they reach. That isn’t the US.
I certainly have not said only a wall works. I said it’s part of the solution. I think that’s obvious. You don’t? Want to dismantle all the walls that exist?
Yes, but if you are running from Narco barons, the first country IS the US. If you had a bounty on your head, would you trust your average policeman from Mexico down?
No, they have already been paid for.
Do you agree, we need more people on the border, we need more drones to be our eyes, we need more vehicles to get to where people are coming across as quickly as possible. We might well need more naval assets, Israel was unable to stop Hamas' boats. We need those things if we build a wall or not as anyone making it past the wall still needs tracked down.
So, if we know 100% we need all that, wall or no wall, buy it first. If it doesn't work well enough we can still buy the wall. If we build the wall and it ends up it is all this other stuff that turns the tide, we have a very expensive paperweight on the border.
If my idea of basically firebases a long the border that are randomly manned so the people south never know where to cross furthest from our response doesn't work, build the wall. These little compounds that will house apprehension teams will still be needed to get the people crossing with ladders.
Even with a wall, we need more resources capable of getting to crossers quickly. Do you disagree?
Walls can’t be 100% foolproof in terms of stoping illegal border crossings. Yet the border patrol has said we need them. Why? Because they increase the effectiveness of the border patrol. They allow the patrol to police more area with fewer people. They allow those fewer people to be more effective.
You are the Republican, what government agency turns down money. I wonder if they had a choice, the wall or a crap ton more agents, and a boatload more vehicles (including helicopters) and drones, which they would choose. Is the wall what they want, or the only real large increase in spending all they are being offered?
If you were an agent and someone offers you a wall and that is it, so the choice is a wall or do exactly what you are doing today, I get it. You want the wall.
I know from reading the article below, the article below has a left slant. But I suspect this part is true, the US has 2 very different programs. In Central America, virtually everyone comes in through the political asylum method. We do not allow option 2, the Cold War fleeing communism holdover.
Option 2 is we allow people in refugee camps to apply for refugee status and come in. We only allow so many, but it is how the Somalis came in to Minnesota.
So for a real game changer, eliminate asylum as the main professor central America, allow them to come in through refugee status. They go to refugee camps and apply. Take fewer from these other countries and more from Central America. Suddenly they have a huge vested interest in finding refugee camps and applying. The broken by too many applicants asylum courts are greatly relieved.
Why Must Central American Asylum Seekers Risk Their Lives to Reach the US? There is an Alternative.
Cold War politics continues to shut out Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans from the US Refugee Admissions Program. That needs to change.
www.justsecurity.org
But my point holds, those 3 men climbing a ladder without Border Patrol ever appearing proves even without a wall we need more of what I am talking about. To play off someone's Ukraine analysis, as much as it takes for as long as it takes isn't a strategy. I have given you a strategy, go from asylum to refugee.
The thing with most posters is that they try to play the innocent routine when everyone knows what they are doing. If they took shots at both sides of the aisle then that would be different but they don't. When Rock was on here he linked and made some good points but he always complained about stupid post but only conservative stupid posts,
In some circumstances there is no substitute for a barrier. That’s just common sense isn’t it? Walls work. Saying the opposite is just posturing.You are the Republican, what government agency turns down money. I wonder if they had a choice, the wall or a crap ton more agents, and a boatload more vehicles (including helicopters) and drones, which they would choose. Is the wall what they want, or the only real large increase in spending all they are being offered?
If you were an agent and someone offers you a wall and that is it, so the choice is a wall or do exactly what you are doing today, I get it. You want the wall.
I know from reading the article below, the article below has a left slant. But I suspect this part is true, the US has 2 very different programs. In Central America, virtually everyone comes in through the political asylum method. We do not allow option 2, the Cold War fleeing communism holdover.
Option 2 is we allow people in refugee camps to apply for refugee status and come in. We only allow so many, but it is how the Somalis came in to Minnesota.
So for a real game changer, eliminate asylum as the main professor central America, allow them to come in through refugee status. They go to refugee camps and apply. Take fewer from these other countries and more from Central America. Suddenly they have a huge vested interest in finding refugee camps and applying. The broken by too many applicants asylum courts are greatly relieved.
Why Must Central American Asylum Seekers Risk Their Lives to Reach the US? There is an Alternative.
Cold War politics continues to shut out Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans from the US Refugee Admissions Program. That needs to change.
But my point holds, those 3 men climbing a ladder without Border Patrol ever appearing proves even without a wall we need more of what I am talking about. To play off someone's Ukraine analysis, as much as it takes for as long as it takes isn't a strategy. I have given you a strategy, go from asylum to refugee.
Tech and manpower is good too. But that has more to do with enforcement. Barriers are about prevention.
Of course the other, and perhaps more important piece of the border problem is the Biden administration making a joke of the asylum system and with that catch and release. During the campaign Biden clearly signaled that all would be welcome and come on in. That was a campaign message to counter Trump’s strong border enforcement, Biden’s short sightedness bit U.S. right in the ass.
This goes back to what I said to Aloha, sure it is nice to keep out the asylum seekers. Fine, how much do we want to pay to keep them out.
But a lot of conservatives talk about terrorists flooding in. Do you think that wall is going to stop a single trained terrorist?
So my idea of switching to refugee status from asylum works on stopping/slowing the mom and 3 kids, all this other stuff works to apprehend these tens of thousands of trained terrorists I am being told coming in. If you want to stop the terrorists you have to do what I am suggesting. You know it as well as I do. So explain the wall and that video of three people crossing it with a cheap ladder in context of those terrorists.
Or, is it possible the terrorists entering is overblown for political purposes.
If we want to stop the so called "bad hombres" the wall is less important as we know a virtually unmanned wall does nothing.
"According to the FY 2017 DHS budget, $274 million was spent on border fence maintenance. Based on that expense, one can extrapolate that if fencing is built on the final two-thirds of the Southern border, the maintenance costs will triple to more than $750 million annually"
The High Cost and Diminishing Returns of a Border Wall
The fact is that building a fortified and impenetrable wall between the United States and Mexico is unnecessary, complicated, ineffective, expensive, and would create a host of additional problems.
How many more people capable of not only slowing people but yes, apprehend them, will $750 million per year hire? Of course, that is just routine maintenance and not the build cost.
You are losing the moral high ground you claim to have on "liberals just want to throw money at the problem".
Unmanned walls are easily breached. Aloha's Green Zone is far from unmanned. If it were manned to the level our wall will be, people would easily have breached it. We need enough force that people can arrive to any location in maybe 20 minutes, and drones to hunt and trail. Sadly, if terrorists are coming over, they will fire at drones. So we need a rapid response before they get lost in the expanse.
But yes, if the real person you want to stop is the mom and kids, the wall will do okay (though coyotes will load them on boats and go around).
Then don't say stupid stuff.
Still has zero to do with attacking the message vs. attacking the messenger. Even the OP has hurled his share of insults at other posters, presumably people he disagrees with.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't imply their idea of was dumb. However, the presented ideas put forth in the OP were poor examples for the reasons already discussed.
The point is to make terrorism more difficult. We can never stop it.
Calling these migrants “asylum seekers” is the craziness Biden has used to thwart the law. We get to decide who is an asylum seeker and Biden has turned that around such that if a migrant mentions “asylum” and ”oppressed” in the same sentence, they are in. So much for democratically passed laws.
Marv, I like a lot of your ideas and you've convinced me that we need more BP, drones, etc. but a physical barrier of some sort also seems like a commonsense part of the solution. Some of your sentences, like the above, appear to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Regarding the larger immigration picture, I think it would behoove the U.S. to help Mexico and the Central American nations to become more stable, prosperous economies. I have no idea how to do that effectively.
Similar threads
