|
Post by mmaphreak on Jun 19, 2017 13:37:50 GMT -5
I'll put wildlife and the ecosystem over money. Especially when there are options. But I see we are not headed to anything but meaningless back and forth. I see where your head is at. i would agree with this if say, there was an unbreakable deal that beefed up the border as you suggest for like 5-10 years to evaluate it's effectiveness. drones, cameras, tons more border patrol, etc. but again, the problem is if money is short or the political winds blow another direction, funding can get pulled. once the wall is up, it's up (with of course comparatively minor up keep expenditures).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 13:39:36 GMT -5
The vast, VAST majority of negative issues we have from illegal immigration stems from our southern neighbors. The bend people try to make when discussing illegal immigration is that it is not just mexicans and central americans. Well, while true, the most obvious problems stem from ease of access to our border and that amounts to the largest percentage. If we deport someone to Korea or the Philippines, trust me it's a huge fucking pain in the ass for them to secure a new visa, leave their country and find their way back here again. It's expensive and they have to find a way out of their country to get to mexico or canada to get in here. Deport a mexican and they are back tomorrow. Deport a central american and it may take them a week. Why? Proximity. Improving and securing a physical barrier IS an absolute must. I don't care if they doubled or tripled CBP tomorrow, people would still come in. Trying to use people and technology is always going to be reactive law enforcement. A physical barrier will be unpassable by most and limit the opportunity for many to actually walk into the country. If coyotes are breaking into your yard and eating your chickens, how would you stop them? A fence. I see zero downside to improving and securing the physical barrier. It DOES work in areas where we have spent money and repaired it. Who can a wall offend? The people trying to sneak in the country? Who cares? What kind of fence do you think would work the best? Structures similar to the ones that are in some areas now? Or something different entirely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 13:40:51 GMT -5
I'll put wildlife and the ecosystem over money. Especially when there are options. But I see we are not headed to anything but meaningless back and forth. I see where your head is at. i would agree with this if say, there was an unbreakable deal that beefed up the border as you suggest for like 5-10 years to evaluate it's effectiveness. drones, cameras, tons more border patrol, etc. but again, the problem is if money is short or the political winds blow another direction, funding can get pulled. once the wall is up, it's up (with of course comparatively minor up keep expenditures). I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. Not in the slightest. 10 years, set in stone. I'm with that.
|
|
|
Post by mmaphreak on Jun 19, 2017 13:42:11 GMT -5
but as we know, nothing is "set in stone".
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 19, 2017 14:02:26 GMT -5
The vast, VAST majority of negative issues we have from illegal immigration stems from our southern neighbors. The bend people try to make when discussing illegal immigration is that it is not just mexicans and central americans. Well, while true, the most obvious problems stem from ease of access to our border and that amounts to the largest percentage. If we deport someone to Korea or the Philippines, trust me it's a huge fucking pain in the ass for them to secure a new visa, leave their country and find their way back here again. It's expensive and they have to find a way out of their country to get to mexico or canada to get in here. Deport a mexican and they are back tomorrow. Deport a central american and it may take them a week. Why? Proximity. Improving and securing a physical barrier IS an absolute must. I don't care if they doubled or tripled CBP tomorrow, people would still come in. Trying to use people and technology is always going to be reactive law enforcement. A physical barrier will be unpassable by most and limit the opportunity for many to actually walk into the country. If coyotes are breaking into your yard and eating your chickens, how would you stop them? A fence. I see zero downside to improving and securing the physical barrier. It DOES work in areas where we have spent money and repaired it. Who can a wall offend? The people trying to sneak in the country? Who cares? What kind of fence do you think would work the best? Structures similar to the ones that are in some areas now? Or something different entirely? Similar to the literal steel fencing with mesh we have in parts of so-cal, arizona and Texas. Or, they can go steel columns. 12 feet high, or maybe 14 feet. Can't see through a wall so we don't want that, but a steel fence with concrete footings will work. I have seen some of the proposals in the past and I know we did studies on effectiveness, but I haven't seen any more of that info in awhile. The next time I see that stuff circulating I will share.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 19, 2017 14:26:45 GMT -5
Adaptability is key.
You'd have a prison style fence, with razor wire on top, in the high traffic areas. And as the land shifts, you wouldn't need as extreme measures, let the natural terrain dictate the style of structure. If there's a natural barrier, well then a structure isn't necessary. Rugged, steep cliffs are just as good as a structure.
Aesthetics doesn't matter, safety and order does. Sorry, but I don't live right on the border, and even if I did, I wouldn't care if there's an unsightly mega-fence in plain sight to keep the dangerous criminals out...
I know plenty of good people who are from Mexico and El Salvador, who came here legally. The good people, who contribute, will still be able to get here...
You gotta follow the fucking rules in certain situations, and this is one of those situations.
If you give away all the pie that we've made, then there's no pie left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 14:57:19 GMT -5
What kind of fence do you think would work the best? Structures similar to the ones that are in some areas now? Or something different entirely? Similar to the literal steel fencing with mesh we have in parts of so-cal, arizona and Texas. Or, they can go steel columns. 12 feet high, or maybe 14 feet. Can't see through a wall so we don't want that, but a steel fence with concrete footings will work. I have seen some of the proposals in the past and I know we did studies on effectiveness, but I haven't seen any more of that info in awhile. The next time I see that stuff circulating I will share. I feel it would need to be higher than 14 feet. What is to stop someone with 2 extension ladders? Serious question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 14:59:27 GMT -5
Adaptability is key. You'd have a prison style fence, with razor wire on top, in the high traffic areas. And as the land shifts, you wouldn't need as extreme measures, let the natural terrain dictate the style of structure. If there's a natural barrier, well then a structure isn't necessary. Rugged, steep cliffs are just as good as a structure. Aesthetics doesn't matter, safety and order does. Sorry, but I don't live right on the border, and even if I did, I wouldn't care if there's an unsightly mega-fence in plain sight to keep the dangerous criminals out... I know plenty of good people who are from Mexico and El Salvador, who came here legally. The good people, who contribute, will still be able to get here... You gotta follow the fucking rules in certain situations, and this is one of those situations. If you give away all the pie that we've made, then there's no pie left. I don't disagree with any of this. I do feel in some areas there needs to be wide enough gaps for wild life to migrate through. Problem is, there is some pretty big wildlife in some areas, particualry near the Colorado River.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 19, 2017 15:10:42 GMT -5
Similar to the literal steel fencing with mesh we have in parts of so-cal, arizona and Texas. Or, they can go steel columns. 12 feet high, or maybe 14 feet. Can't see through a wall so we don't want that, but a steel fence with concrete footings will work. I have seen some of the proposals in the past and I know we did studies on effectiveness, but I haven't seen any more of that info in awhile. The next time I see that stuff circulating I will share. I feel it would need to be higher than 14 feet. What is to stop someone with 2 extension ladders? Serious question. well that or a car battery and some coins..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 15:27:40 GMT -5
^^^
Okay, Vale, now I AM finding humor in this story. And justifiably so.
I am attempting (unsuccessfully) to stifle laughter at the claims made above by Clarence Dass and Kary Moss above....they're the two mouthpieces quoted in the article raising irresponsible and dubious "issues" for the gullible press. Potential death sentence? Mr. Dass has likely spun that allegation from whole cloth for the reporters in front of him.
Butris and other detainees are facing "double jeopardy"....being punished twice for the same crime? LOL to infinity. If that were true, then every single person convicted of a drug crime, domestic violence, immigration-law violations, or other offenses such as drunk driving are ALSO suffering double jeopardy....because all face additional penalties after their fines or jail time. Specifically, loss of gun-ownership rights, rights to vote, etc. Oh, yeah, deportation too, for non-citizens!
Dass wants to re-open Butris's criminal case from 1999? On the grounds that "there is no transcript"? (Translation? "I didn't look too hard for one".)
Good luck with THAT one, counselor....
As for Ms. Moss, well, she is an ACLU lawyer. Enough said. The ACLU does a LOT of good work in my opinion. This nonsense isn't among that work, again, in my opinion.
(A) Maybe Mr. Dass is doing groundbreaking legal work that will essentially invalidate U.S. immigration-law penalties.
(B) Or, maybe he's just another by-the-numbers legal hack going through the motions while defending immigrants guilty of violations subject to deportation, attempting to sway the public through manipulation of compliant, biased media.
His court-approved payment -- courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, possibly -- will show up in his account promptly, though, either way.
My money is on (B).
Personally, I don't know if it's true or not. I have no idea about that part of the world and can only take what I read as truth regarding it. You will rarely see me comment on middle east and one of the reasons is because I've never seen the place, not familiar with any of it. I don't know that I buy that he is going back to a death sentence. If the guy got caught with drugs, adios amigo. If you want to come here, you gotta fly straight and narrow. Well, surely you know that we invaded, toppled Saddam and that Iraq now has a government that (to borrow and paraphrase an old Bill Clinton line) "looks like Iraq". As I recall they have election quotas that guard against the previous regime's oppression by the Sunnis against others.
Indeed, it's a merciful, humane U.S. immigration policy that allows the Chaldeans to come here initially....based upon the acknowledgement of religious strife over there. There's only one catch, of course....they must COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION LAW. Those laws render them eligible for deportation if convicted of serious and/or violent felonies.
The alarmist "death sentence" rhetoric is hardly new. It's parroted just about EVERY time stuff like this happens to someone facing deportation. Now, discrimination and harassment is another story; it's a well-known fact that the Muslim majority does indeed practice it against Christians and other religious minorities. I don't see how that makes any difference in this case or any other similar one; we cannot run their society for them. We've done enough of THAT with little success.
It's no reason to say "aw, never mind, we'll keep these rapists, thieves and others convicted of serious felonies here, because we're nice guys."
As for the comments about the lawyers' allegations (double jeopardy? LOL), anyone who ever had a junior-high civics class knows they are hyperbole and nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 16:00:19 GMT -5
Personally, I don't know if it's true or not. I have no idea about that part of the world and can only take what I read as truth regarding it. You will rarely see me comment on middle east and one of the reasons is because I've never seen the place, not familiar with any of it. I don't know that I buy that he is going back to a death sentence. If the guy got caught with drugs, adios amigo. If you want to come here, you gotta fly straight and narrow. Well, surely you know that we invaded, toppled Saddam and that Iraq now has a government that (to borrow and paraphrase an old Bill Clinton line) "looks like Iraq". As I recall they have election quotas that guard against the previous regime's oppression by the Sunnis against others.
Indeed, it's a merciful, humane U.S. immigration policy that allows the Chaldeans to come here initially....based upon the acknowledgement of religious strife over there. There's only one catch, of course....they must COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION LAW. Those laws render them eligible for deportation if convicted of serious and/or violent felonies.
The alarmist "death sentence" rhetoric is hardly new. It's parroted just about EVERY time stuff like this happens to someone facing deportation. Now, discrimination and harassment is another story; it's a well-known fact that the Muslim majority does indeed practice it against Christians and other religious minorities. I don't see how that makes any difference in this case or any other similar one; we cannot run their society for them. We've done enough of THAT with little success.
It's no reason to say "aw, never mind, we'll keep these rapists, thieves and others convicted of serious felonies here, because we're nice guys."
As for the comments about the lawyers' allegations (double jeopardy? LOL), anyone who ever had a junior-high civics class knows they are hyperbole and nothing more.
I don't know what goes on out there and i don't ever truly believe what the media reports. I really don't know what an iraqi Christian will return home to. And I'm sure things could change rather quickly regardless. Like I said, I don't know much about that area of the world. Never been there. But if they committed crimes here, especially of the most despicable kind, I don't really care what they come home to.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 19, 2017 16:58:52 GMT -5
Similar to the literal steel fencing with mesh we have in parts of so-cal, arizona and Texas. Or, they can go steel columns. 12 feet high, or maybe 14 feet. Can't see through a wall so we don't want that, but a steel fence with concrete footings will work. I have seen some of the proposals in the past and I know we did studies on effectiveness, but I haven't seen any more of that info in awhile. The next time I see that stuff circulating I will share. I feel it would need to be higher than 14 feet. What is to stop someone with 2 extension ladders? Serious question. Good question. If it can be built it with a parameter fence and then a second fence, that would be ideal because then we have far more control and a better use of technology to flag when their is an initial breach. But I don't know what plans are in place to replicate the areas where we have a dual barrier. Taller is better, but I was envisioning an extension of what we currently have and making it run concurrently where it's missing. I don't know what the magic height is to deter climbing over via ladder - 25 feet? 18 feet? You can curve the top similar to some prisons and make it very difficult to climb over, but nothing is 100% fool proof. But it's not really an area I have a lot of intel on other than agreeing the barrier is needed and will help.
|
|
|
Post by johncfc on Jun 19, 2017 17:06:07 GMT -5
I feel it would need to be higher than 14 feet. What is to stop someone with 2 extension ladders? Serious question. Good question. If it can be built it with a parameter fence and then a second fence, that would be ideal because then we have far more control and a better use of technology to flag when their is an initial breach. But I don't know what plans are in place to replicate the areas where we have a dual barrier. Taller is better, but I was envisioning an extension of what we currently have and making it run concurrently where it's missing. I don't know what the magic height is to deter climbing over via ladder - 25 feet? 18 feet? You can curve the top similar to some prisons and make it very difficult to climb over, but nothing is 100% fool proof. But it's not really an area I have a lot of intel on other than agreeing the barrier is needed and will help.[\b]
I'm not surprised, considering you are the janitor.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Jun 19, 2017 17:44:36 GMT -5
it's about bang for the buck. no, we're not putting walls up around the coasts because those numbers show where our resources should be allocated. i care much less about the ecosystem in that area than i do about the health of our economy and the burden that illegal immigration puts on it, let alone the ancillary issues that come with it. It's politically impossible but snipers would be the cheapest, most effective, most ultimately humane and life-saving, logical, sensible, measure to enforcing the border. Every single country used to defend its borders with sharpshooters, and I dare say if it were white people sneaking across, we wouldn't be so hesitant to shoot them, since we simply abide much less, tolerate much less, and expect more from our white brethren than we do from precious precious diversity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 18:10:39 GMT -5
it's about bang for the buck. no, we're not putting walls up around the coasts because those numbers show where our resources should be allocated. i care much less about the ecosystem in that area than i do about the health of our economy and the burden that illegal immigration puts on it, let alone the ancillary issues that come with it. It's politically impossible but snipers would be the cheapest, most effective, most ultimately humane and life-saving, logical, sensible, measure to enforcing the border. Every single country used to defend its borders with sharpshooters, and I dare say if it were white people sneaking across, we wouldn't be so hesitant to shoot them, since we simply abide much less, tolerate much less, and expect more from our white brethren than we do from precious precious diversity I agree completely with this. Make the border cross a detrimental one and you won't see people attempting to cross. Maybe the random drug runner going for broke. I once crossed into Nicoraugua from Costa Rica. Pacific Ocean side. Every teenager guarding that border had a rifle. I wouldn't doubt for a moment there was a sniper or two in the vincinity.
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Jun 20, 2017 8:26:05 GMT -5
I've read bits and pieces of the thread...so this may have been said already. I believe if you come here ILLEGALLY, work hard, start a family, be productive, then get popped by ice...fuck you...your an illegal....plain and simple. See you on the rebound.
This whole wall issue is utter nonsense. The wall would need to stretch from the Pacific to the Gulf, ain't gonna happen imho.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 20, 2017 8:53:45 GMT -5
Not true. The wall only needs to cover geographic regions that are high traffic, easy access, and difficult to patrol. Other portions have natural barriers that prevent travel, others are passable but difficult and simple cameras, drone patrols, and additional manpower can get it done. And imagine a wall that generates enough energy to run a city and eventually pays for itself . . . when Mexico buys that energy and funds their own wall. But the realest wall of all is simply culture. We've already seen this to a large degree as illegal immigration is contracting to a multi-decade low simply because attitudes and enforcement has changed and shit is real now, and people are much less likely to take on a massive migration when the chances of success are much lower. A healthy Mexico and a US that simply takes immigration law seriously is a wall nobody can climb.
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Jun 20, 2017 9:01:24 GMT -5
Not true. The wall only needs to cover geographic regions that are high traffic, easy access, and difficult to patrol. Other portions have natural barriers that prevent travel, others are passable but difficult and simple cameras, drone patrols, and additional manpower can get it done. And imagine a wall that generates enough energy to run a city and eventually pays for itself . . . when Mexico buys that energy and funds their own wall. Baph the Enlightened I see your point.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jun 20, 2017 10:34:44 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 20, 2017 10:47:48 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil? That's great, But is there factory options for gator moats, razor wire, poisonous spikes and flame throwers?! Maybe a scalding hot liquid that pours down from the top?!
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 20, 2017 14:16:35 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil? Aren't we lacking enough panels for the size the wall needs to be? I always though one of the things that kept mass-solar panel projects from going through was we can't make the panels fast enough, and don't have anywhere near enough to get started.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 14:23:33 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil? This design...I think it's brilliant. Because all joking aside, you really have to be able to stop a truck with an extension ladder off the bed from being able to scale over the wall or its fucking worthless imo. That's pretty much the most simple and practical option for people to scale over a wall now. Throw some solar powered panels on that bitch and shoot that power south. I like it. Now just have to figure out how to not entirely fragment that ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 20, 2017 16:51:05 GMT -5
Here's another wall design, incredibly difficult to get over, generates a lot of power, would pay for itself in 10 years. Dumbocrats . . . why are you against solar? Why do you hate the Earth? How many of you took money from big oil? This design...I think it's brilliant. Because all joking aside, you really have to be able to stop a truck with an extension ladder off the bed from being able to scale over the wall or its fucking worthless imo. That's pretty much the most simple and practical option for people to scale over a wall now. Throw some solar powered panels on that bitch and shoot that power south. I like it. Now just have to figure out how to not entirely fragment that ecosystem. Someone explain this to me: is this wall big enough that someone wouldn't be able to put a ladder together to make it over the top? Does the wall extend significantly far enough down that you can't realistically tunnel under it? If the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding 'yes', then you essentially have to monitor the entire length of the wall, which is something that can't be adequately done now (without the cost of the wall). And if you decide that the local ecosystem is something worth protecting, and that a healthy ecosystem requires animals to pass through the territory, how does that happen without it also being open to people? What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 20, 2017 17:44:25 GMT -5
This design...I think it's brilliant. Because all joking aside, you really have to be able to stop a truck with an extension ladder off the bed from being able to scale over the wall or its fucking worthless imo. That's pretty much the most simple and practical option for people to scale over a wall now. Throw some solar powered panels on that bitch and shoot that power south. I like it. Now just have to figure out how to not entirely fragment that ecosystem. Someone explain this to me: is this wall big enough that someone wouldn't be able to put a ladder together to make it over the top? Does the wall extend significantly far enough down that you can't realistically tunnel under it? If the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding 'yes', then you essentially have to monitor the entire length of the wall, which is something that can't be adequately done now (without the cost of the wall). And if you decide that the local ecosystem is something worth protecting, and that a healthy ecosystem requires animals to pass through the territory, how does that happen without it also being open to people? What am I missing? Do you lock your door at night? Do you lock your car? if so, why? When locked, does it mean no one can get in or does it make it more difficult? We have miles of border with zero barrier and in those areas, anyone can walk across or drive something across. So a barrier has a twofold impact to the person trying to gain illegal entry: it limits the method of entry On foot) and it limits who can cross. Not everyone is scaling a fence but everyone can walk through an open area. Further, having a barrier delays crossing which in this game TIME is a huge factor in stopping or catching those trying to make entry. Set off motion in an area and we send agents, and that delay in getting over can be enough time to catch them. We have a dual barrier system in some parts of the border which is a much larger deterrent and much less crossed. Any barrier can be climbed over or dug under regardless of height and depth, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. And you are absolutely correct that we can't keep everyone out; but we can make it a lot harder to get in. The ecosystem? I don't know. I think the desert life will live on.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 20, 2017 18:50:12 GMT -5
Someone explain this to me: is this wall big enough that someone wouldn't be able to put a ladder together to make it over the top? Does the wall extend significantly far enough down that you can't realistically tunnel under it? If the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding 'yes', then you essentially have to monitor the entire length of the wall, which is something that can't be adequately done now (without the cost of the wall). And if you decide that the local ecosystem is something worth protecting, and that a healthy ecosystem requires animals to pass through the territory, how does that happen without it also being open to people? What am I missing? Do you lock your door at night? Do you lock your car? if so, why? When locked, does it mean no one can get in or does it make it more difficult? We have miles of border with zero barrier and in those areas, anyone can walk across or drive something across. So a barrier has a twofold impact to the person trying to gain illegal entry: it limits the method of entry On foot) and it limits who can cross. Not everyone is scaling a fence but everyone can walk through an open area. Further, having a barrier delays crossing which in this game TIME is a huge factor in stopping or catching those trying to make entry. Set off motion in an area and we send agents, and that delay in getting over can be enough time to catch them. We have a dual barrier system in some parts of the border which is a much larger deterrent and much less crossed. Any barrier can be climbed over or dug under regardless of height and depth, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. And you are absolutely correct that we can't keep everyone out; but we can make it a lot harder to get in. The ecosystem? I don't know. I think the desert life will live on. I lock my door and turn my home alarm on because it makes my house (as a target) less desirable than other available targets. Your analogy doesn't properly apply, because for these people, there are no other primary targets. The dream resides across the border, not elsewhere. I understand that harder = better, but let's be real here, I'm on construction sites every day which have ladders that would make getting over any of the wall designs I've seen here a breeze. I'm willing to bet they have construction sites with ladders in Mexico, too Now you translate paying thousands of dollars to criminal organizations to whisk you across the border currently, and I have a hunch that they just might be able to work out a solution if continuing to get those thousands of dollars involves finding some ladders or constructing a small tunnel or two. So we're back to monitoring the entire fucking thing, and the point becomes....if you still have to monitor and have staff to react, then why build in the first place? You could just set up a monitoring system and staff it regardless of the wall. As a Canadian, I understand that the vast majority of you guys think I'm some sort of leftist retard, which doesn't bother me. But to be totally honest, I have no problem with a wall, in theory. You have a border, and it's absolutely your right to manage it as you determine is best. But I can't figure out how the wall makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 20, 2017 19:29:22 GMT -5
Do you lock your door at night? Do you lock your car? if so, why? When locked, does it mean no one can get in or does it make it more difficult? We have miles of border with zero barrier and in those areas, anyone can walk across or drive something across. So a barrier has a twofold impact to the person trying to gain illegal entry: it limits the method of entry On foot) and it limits who can cross. Not everyone is scaling a fence but everyone can walk through an open area. Further, having a barrier delays crossing which in this game TIME is a huge factor in stopping or catching those trying to make entry. Set off motion in an area and we send agents, and that delay in getting over can be enough time to catch them. We have a dual barrier system in some parts of the border which is a much larger deterrent and much less crossed. Any barrier can be climbed over or dug under regardless of height and depth, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. And you are absolutely correct that we can't keep everyone out; but we can make it a lot harder to get in. The ecosystem? I don't know. I think the desert life will live on. I lock my door and turn my home alarm on because it makes my house (as a target) less desirable than other available targets. Your analogy doesn't properly apply, because for these people, there are no other primary targets. The dream resides across the border, not elsewhere. I understand that harder = better, but let's be real here, I'm on construction sites every day which have ladders that would make getting over any of the wall designs I've seen here a breeze. I'm willing to bet they have construction sites with ladders in Mexico, too Now you translate paying thousands of dollars to criminal organizations to whisk you across the border currently, and I have a hunch that they just might be able to work out a solution if continuing to get those thousands of dollars involves finding some ladders or constructing a small tunnel or two. So we're back to monitoring the entire fucking thing, and the point becomes....if you still have to monitor and have staff to react, then why build in the first place? You could just set up a monitoring system and staff it regardless of the wall. As a Canadian, I understand that the vast majority of you guys think I'm some sort of leftist retard, which doesn't bother me. But to be totally honest, I have no problem with a wall, in theory. You have a border, and it's absolutely your right to manage it as you determine is best. But I can't figure out how the wall makes sense. We would NOT be monitoring the entire wall. There are many places totally impassable and many places that are easily passable. That's the problem - and that is where a lot of entry is made. In areas where we have a secure barrier we push them east or west into areas we can properly patrol. But, if we actually have larger areas of continuous fencing it will shrink the areas where they can cross into very difficult to impossible and then be much easier to monitor. Is it easier to patrol 20 miles or 200 hundreds? It's simple mathematics. A physical barrier where someone can easily walk across or drive across is eliminated with a barrier. Sure, they can build ladders and ladder over any wall, but they won't be driving in and it isn't as simple as people think for a child or pregnant woman or older person to climb two ladders. Barriers can be better designed to lessen the ability to climb as well. So that's how it makes sense. People will still get in but it will be LESS. And, hopefully when they fall off and break their leg they land on the Mexico side.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jun 20, 2017 19:46:22 GMT -5
I lock my door and turn my home alarm on because it makes my house (as a target) less desirable than other available targets. Your analogy doesn't properly apply, because for these people, there are no other primary targets. The dream resides across the border, not elsewhere. I understand that harder = better, but let's be real here, I'm on construction sites every day which have ladders that would make getting over any of the wall designs I've seen here a breeze. I'm willing to bet they have construction sites with ladders in Mexico, too Now you translate paying thousands of dollars to criminal organizations to whisk you across the border currently, and I have a hunch that they just might be able to work out a solution if continuing to get those thousands of dollars involves finding some ladders or constructing a small tunnel or two. So we're back to monitoring the entire fucking thing, and the point becomes....if you still have to monitor and have staff to react, then why build in the first place? You could just set up a monitoring system and staff it regardless of the wall. As a Canadian, I understand that the vast majority of you guys think I'm some sort of leftist retard, which doesn't bother me. But to be totally honest, I have no problem with a wall, in theory. You have a border, and it's absolutely your right to manage it as you determine is best. But I can't figure out how the wall makes sense. We would NOT be monitoring the entire wall. There are many places totally impassable and many places that are easily passable. That's the problem - and that is where a lot of entry is made. In areas where we have a secure barrier we push them east or west into areas we can properly patrol. But, if we actually have larger areas of continuous fencing it will shrink the areas where they can cross into very difficult to impossible and then be much easier to monitor. Is it easier to patrol 20 miles or 200 hundreds? It's simple mathematics. A physical barrier where someone can easily walk across or drive across is eliminated with a barrier. Sure, they can build ladders and ladder over any wall, but they won't be driving in and it isn't as simple as people think for a child or pregnant woman or older person to climb two ladders. Barriers can be better designed to lessen the ability to climb as well. So that's how it makes sense. People will still get in but it will be LESS. And, hopefully when they fall off and break their leg they land on the Mexico side. You haven't answered my question. Why would they magically be shunted to other areas? If you're not monitoring the sections where there is a wall, what is the actual difference between skulking across at night as a group, or sneaking a ladder up and doing it that way? If it's not monitored, it's not monitored. Sure, the odd pregnant woman would have to think twice, but the entire process isn't without some level of hardship anyway, what's a trip up and down a ladder? Anyway, we're talking in circles, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jun 20, 2017 20:00:43 GMT -5
We would NOT be monitoring the entire wall. There are many places totally impassable and many places that are easily passable. That's the problem - and that is where a lot of entry is made. In areas where we have a secure barrier we push them east or west into areas we can properly patrol. But, if we actually have larger areas of continuous fencing it will shrink the areas where they can cross into very difficult to impossible and then be much easier to monitor. Is it easier to patrol 20 miles or 200 hundreds? It's simple mathematics. A physical barrier where someone can easily walk across or drive across is eliminated with a barrier. Sure, they can build ladders and ladder over any wall, but they won't be driving in and it isn't as simple as people think for a child or pregnant woman or older person to climb two ladders. Barriers can be better designed to lessen the ability to climb as well. So that's how it makes sense. People will still get in but it will be LESS. And, hopefully when they fall off and break their leg they land on the Mexico side. You haven't answered my question. Why would they magically be shunted to other areas? If you're not monitoring the sections where there is a wall, what is the actual difference between skulking across at night as a group, or sneaking a ladder up and doing it that way? If it's not monitored, it's not monitored. Sure, the odd pregnant woman would have to think twice, but the entire process isn't without some level of hardship anyway, what's a trip up and down a ladder? Anyway, we're talking in circles, I guess. Back to my earlier point, deport the marked for deportation prisoners in the government federal system alone and have the money to hire 30k new agents. Granted you'd need to still pay for them after year one. But 10k agents for 3 years, that would do better than the wall and the savings from them not using resources may be enough to keep that manpower. Add in the private prison system marked for deportation (which is larger amount than the government system) and who knows maybe you can afford 30k new agents for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jun 20, 2017 20:21:06 GMT -5
We would NOT be monitoring the entire wall. There are many places totally impassable and many places that are easily passable. That's the problem - and that is where a lot of entry is made. In areas where we have a secure barrier we push them east or west into areas we can properly patrol. But, if we actually have larger areas of continuous fencing it will shrink the areas where they can cross into very difficult to impossible and then be much easier to monitor. Is it easier to patrol 20 miles or 200 hundreds? It's simple mathematics. A physical barrier where someone can easily walk across or drive across is eliminated with a barrier. Sure, they can build ladders and ladder over any wall, but they won't be driving in and it isn't as simple as people think for a child or pregnant woman or older person to climb two ladders. Barriers can be better designed to lessen the ability to climb as well. So that's how it makes sense. People will still get in but it will be LESS. And, hopefully when they fall off and break their leg they land on the Mexico side. You haven't answered my question. Why would they magically be shunted to other areas? If you're not monitoring the sections where there is a wall, what is the actual difference between skulking across at night as a group, or sneaking a ladder up and doing it that way? If it's not monitored, it's not monitored. Sure, the odd pregnant woman would have to think twice, but the entire process isn't without some level of hardship anyway, what's a trip up and down a ladder? Anyway, we're talking in circles, I guess. You're assuming people can scale the fence easily and I am not agreeing with that. There is a significant difference between ease of crossing with our without a barrier and history has proven this. Where we erected barriers, we pushed people east and west. That's an indisputable fact. We need to continue that strategy but we never have because we stopped. The photos of people scaling the fence is immaterial to the fact a barrier can and is effective. I am admitting there are going to be people able to scale, go under or penetrate anything we erect. But what if we reduce it by 75%? 50%? That's well worth it. DHS is in the data collection period with vendors who will bid on the barrier and how easy it is to penetrate and climb are parts of the market research going on, and what those submitted proposals will explain. Vendors will respond with questions and then the government will respond, and then we will get pricing proposals. Once we are deeper into that process I am sure they will be released or leaked and then we will have a better idea of the wall schematics. I really have no clue what the fence is going to look like and Vale's question has me trying to see what I cna find out. And it will ALL be monitored, so I should correct my earlier statement - but where the monitoring is focused will be strategic as will be the direction of manpower.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 20, 2017 20:52:21 GMT -5
We would NOT be monitoring the entire wall. There are many places totally impassable and many places that are easily passable. That's the problem - and that is where a lot of entry is made. In areas where we have a secure barrier we push them east or west into areas we can properly patrol. But, if we actually have larger areas of continuous fencing it will shrink the areas where they can cross into very difficult to impossible and then be much easier to monitor. Is it easier to patrol 20 miles or 200 hundreds? It's simple mathematics. A physical barrier where someone can easily walk across or drive across is eliminated with a barrier. Sure, they can build ladders and ladder over any wall, but they won't be driving in and it isn't as simple as people think for a child or pregnant woman or older person to climb two ladders. Barriers can be better designed to lessen the ability to climb as well. So that's how it makes sense. People will still get in but it will be LESS. And, hopefully when they fall off and break their leg they land on the Mexico side. You haven't answered my question. Why would they magically be shunted to other areas? If you're not monitoring the sections where there is a wall, what is the actual difference between skulking across at night as a group, or sneaking a ladder up and doing it that way? If it's not monitored, it's not monitored. Sure, the odd pregnant woman would have to think twice, but the entire process isn't without some level of hardship anyway, what's a trip up and down a ladder? Anyway, we're talking in circles, I guess. Every once in a while, a few jumping beans are gonna successfully scale the wall. Sometimes prisoners escape from prison, that doesn't mean that the walls and razor wire are ineffective... Is your argument that the wall won't deter and minimize illegal immigration? Because data from areas where there is new fencing, shows a decline in illegal immigration in those particular newly fenced areas. Imagine there's a lady who carries pepper spray in her purse, because she walks home from work at nite...and then i tell her not to even bother carrying pepper spray because her potential rapist-attacker will be bigger and stronger...and he'll be VERY determined to rape her, so she might not even bother to take the basic precautions to defend herself...cause she gone get OliG'd anyway...
|
|