The Glade 4.0

It's been really effective in Yuma and south of San Diego. Yes, it channels more folks through the more porous areas of Arizona's and New Mexico's border. However, if we had a contiguous wall all the way down it would help cut down tremendously. Also, don't make the assumption that we just want to build a wall and leave it at that. The wall, like ground sensors, and even more Border Patrol guards themselves all have a specific mission. Each one isn't meant to solve the entirety of the problem. They all contribute to the larger strategy of border security and are more effective when all used in conjunction.

_________________
The Dude abides.

That's not securing something. That's disincentivizing. Pretty big difference actually.

Let me try to use an imperfect military analogy. Guerillas want to use a town as a staging point. You can either occupy it by force and "secure" it, or you can level the entire town, thereby eliminating anything they want there and "disincentivizing" it.

Securing the border, and thus protecting the national sovereignty of the US, involves physically protecting it, with force if necessary. Disincentivizing people from crossing it through "comprehensive reform" is not securing it, because even if you dramatically reduce the number of illegal crossings, they will still happen. Securing said border involves manpower.


@ Lydiaa, I haven't seen a wall mentioned in this thread, actually.


Personally, I think since the Feds won't do their job, the 3-4 states involved should call out the militia.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Clearly. However, any inconvenience will make it more difficult to get in. That will stop some of the less despearte and make the more desperate easier to detect.



Yes, we get all that. What part of "Just because the wall isn't a solution all by itself doesn't mean it's of no help at all" do you not get?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Obviously people will still try. Dying horribly in the process, however, tends to reduce considerably the numbers getting through. A "secure border" doesn't necessarily mean 100% impenetrable; it means that whatever does get through can be handled by other systems. That's how a layered defense works.

Quit with the false dilemma "if it doesn't work perfectly it's of no value at all" reasoning

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Disincentivizing is a contributor to securing. When you disincentivize an action that compromises security, you can then expend less resources on security. In your town example, you now have more resources to secure everything else with. In the border example, if you remove incentive you can (theoretically) use fewer resources to get the same level of security, or use the same resources and get more security. Either way, you've "secured" by "disincentivizing".

So yes, it is disincentivizing, and it's also securing. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because "words have meanings" does not mean all words are mutually exclusive or that only one correct word can be used for any given thing.

Not only that but "they [illegal crossings] will still happen" is not a reason that disincentivizing is not securing the border. They will still happen no matter what, because 100% perfection is not practical. By that logic, adding more border patrol agents isn't securing the border either because "it will still happen" until we hit that magical point where they don't happen at all and then it's "secure". That's a silly definition to use unless we're securing something where absolute perfection is necessary, like a nuclear weapons depot. Rather, the border is secure when the other layered defenses we have, like ICE can deal with whatever does get through without being saturated like they are now, and when illegal immigrants are not a major economic force.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Welcome to AZ

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Since we're on the topic of immigration, can anyone provide some data on the negative impacts that illegal immigration is having? I certainly don't deny that there are huge numbers of illegal immigrants or that it would be desirable as a general matter to have more effective control over our southern border, but I'm not familiar with the data on what actual, concrete harm is supposedly being caused.

Well, that 3rd picture in Leshani's post is a small snapshot. There's all kinds of places like that out there and nobody really cleans it up, except for maybe BLM.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Some items that get tossed around quite a bit...

1) Healthcare costs absorbed by hospitals and effectively transferred to taxpayers/those with insurance.
2) Crime rates in communities with large illegal immigrant populations is higher than normal (ignoring the fact that being there is illegal)
3) Crime rates related to drug and people smuggling in the border states (not necessarily directly tied to illegal immigration, but a symptom of the pourous border)
4) Increased support for Democrat candidates

5) Public education
6) Bilingual support for the bulk of businesses and governmental offices
7) Falling property values (tied to 2 & 3 above)
8) Falling/stagnant wages

_________________

With all due respect for Scree and Hopwin, I gotta point out that I think RD is looking for more "source material" indicating the harm.

That being said, all 8 of those points ignore the biggest one, for which there is no "concrete" evidence beyond the casually visible: undermining of the rule of law.


@ Diamondeye: I appreciate your more in-depth discussion, rather than a simple dismissal of my distinction in terms. While I still disagree, I understand your point.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Drop the pretense, DFK. There's no respect coming out of you.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I know but if we cannot even get an accurate count of the number of illegals it makes it more than slightly difficult to provide qualitative figures

Here are some estimates though:
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/ (real-time cost counters... methodology uncertain)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-o ... mmigrants/ (contains some figures, mostly debunks others)

_________________

Aye, I'm familiar with the kinds of problems usually discussed, but I'm wondering if there's much in the way of actual data to back them up. I can just Google it, but I figured I'd see if anyone had stats or sources easily at hand.

I added some... ah... I'll generously call it "stuff" to my post above.

_________________

Sorry I was generally musing about the wall thing (and a mote, with lazers and stuff)...
I think thats how it started and not as a serious, someone go build a wall thing...

Anyways, I was bored enough last night to look into the illegal immigration (privillages?) stuff they are able to get in the US and it seems pretty easy. You guys have over 50% of them filing income taxes for goodness sake... /boggle

I was also bored enough to look into the cost of the berlin wall and if it would be feasible as a boarder wall. I couldn't find how much the initial wall costed, but the reinforcing costed 3.6m per 140km. Assuming the original wall costed just as much, a wall across the us would only cost you ~$160m, with a guard tower every 1000m. Of course wages for the soldiers are a big part, assuming 2 guards per tower with a change of shift (so you need 6 per tower, ~3000 towers, and a wage of $40,000pp?) comes to ~$720m per year to keep running. Which I'll admit on the scheme of things doesnt actually sound as bad as I initially thought it would.

You might want to look at the estimates for the walls that have been proposed in the US, Lydiaa. A few things would be different about this wall and the Berlin Wall. Estimates are in the billions.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Looking at Hopwin's links shows that national costs because of illegal immigrants are in the billions too. Folks argue that the figures are high/low, it wouldn't surprise me if bias was present.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-o ... mmigrants/

Personally, I'd put big fines on businesses that are found to employ illegal immigrants, yank all public funding from any organization that was found to provide services to them, and deny citizenship to any child born within our borders if the mother wasn't here legitimately. I'd not target the immigrants themselves, I'd just make sure no US taxes are used to support them and take incentives for illegal immigration away.

AND I'd make english the national language and require ALL immigrants/permanent residents to demonstrate a certain proficiency, and stop printing US government docs in other languages.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm suggesting that Lydiaa's guesstimate is way off, Taskiss. I figured that since "Smuggler's Gulch", a 3.5 mile stretch near San Diego will cost an estimated $60 million, it might behoove Lydiaa to look at some real estimates, regardless of Hopwin's links on the costs of illegal immigrants.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Can't.

_________________

Yeah, I know. File that under "If I were King"...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I agree - I have yet to see a government estimate of any major expenditure that survives the test of time.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Test of time, lol they don't even survive the light of day anymore.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You can't currently. The Constitution could be ammended to allow this, althoug if it were me I'd make it either parent, not just the mother.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The Supreme Court building was completed under budget. That was quite some time ago though.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."