Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the current illegals aren't coming from Mexico. It's not the job of our Govt to ensure prosperity in central and S America much the less Mexico and Guatemala.
You're right, it's not the US govt's job. Just don't be surprised when central americans pour in to escape violence though. I mentioned Mexico because some central Americans stop along the way in Mexico for safety, but if Mexico becomes even more prosperous, more central Americans will stop there rather than America.
It's also not our job to ensure stability in the middle east, but lord knows how much we waste there.
If you think a wall will keep drug smugglers out, you seriously underestimate the abilities of the cartel. They will simply pay a kid from the slums to dig under it for them. The wall will certainly have a deterrant effect for migrants/asylum seekers though.
I think the win-win solution here is to forge strong economic ties with Mexico, not only improving our economy, but improving theirs as well. This will raise the standard of living and create job opportunities in Mexico so that many people will see Mexico as just as viable of an option. Everyone prospers.
No one is saying that the wall will keep out the drug cartels nor illegal aliens 100%. The point is though where the good walls have been erected already it has cut back illegal entry immensely. Ever heard of tunnel sensors?
I don't think that Mexico is interested in providing jobs or prosperity for their poor, uneducated and unskilled. If they were they would have done so long ago. We already send billions to Mexico to help them out and it has done no good. It's not easy dealing with corrupt countries.
No one is saying that the wall will keep out the drug cartels nor illegal aliens 100%. The point is though where the good walls have been erected already it has cut back illegal entry immensely. Ever heard of tunnel sensors?
I don't think that Mexico is interested in providing jobs or prosperity for their poor, uneducated and unskilled. If they were they would have done so long ago. We already send billions to Mexico to help them out and it has done no good. It's not easy dealing with corrupt countries.
I honestly have no problem with a wall. I just think it won't be effective as some theorize. What if we drop 20 billion (???) on this thing, and it just opens a new business venture up for the cartels (subterranean smuggling). Who knows though, maybe I'll be wrong and migration will drop to near zero. There's no way to tell till it's done.
Tunnel sensors? Never heard of those. I assume it's some kind of doppler technology for finding underground openings?
You're right about dealing with corrupt countries. Pumping them with billions is ineffective. I was thinking more along the lines of businesses growing rather than straight-up cash aid, but a wall and business growth are certainly not mutually exclusive.
I'll be interested to see the project unfold. I assume that Trump has to rush it before the hypothesized 'blue wave' appears.
Last edited by sad_hotline; 05-14-2018 at 04:32 PM..
a wall, electronic fencing, seismic sensors, Border Patrol, National Guard, canine units, drone surveillance, turrets with machine guns, cannons, WHATEVER IT TAKES and I'm not 1/2 kidding!
a wall, electronic fencing, seismic sensors, Border Patrol, National Guard, canine units, drone surveillance, turrets with machine guns, cannons, WHATEVER IT TAKES and I'm not 1/2 kidding!
To what end? Over 60% of the incoming are over stayers. Much of the rest are asylum seekers who surrender at ports of entree. Of the rest there are a tiny number who will make little difference. So basically you want to build a wall to keep out those who are not coming anyway.
I honestly have no problem with a wall. I just think it won't be effective as some theorize. What if we drop 20 billion (???) on this thing, and it just opens a new business venture up for the cartels (subterranean smuggling). Who knows though, maybe I'll be wrong and migration will drop to near zero. There's no way to tell till it's done.
Tunnel sensors? Never heard of those. I assume it's some kind of doppler technology for finding underground openings?
You're right about dealing with corrupt countries. Pumping them with billions is ineffective. I was thinking more along the lines of businesses growing rather than straight-up cash aid, but a wall and business growth are certainly not mutually exclusive.
I'll be interested to see the project unfold. I assume that Trump has to rush it before the hypothesized 'blue wave' appears.
I've already provided links how the good walls have already been very effective so I don't know where your doubt is coming from. Yes, there are is such a thing as tunnel sensors.
We have already sent many of our factory jobs, etc. to Mexico and points southward and yet their citizens still come here illegally. The best we can do is to try to stop them from coming here in the first place and remove all of the incentives for them to do so.
To what end? Over 60% of the incoming are over stayers. Much of the rest are asylum seekers who surrender at ports of entree. Of the rest there are a tiny number who will make little difference. So basically you want to build a wall to keep out those who are not coming anyway.
Don't you understand that is a bit silly?
Not true, and yes, my suggestions were somewhat tongue in cheek, but the majority of illegals are neither overstays or asylum seekers. I don't call 10 million a 'tiny number' either. So, what do you have against a wall?
If you think a wall will keep drug smugglers out, you seriously underestimate the abilities of the cartel. They will simply pay a kid from the slums to dig under it for them. The wall will certainly have a deterrant effect for migrants/asylum seekers though.
I think the win-win solution here is to forge strong economic ties with Mexico, not only improving our economy, but improving theirs as well. This will raise the standard of living and create job opportunities in Mexico so that many people will see Mexico as just as viable of an option. Everyone prospers.
Uh. No. And BTW, don't we already HAVE a trade agreement with Mexico? We owe nothing to them. They will not even help in the discouragement of their own people from entering the US illegally. Mexico and its government are corrupt.
Asylum seekers are generally people who have resources to leave their country of origin and actually get a visa and fly in to the US. At the border, they request asylum, OR once inside, they go to the asylum office and apply in person.
If you think a wall will keep drug smugglers out, you seriously underestimate the abilities of the cartel. They will simply pay a kid from the slums to dig under it for them. The wall will certainly have a deterrant effect for migrants/asylum seekers though.
I think the win-win solution here is to forge strong economic ties with Mexico, not only improving our economy, but improving theirs as well. This will raise the standard of living and create job opportunities in Mexico so that many people will see Mexico as just as viable of an option. Everyone prospers.
[quote=lvmensch;51794957][quote=Boompa;51792270]
Sillinss Tucson and Phoenix are well removed from the border.
Huachuca is closer but is spooks not regular military.
Border guarding is not a reasonable military mission. End up with bad soldiers and bad border guards.[/quote]
The wall is a waste of money IMHO. Too much cost, and absolutely no guarantee it will keep the illegals away. You can impose penalties to those who take in illegals (rent, work, etc), but if those dealings are off the books and by cash, who is going to find them (unless somebody blows the whistle).
There is no simple solution. What sanctions can be imposed to Mexico to have them pay their "fair share" of the cost to the U.S. economy from illegals? Should the U.S. strengthen incentives for foreigners to move/work here, maybe trying to play the theory of marijuana that by having it legal the black market will shrink because there will be less demand for it?
Would it be cheaper in the long run to have 24/7 flyover border patrol in helicopters (obviously with high technology ie> nightvision, heat sensors, etc)? Maybe one copter per "x" miles back and forth, 3 shifts per day?
Sure the wall seems like the best blockade on the surface, but I'm not buying into the cost/benefit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
