SURVEY: Build the Wall -- Yes or No?

[manarak]

36 minutes ago, Credo said:

Please note that the 2nd largest protected wildlife basin in the US, just behind the Greater Yellowstone area will be entirely cut off from the Rio Grande waters.

 

not necessarily, river bends can be used to provide access to the water

[Credo]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

not necessarily, river bends can be used to provide access to the water

So animals can now travel many miles to get to water access?   And some of the terrain makes a wall nearly impossible to build, let alone maintain.   

 

[manarak]

32 minutes ago, Credo said:

So animals can now travel many miles to get to water access?   And some of the terrain makes a wall nearly impossible to build, let alone maintain. 

not many miles. have a look at satellite pics and you will see the Rio Grande is quite curvy and also has many minor creeks. I'd be surprised if any animal had to cover more than 1 or 2 extra miles for the water.

 

and in places where a fence cannot be built, I guess humans will have a difficult time to cross too.

 

nowadays, it's possible to build light structures anywhere.

 

but I am surprised you chose to react to this one of my posts (which is about rather unimportant details) instead of this one:

 

 

[Credo]

4 minutes ago, manarak said:

not many miles. have a look at satellite pics and you will see the Rio Grande is quite curvy and also has many minor creeks. I'd be surprised if any animal had to cover more than 1 or 2 extra miles for the water.

 

and in places where a fence cannot be built, I guess humans will have a difficult time to cross too.

 

nowadays, it's possible to build light structures anywhere.

 

but I am surprised you chose to react to this one of my posts (which is about rather unimportant details) instead of this one:

 

 

Not trying to single you out, but I don't think a lot of people have looked at the ramifications or problems in building and maintaining a wall.   This area is one and building one is ridiculous.   I won't even get into how some of the land owners who live on the flatter areas feel about being cut off from the water and there just aren't enough bends to accommodate all the problems.   

 

Many of the areas can be monitored with high tech surveillance equipment.   My point is that regardless of a wall, or fence, it still requires a large border force to monitor the border.   

 

[manarak]

12 minutes ago, Credo said:

Not trying to single you out, but I don't think a lot of people have looked at the ramifications or problems in building and maintaining a wall.   This area is one and building one is ridiculous.   I won't even get into how some of the land owners who live on the flatter areas feel about being cut off from the water and there just aren't enough bends to accommodate all the problems.   

 

Many of the areas can be monitored with high tech surveillance equipment.   My point is that regardless of a wall, or fence, it still requires a large border force to monitor the border.  

 

the poll here asks for people's opinion about an issue they are ignorant about.

 

if you read what I wrote, I didn't take sides. the reason is, I don't have enough information to have an opinion.

 

my point is that someone should do the maths - how much would a fence cost to build and maintain and how much money would it save ?

 

besides, it's not about to build THE big border fence, the question is whether the border fence, now covering about 50-55% of the border, should be extended to cover 100% or not.

 

the figures quoted in this post contradict the figures quoted in my BBC link:

 

and in all fairness, people make now a huge issue about Trump's wall whereas the major part of the existing wall, which now forces the illegal children and women through the dangerous areas of the Rio Grande, was built under Obama...

 

a good example how politics disrupt rational thinking in a democracy.

[pegman]

Maybe the better way would be to give Mexico back the lands stolen from it. Either that or they take the entire USA over demographically in a few decades.

[manarak]

1 minute ago, pegman said:

Maybe the better way would be to give Mexico back the lands stolen from it. Either that or they take the entire USA over demographically in a few decades.

errmmm... you forgot the Alamo ?

[wayned]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

 

the poll here asks for people's opinion about an issue they are ignorant about.

 

if you read what I wrote, I didn't take sides. the reason is, I don't have enough information to have an opinion.

 

my point is that someone should do the maths - how much would a fence cost to build and maintain and how much money would it save ?

 

besides, it's not about to build THE big border fence, the question is whether the border fence, now covering about 50-55% of the border, should be extended to cover 100% or not.

 

the figures quoted in this post contradict the figures quoted in my BBC link:

 

and in all fairness, people make now a huge issue about Trump's wall whereas the major part of the existing wall, which now forces the illegal children and women through the dangerous areas of the Rio Grande, was built under Obama...

 

a good example how politics disrupt rational thinking in a democracy.

He is requesting the 5.7 billion dollars to complete about 210 miles of fencing so that it covers the whole distance from San Diego to El Paso.  5.7 dollars for 210 miles equates to over $5000 per foot.  The contractor must be part of the Trump Organization or the fence will be plated with gold leaf!

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, smotherb said:

What?  May I remind you that you did say that--see below. And, you are again wrong when you suggest no one has said that. When you only listen to people who think the way you do; you will not likely find any fault in your reasoning. Try listening to opposing views and think about them.  

 

"Then maybe we should tear down the existing walls near San Diego and El Paso after all they are not effective and a waste of money . . ."

The post was tongue in cheek (I wrote it, I did not "say" it). I do listen to other points of view and on this topic the opposing sides arguments are not convincing for me, and it is entirely possible that they are convincing for you. Bottom line is that the US has tried many other ways of stemming the flow of illegal immigration, and we still have a problem. Walls have worked where they have been tried along the border, my opinion is maybe we should "try them" in other areas where they can be effective. Trump is not advocating a border wall along the entire border, and he has stated this on numerous occasions before and after his election. Did he ever advocate a wall along the entire border? Probably but his use of the English language has been less than precise and consistent, but he isn't advocating that path forward currently.

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, wayned said:

He is requesting the 5.7 billion dollars to complete about 210 miles of fencing so that it covers the whole distance from San Diego to El Paso.  5.7 dollars for 210 miles equates to over $5000 per foot.  The contractor must be part of the Trump Organization or the fence will be plated with gold leaf!

While that is expensive keep in mind that environmental concerns must be addressed. There will be an environmental impact statement, consultations with various agencies for endangered wild life, plants, and insects. There will also be lawsuits and delays. Also like all government spending the project will be inefficient and wasteful compared to a private effort (for profit). It is expensive but in the big scheme of things what is more expensive, paying government benefits to millions of illegal immigrants or 5.7 billion for a wall that will prevent them from arriving in the first place? Many Americans including myself think that it is worth giving the plan a shot, it cannot be any worse that what we are doing now to limit illegal immigration. Keep in mid we are talking about ways to decrease illegal immigration, not people that are legally immigrating to the US. The US currently accepts about one million "legal" immigrants every single year and these people have a clear path to citizen ship after a few years. We need to support legal immigrants and deter illegal immigration and a wall in select areas is one way of decreasing the numbers of illegal immigrants.

[wayned]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

While that is expensive keep in mind that environmental concerns must be addressed. There will be an environmental impact statement, consultations with various agencies for endangered wild life, plants, and insects. There will also be lawsuits and delays. Also like all government spending the project will be inefficient and wasteful compared to a private effort (for profit). It is expensive but in the big scheme of things what is more expensive, paying government benefits to millions of illegal immigrants or 5.7 billion for a wall that will prevent them from arriving in the first place? Many Americans including myself think that it is worth giving the plan a shot.

Many Americans including myself think that it is total BS.   A technical committee should be formed including representatives of internal CBP and Homeland security planning committees to come up with a comprehensive border security plan that covers not only repairing and constructing new barriers but also includes all of the technological, personnel and infrastructure expenditures needed to provide that security and determine the timeline necessary to accomplish these goals so that a periodic funding plan be set up to properly utilize the funds, not just "I want 5.7 billion or I'll take my toys and go home".  I know what I said is what is required and it's not any more difficult than putting together an internal corporate development plan, which I did for many years, but this administration just doesn't have a clue!  It's "Sandbox 101"  a bunch of 5 years old playing with our future!

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, wayned said:

Many Americans including myself think that it is total BS.   A technical committee should be formed including representatives of internal CBP and Homeland security planning committees to come up with a comprehensive border security plan that covers not only repairing and constructing new barriers but also includes all of the technological, personnel and infrastructure expenditures needed to provide that security and determine the timeline necessary to accomplish these goals so that a periodic funding plan be set up to properly utilize the funds, not just "I want 5.7 billion or I'll take my toys and go home".  I know what I said is what is required and it's not any more difficult than putting together an internal corporate development plan, which I did for many years, but this administration just doesn't have a clue!  It's "Sandbox 101"  a bunch of 5 years old playing with our future!

I don't necessarily disagree with your post. Trump has already said he would take less than 5.7 billion, but the Democrats are stuck at zero. Compromise means that both side give a little, and maybe get something they want to sweeten the deal (i.e. DACA for the Democrats). Trumps has already stated that he is flexible and willing to compromise on the actual amount, but the other side has said that the only acceptable amount is zero. One side is being reasonable and the other side is not being reasonable in this case. 

[wayned]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your post. Trump has already said he would take less than 5.7 billion, but the Democrats are stuck at zero. Compromise means that both side give a little, and maybe get something they want to sweeten the deal (i.e. DACA for the Democrats). Trumps has already stated that he is flexible and willing to compromise on the actual amount, but the other side has said that the only acceptable amount is zero. One side is being reasonable and the other side is not being reasonable in this case. 

Depends or whether you listen to CNN or the Hannity clan on Fox.  All that I've heard is that Trump is stuck on his 5.7 billion for a wall and Pelosi is stuck on 1.3 billion for border security and no wall.  The last meeting Trump walked out when Pelosi said no money for a wall so who knows.  Current partisan negotiations taking place between McConnel, Kushner and Pence , what a knowledgeable team, but I doubt anything will come of it. McConnel should do his job and put forward a bill to end the shutdown which would require 67 votes to overrule Trump's veto instead on giving him a daily BBBJ!

[Cryingdick]

 

5 minutes ago, wayned said:

Depends or whether you listen to CNN or the Hannity clan on Fox.  All that I've heard is that Trump is stuck on his 5.7 billion for a wall and Pelosi is stuck on 1.3 billion for border security and no wall.  The last meeting Trump walked out when Pelosi said no money for a wall so who knows.  Current partisan negotiations taking place between McConnel, Kushner and Pence , what a knowledgeable team, but I doubt anything will come of it. McConnel should do his job and put forward a bill to end the shutdown which would require 67 votes to overrule Trump's veto instead on giving him a daily BBBJ!

 

It's a good thing AOC is running around with her friends from her last slumber party stalking McConnel. But let's not look at what a bunch of nutcases the dems appear to be at times. 

 

It would be very easy to come up with a figure somewhere in the middle and go on with life. Pelosi isn't budging or negotiating at all. 

[Ahab]

I think both sides should compromise and end the government partial shutdown. Trump should take less money, and the Democrats should come up from zero (2-3 billion). Trump should throw in DACA to sweeten the deal and everyone should be happy and the government shutdown can end.

[wayned]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

 

It's a good thing AOC is running around with her friends from her last slumber party stalking McConnel. But let's not look at what a bunch of nutcases the dems appear to be at times. 

 

It would be very easy to come up with a figure somewhere in the middle and go on with life. Pelosi isn't budging or negotiating at all. 

At one point in time, which seems like months ago, it was reported that Pence had gone back and presented a plan to Trump that reduced the amount to 2.5 billion and he flatly refused to accept anything less than the 5.7 billion.  Trump still thinks that he is winning and doesn't care what 's happening to anybody, and won't until he starts affecting his base and their support dwindles.  I wonder how many are TSA employees?

[Jingthing]

Yes, "trump" has been firm on the 5.7 b. In fact it was reported that Pence was talking about reducing that and "trump" spanked him down. Hard to see how this ends. 

[mcambl61]

On 1/14/2019 at 7:07 PM, attrayant said:

 

If they have a visa, they they're documented, aren't they?  If you were to take a census of all the undocumented immigrants presently in the country, you'd find that most of them came in legally, by air or other legal point of entry. 

but asking if they are a citizen on the census form is somehow racist?

They are Illegal Immigrants, not "undocumented"

That is why we really do not know how many are really in the US.

11 million is not the realistic number, much likely to be at 20 million

and rising, with congress on both sides to blame for not properly addressing the problem

with asylum loopholes and overstay enforcement, as well as a proper barrier on the southern border

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

but asking if they are a citizen on the census form is somehow racist?

They are Illegal Immigrants, not "undocumented"

That is why we really do not know how many are really in the US.

11 million is not the realistic number, much likely to be at 20 million

and rising, with congress on both sides to blame for not properly addressing the problem

with asylum loopholes and overstay enforcement, as well as a proper barrier on the southern border

Nonsense. As numerous scholars of that 20 million figure have pointed out, if there really were that many they would have to show up in the numbers of students at school and various economic reports. But they don't. 

And since the primary purpose of the census is to find out how many people are living in the USA, any questions which discourage participation are obviously self-defeating.

And as the court stated, Wilbur Ross explicitly noted that the purpose of the question was to discourage participation of illegal immigrants in the census.

[wayned]

I believe that a lot of Trump's continuing with this issue is to deflect the nations interest into the Mueller probe and the Russian investigation.  It is now reported that Cohen paid, at Trump's direction,  to have internet polls changed in Trump's favor and Guilianl is now saying that he never said that the Trump campaign had not colluded with the Russians, only that Trump himself didn't.  On and on we go!

 

The guy that cohen reportedly paid to alter the polls works for Liberty University in the IT department whose President is Jerry Fallweel a strong supporter of Trump!

 

I remember the times before the internet when you only read this BS in the nightly newspaper.  Life must have been really boring then but my memory indicates that I was happy and really didn't give a crap!

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

but asking if they are a citizen on the census form is somehow racist?

They are Illegal Immigrants, not "undocumented"

That is why we really do not know how many are really in the US.

11 million is not the realistic number, much likely to be at 20 million

and rising, with congress on both sides to blame for not properly addressing the problem

with asylum loopholes and overstay enforcement, as well as a proper barrier on the southern border

20 million is only a realistic number if you want it to be.

The people that know disagree with you, nothing new here.

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

20 million is only a realistic number if you want it to be.

The people that know disagree with you, nothing new here.

Nobody actually knows. This is a ridiculous statement.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Nobody actually knows. This is a ridiculous statement.

If what I wrote is ridiculous, then wouldn't your assertion of 20 million be equally so? Doublethink much?

At any rate, like Trump himself, his supporters have no knowledge of how demographers and statisticians put together their figures. The US govt and the Pew report independently arrived at the number of 11 million. And as I previously noted, there are surveys of dependent data that make that 20 million figure ridiculous.

 

[wayned]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

At any rate, like Trump himself, his supporters have no knowledge

Such a true statement!  They don't have a clue about anything!

[mcambl61]

32 minutes ago, stevenl said:

20 million is only a realistic number if you want it to be.

The people that know disagree with you, nothing new here.

well if that is your opinion, it just must be right, although since they are in the country

illegally and without documentation, you know there are 11 million, interesting.

 

That figure has been sighted at least since 2012, and yet it is magically still the same

assumptions from the liberal hive.

 

 

 

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 

then we have the amount of just overstays estimated at 600k in 2017 alone, and yet the 11 million

number being thrown around can never go up, add to that the illegal border crossings every year

and magically that 11 million figure just must be correct. So we have at a MINIMUM of 600k people illegally

entering each year and the number stays at 11 million, an amazing mathematical phenomenon.

 

"For fiscal year 2017, DHS estimated in a report released in August that there were 606,926 suspected

in-country overstays, a rate of 1.15 percent of expected departures."

 

 

so those "people who know" in your singularly high minded opinion,really are not being honest and ignoring reality

 

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

The post was tongue in cheek (I wrote it, I did not "say" it). I do listen to other points of view and on this topic the opposing sides arguments are not convincing for me, and it is entirely possible that they are convincing for you. Bottom line is that the US has tried many other ways of stemming the flow of illegal immigration, and we still have a problem. Walls have worked where they have been tried along the border, my opinion is maybe we should "try them" in other areas where they can be effective. Trump is not advocating a border wall along the entire border, and he has stated this on numerous occasions before and after his election. Did he ever advocate a wall along the entire border? Probably but his use of the English language has been less than precise and consistent, but he isn't advocating that path forward currently.

No, I believe it was fingers on keyboard; so you typed it, you did not write it. Saying. "Trump is not advocating a border wall along the entire border," really does not convince me the wall is warranted. So, what stops them from coming in where there is no wall?

[mcambl61]

29 minutes ago, smotherb said:

No, I believe it was fingers on keyboard; so you typed it, you did not write it. Saying. "Trump is not advocating a border wall along the entire border," really does not convince me the wall is warranted. So, what stops them from coming in where there is no wall?

Uh, wait, you say what stops them from coming in where there is no wall, while stating that the wall is not warranted. 

 

Certainly there are parts where terrain is the naturally occurring obstacle to crossing the border, that is the point, an obstacle. 

 

Yes the administration should clearly define it and provide a list of the priority areas where it is needed the most. 

 

so here is more proof a proper barrier WORKS:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/where-are-border-barriers-in-place/

 

Nearly half of all border apprehensions occur near the southernmost tip of Texas.

The area, known as the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, accounted for 45 percentof all apprehensions in fiscal 2017. From 1998 to 2012, most apprehensions occurred near Tucson

Nearly half of all border apprehensions occur near the southernmost tip of Texas.

The area, known as the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, accounted for 45 percent of all apprehensions in fiscal 2017. From 1998 to 2012, most apprehensions occurred near Tucson, Arizona. Much of Arizona’s southern border is now fenced off. That has significantly reduced crossings there but led to increased crossings further east, in Texas.

Apprehensions At U.S. Border Patrol Sectors in Fiscal 2017

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

, Arizona. Much of Arizona’s southern border is now fenced off. That has significantly reduced crossings there but led to increased crossings further east, in Texas.

Apprehensions At U.S. Border Patrol Sectors in Fiscal 2017

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

[mcambl61]

2 hours ago, wayned said:

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

At any rate, like Trump himself, his supporters have no knowledge

Such a true statement!  They don't have a clue about anything!

here we are again with the standard vacuous unfounded pseudo intellectual blather

with ridiculous assumptions and generalizations from the hive.

 

[wayned]

21 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

Yes the administration should clearly define it and provide a list of the priority areas where it is needed the most.

I kinda agree but.....

 

What they need to do is open the government and fund the other agencies until the end of the fiscal year but only fund DHS for i month.  They should then form a working group consisting of both parties and technical advisors from both CBP and DHS to come up with a comprehensive "product" development plan, the product being "border security".   The committee should out line exactly what is needed addressing technology, manpower and infrastructure, including repairing and construction of new wall sections,  and properly  provide a budgetary estimate of each area with an overall budget.  They should then do a financial  distribution plan over a period of time that this plan can be implemented and provide a "number" representing the amount required during the next fiscal year.  They parties should the agree to funding that amount and continue the opening of DHS for the remaining fiscal tear and come to an agreement that the next years recommendation will be funded in the next years budget when it comes due.  I don't see what is so hard since Trump is a "businessman and that is exactly how corporate project development budgets are derived.  Trump only wants the entire $ up front to keep his campaign promise and make his pseudo cabinet of Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh happy! OOPS, I just woke up and realize that this will never happen with politicians so it should be muskets at 20 paces!

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If what I wrote is ridiculous, then wouldn't your assertion of 20 million be equally so? Doublethink much?

At any rate, like Trump himself, his supporters have no knowledge of how demographers and statisticians put together their figures. The US govt and the Pew report independently arrived at the number of 11 million. And as I previously noted, there are surveys of dependent data that make that 20 million figure ridiculous.

 

 

I said nobody knows. I meant just that stop trying to spin every damn thing I say. You don't know, they don't know, I don't know.