MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Zapato]

Ouch, that resignation letter...

[Manokan Republic]

There are 65 countries in the world with border walls, or about 1/3rd, so this is not exactly a new or complex idea. As for effectiveness, this depends specifically on the design of the wall. Things such as underground tunneling detectors using sonar, which are commonly used on military bases, and a well staffed wall with border agents responding immediately to people trying to hop the wall, obviously will do better than an unmanned fence. Things like trenches cost very little, as it's literally just parting dirt, and works as effectively as a wall, as you can't really climb up the dirt walls easily and vehicles will fall in to them and crash if they attempt to cross. Even a tank can effectively be stopped by gravity, so more or less with a decent trench, it will be difficult for anything to pass. Trenches are also cheap and easy to build, as opposed to walls which can be more expensive, and the resulting dirt mound from the displaced dirt is also useful for constructing or reinforcing the wall, or serving at least as a vehicle barrier. So you build several trenches and then, a wall next to it for good measure, and it would stop almost everything.

But anyways, there are plenty of examples of Border walls working. In El Paso, illegal immigrant crossing dropped 89%, or from 122,261 immigrant to 12,251. "In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data I reviewed. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251." In Yuma Arizona, the border wall has virtually eliminated crossings, and with cameras on the border, they know exactly how many have crossed. "“We essentially apprehend 92 percent of all entries through the Yuma sector,” said Porvaznik, as he steered a white and green Chevy Tahoe through the sand. “That is 126 miles of border, which includes 12 miles of these sand dunes. On a scale of 1 to 10 we are a 9.” Today, Yuma has triple the manpower and apprehends just 15 illegal immigrants a day, a 96 percent reduction. Instead of 2,700 vehicle penetrations, this year’s total is just 27." A virtual border wall, essentially just cameras and sensory equipment, known as project 28, stopped 30% of illegal crossings, with the majority of cases being that the border police arrived only a few minutes late, which obviously could have been stopped with an actual wall. Israel, illegal immigration dropped 99% along the Egyptian border. Even left-wing sources basically admit it will work, even if they still don't like it.

For what is essentially around half a percent of the budget for one year, or 15-25 billion out of 4 trillion dollars, we can largely eliminate illegal trafficking, with 48% of violent crime being committed by illegal criminal organizations. That which is facilitated by smuggling, such as by drug or gun smuggling, and that which is committed by the organizations can largely be eliminated, reducing most of the violent crime in this country which would of course be rather useful. AS for drug causing crime, approximately 46.7% of violent criminals classify as drug dependent, and 48.9% of those committing homicide, despite chronic illict drug users making up 9.4% of the population. Drugs obviously mess with your brain, and other than the massive death tolls, they can cause a person to become violent.

1) Yeah, a border wall in one place might prevent localised border crossings, but has it been shown to stop a cross-border flow when implemented across the entire border?
2) Even so, illegal border crossing accounts for a tiny amount of the illegal immigration in the US.
3) The US-Mexican border is one of the longest on earth.
4) You misrepresent your own statistics. Illegal criminal organisations are, in your source, just gangs. That doesn't mean 'organisations of illegal aliens'. Most drug trafficking happens not through illegal entry but through smuggling via legal routes, and if you think guns need to be smuggled into the United States, you have clearly missed that the US is the biggest arms producer in the world. Guns are smuggled from the US to Mexico, not the other way around, and that is also done via legal routes. So, unless the wall is accompanied by a major change in border policy (ie closing off currently legal routes) the wall is not going to be worth its cost.

1. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't. The main drawback to localized border walls has always been that people will go around them, say to California if they can't go through Texas. By covering the whole border, it will prevent the whole deflection issue of them just coming in from another unguarded area. If anything it should be more effective.

2. This is functionally irrelevant, as the focus is mostly on organized crime and smuggling. I wouldn't call nearly half a tiny amount.

3. This is not really relevant as there are already 600 miles of border wall and it's only a few billion dollars, with it working effectively along these routes. The exact length is likely not to really matter except in regards to cost, with a total cost of .5% of the budget for one year.

4. Most gangs are connected to the larger international organizations, as in groups like MS-13 get most of their drugs and guns from Los Zetas. A border wall works both ways, so it would stop guns and money from leaving the U.S., and drugs and people from entering the U.S. But in reality, this just isn't the case. The majority of firearms are illegally obtained in the U.S., with only about 8% being traceable to the U.S. In Mexico, at best 12% of the guns used in crime in Mexico were traceable to the U.S., and probably closer to 1%, when you consider that 3,480 out of 305,424 guns in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Most of the guns in Mexico come from communist-bloc countries, given that the Ak-47 is the most prolific gun used in Mexico and actually most of the world. There are nearly 100 million ak47's in the world, and untold number of replicas, where as there are about 8 million M16's (the U.S.'s gun), and virtually all are in government hands. It shouldn't come as a surprise that, most of the guns used by the gangs in America then come from illegal sources given how ridiculously prolific and cheap they are. A fully automatic, military Ak-47 goes for 30-125 dollars on the black market, and I'm stuck buying a 600 dollar semiautomatic civilian-legal ak-47 myself, which requires a background check and serial numbers and all kinds of things. If I was a criminal, I'd choose the 30 dollar military grade gun over the 600 dollar background check gun, but that's just me, and the majority of criminals it would appear. The soviet union is in fact responsible for most of the illegal weapons in the world, next to China and Eastern Europe, be it used by the cartels, ISIS, or various terrorist and militia groups. The ak-47 being the one with the wood on it and the M16 the one made out of plastic (although modern ak-47's tend to have plastic on them). All you really have to do is just, look at these weapons, and you can tell who is responsible.

We don't actually know how much contraband is smuggled through illegal ports of entry, as it is not well policed, although we do know most is *caught* when travelling through legal ports of entry. As it is a needless risk to drive across an area that is monitored by border security than to drive over open desert, most likely they choose to go around it, as going through legal checkpoints is a significantly greater risk. However, a border wall makes it easier to prioritize legal POE's, by freeing up manpower which can be used there instead, and if all the illegal contraband is trafficked through sectors with dogs that can sniff it out and x-ray and gamma ray machines, and also hopefully ultrasonar, then you can catch the majority of it, thus reducing the volume that gets in to the U.S. You won't completely stop it, but you will stop most of it. Furthermore part of the border wall funding is improved border security in general, like more manpower and better policing at the border itself.

[Thermodolia]

Actually we only have about 2,000 less then the Russians in total but we have more in active service. The Chinese have less then the French

I didn't say that China would fire at us for the same reason that we couldn't fire at Russia. And 2,000 is still quite a lot, they used to call it sufficiency.

Yes 2,000 is a lot but a lot of those nukes, Russia has ~9,000 we have ~7,000, are in storage and can’t be easily accessed. However we have a slight advantage in that we have more nukes ready to go in service.

Meaning that we can get more nukes up faster than Russia can

[Shrillland]

snip

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

[Vassenor]

1) Yeah, a border wall in one place might prevent localised border crossings, but has it been shown to stop a cross-border flow when implemented across the entire border?
2) Even so, illegal border crossing accounts for a tiny amount of the illegal immigration in the US.
3) The US-Mexican border is one of the longest on earth.
4) You misrepresent your own statistics. Illegal criminal organisations are, in your source, just gangs. That doesn't mean 'organisations of illegal aliens'. Most drug trafficking happens not through illegal entry but through smuggling via legal routes, and if you think guns need to be smuggled into the United States, you have clearly missed that the US is the biggest arms producer in the world. Guns are smuggled from the US to Mexico, not the other way around, and that is also done via legal routes. So, unless the wall is accompanied by a major change in border policy (ie closing off currently legal routes) the wall is not going to be worth its cost.

1. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't. The main drawback to localized border walls has always been that people will go around them, say to California if they can't go through Texas. By covering the whole border, it will prevent the whole deflection issue of them just coming in from another unguarded area. If anything it should be more effective.

2. This is functionally irrelevant, as the focus is mostly on organized crime and smuggling. I wouldn't call nearly half a tiny amount.

3. This is not really relevant as there are already 600 miles of border wall and it's only a few billion dollars, with it working effectively along these routes. The exact length is likely not to really matter except in regards to cost, with a total cost of .5% of the budget for one year.

4. Most gangs are connected to the larger international organizations, as in groups like MS-13 get most of their drugs and guns from Los Zetas. A border wall works both ways, so it would stop guns and money from leaving the U.S., and drugs and people from entering the U.S. But in reality, this just isn't the case. The majority of firearms are illegally obtained in the U.S., with only about 8% being traceable to the U.S. In Mexico, at best 12% of the guns used in crime in Mexico were traceable to the U.S., and probably closer to 1%, when you consider that 3,480 out of 305,424 guns in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Most of the guns in Mexico come from communist-bloc countries, given that the Ak-47 is the most prolific gun used in Mexico and actually most of the world. There are nearly 100 million ak47's in the world, and untold number of replicas, where as there are about 8 million M16's (the U.S.'s gun), and virtually all are in government hands. It shouldn't come as a surprise that, most of the guns used by the gangs in America then come from illegal sources given how ridiculously prolific and cheap they are. A fully automatic, military Ak-47 goes for 30-125 dollars on the black market, and I'm stuck buying a 600 dollar semiautomatic civilian-legal ak-47 myself, which requires a background check and serial numbers and all kinds of things. If I was a criminal, I'd choose the 30 dollar military grade gun over the 600 dollar background check gun, but that's just me, and the majority of criminals it would appear. The soviet union is in fact responsible for most of the illegal weapons in the world, next to China and Eastern Europe, be it used by the cartels, ISIS, or various terrorist and militia groups. The ak-47 being the one with the wood on it and the M16 the one made out of plastic (although modern ak-47's tend to have plastic on them). All you really have to do is just, look at these weapons, and you can tell who is responsible.

We don't actually know how much contraband is smuggled through illegal ports of entry, as it is not well policed, although we do know most is *caught* when travelling through legal ports of entry. As it is a needless risk to drive across an area that is monitored by border security than to drive over open desert, most likely they choose to go around it, as going through legal checkpoints is a significantly greater risk. However, a border wall makes it easier to prioritize legal POE's, by freeing up manpower which can be used there instead, and if all the illegal contraband is trafficked through sectors with dogs that can sniff it out and x-ray and gamma ray machines, and also hopefully ultrasonar, then you can catch the majority of it, thus reducing the volume that gets in to the U.S. You won't completely stop it, but you will stop most of it. Furthermore part of the border wall funding is improved border security in general, like more manpower and better policing at the border itself.

So how does that justify pushing ahead with a multi-billion dollar white elephant that the majority of the population opposes and considers unnecessary?

[The South Falls]

snip

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

And he will, without making a splash. He wants the wall before January.

[Manokan Republic]

snip

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

You can build around it essentially, rather than exactly on the border you're a few hundred feet back or so, or even a few miles. Ceding a few miles of land that won't be protected by the border is probably fine as the fear is the contraband and people going inland, not that an exact spot on a map is protected. If all the illegal immigrants go to native american territory, than it's probably fine for the rest of us. But, the U.S. government can actually build in these places if it wants to, not that it would likely try to piss off the native americans for no reason.

[Manokan Republic]

1. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't. The main drawback to localized border walls has always been that people will go around them, say to California if they can't go through Texas. By covering the whole border, it will prevent the whole deflection issue of them just coming in from another unguarded area. If anything it should be more effective.

2. This is functionally irrelevant, as the focus is mostly on organized crime and smuggling. I wouldn't call nearly half a tiny amount.

3. This is not really relevant as there are already 600 miles of border wall and it's only a few billion dollars, with it working effectively along these routes. The exact length is likely not to really matter except in regards to cost, with a total cost of .5% of the budget for one year.

4. Most gangs are connected to the larger international organizations, as in groups like MS-13 get most of their drugs and guns from Los Zetas. A border wall works both ways, so it would stop guns and money from leaving the U.S., and drugs and people from entering the U.S. But in reality, this just isn't the case. The majority of firearms are illegally obtained in the U.S., with only about 8% being traceable to the U.S. In Mexico, at best 12% of the guns used in crime in Mexico were traceable to the U.S., and probably closer to 1%, when you consider that 3,480 out of 305,424 guns in Mexico have been traced to the U.S. Most of the guns in Mexico come from communist-bloc countries, given that the Ak-47 is the most prolific gun used in Mexico and actually most of the world. There are nearly 100 million ak47's in the world, and untold number of replicas, where as there are about 8 million M16's (the U.S.'s gun), and virtually all are in government hands. It shouldn't come as a surprise that, most of the guns used by the gangs in America then come from illegal sources given how ridiculously prolific and cheap they are. A fully automatic, military Ak-47 goes for 30-125 dollars on the black market, and I'm stuck buying a 600 dollar semiautomatic civilian-legal ak-47 myself, which requires a background check and serial numbers and all kinds of things. If I was a criminal, I'd choose the 30 dollar military grade gun over the 600 dollar background check gun, but that's just me, and the majority of criminals it would appear. The soviet union is in fact responsible for most of the illegal weapons in the world, next to China and Eastern Europe, be it used by the cartels, ISIS, or various terrorist and militia groups. The ak-47 being the one with the wood on it and the M16 the one made out of plastic (although modern ak-47's tend to have plastic on them). All you really have to do is just, look at these weapons, and you can tell who is responsible.

We don't actually know how much contraband is smuggled through illegal ports of entry, as it is not well policed, although we do know most is *caught* when travelling through legal ports of entry. As it is a needless risk to drive across an area that is monitored by border security than to drive over open desert, most likely they choose to go around it, as going through legal checkpoints is a significantly greater risk. However, a border wall makes it easier to prioritize legal POE's, by freeing up manpower which can be used there instead, and if all the illegal contraband is trafficked through sectors with dogs that can sniff it out and x-ray and gamma ray machines, and also hopefully ultrasonar, then you can catch the majority of it, thus reducing the volume that gets in to the U.S. You won't completely stop it, but you will stop most of it. Furthermore part of the border wall funding is improved border security in general, like more manpower and better policing at the border itself.

So how does that justify pushing ahead with a multi-billion dollar white elephant that the majority of the population opposes and considers unnecessary?

Because other than the fact it will work and stop the majority of violent crime and drug smuggling, it's not really all that much money. As for how many people support or oppose it, it depends, depending on your poll. Some polls say over 50%, some polls show that people are simply ambivalent to it as opposed to it per se, and so on. Once it's built and it works, no-one will really care except those that really want illegal immigrants in for cheap labor.

[Corrian]

Mattis will retire at the end of February.

The Syrian withdrawal was probably the last straw for him.

No!!!! Not mad dog!

Though I wouldn’t mind Mark A. Milley as SECDEF

John Bolton will probably be the replacement.

[Shrillland]

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

And he will, without making a splash. He wants the wall before January.

Difficult to say. He doesn't acknowledge us Natives as sovereign nations, merely as a minority group, so he may not be aware of the situation. Even so, there's no possibility of having the wall up before January because, if the land is declared condemned under eminent domain, the nation will simply battle him in court. Not so much to win, as they would almost definitely lose especially at SCOTUS, as to drag the battle out until 2021, which they could realistically do.

[Chernoslavia]

Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?

[Vassenor]

So how does that justify pushing ahead with a multi-billion dollar white elephant that the majority of the population opposes and considers unnecessary?

Because other than the fact it will work and stop the majority of violent crime and drug smuggling, it's not really all that much money. As for how many people support or oppose it, it depends, depending on your poll. Some polls say over 50%, some polls show that people are simply ambivalent to it as opposed to it per se, and so on. Once it's built and it works, no-one will really care except those that really want illegal immigrants in for cheap labor.

According to the DEA, the majority of drug smuggling into the United States occurs through legal ports of entry or across the Caribbean sea. How will the wall prevent that?

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration (2017) National Drug Threat Assessment

[Thermodolia]

snip

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

Or expand into Mexico.

Though that would make the wall a moot point

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?

Part of the sport is dragging these things out beyond 500 pages when the mods aren't looking.

[Shrillland]

That may be, but it can't be built along the entire border anyway. The national monuments can be easily dealt with, but the Tohono O' Odham nation has said in no uncertain terms that they won't allow the wall on their land. The only way Trump can get around that is to have the land on their nation condemned.

You can build around it essentially, rather than exactly on the border you're a few hundred feet back or so, or even a few miles. Ceding a few miles of land that won't be protected by the border is probably fine as the fear is the contraband and people going inland, not that an exact spot on a map is protected. If all the illegal immigrants go to native american territory, than it's probably fine for the rest of us. But, the U.S. government can actually build in these places if it wants to, not that it would likely try to piss off the native americans for no reason.

This isn't a question of a few miles. The nation's part of the border spans 75 miles and, at its furthest, the nation's northernmost boundary is over 100 miles from the border.

[Shrillland]

Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?

It will be when Farn makes the next one.

[Thermodolia]

Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?

Part of the sport is dragging these things out beyond 500 pages when the mods aren't looking.

Look how rebellious we are!! I’m going to fill out my taxes in red ink

[Thermodolia]

Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?

It will be when Farn makes the next one.

Depends if she’s drunk on egg nog

[Chernoslavia]

It will be when Farn makes the next one.

Depends if she’s drunk on egg nog

Farn’s a she?

[Fartsniffage]

Depends if she’s drunk on egg nog

Farn’s a she?

Yes.

[Manokan Republic]

Because other than the fact it will work and stop the majority of violent crime and drug smuggling, it's not really all that much money. As for how many people support or oppose it, it depends, depending on your poll. Some polls say over 50%, some polls show that people are simply ambivalent to it as opposed to it per se, and so on. Once it's built and it works, no-one will really care except those that really want illegal immigrants in for cheap labor.

According to the DEA, the majority of drug smuggling into the United States occurs through legal ports of entry or across the Caribbean sea. How will the wall prevent that?

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration (2017) National Drug Threat Assessment

The majority that is seized.* Obviously the majority of the stuff that is caught is going to be at border security checkpoints as opposed to the unguarded, vast empty desert. The majority of drugs are not prevented from coming in to the U.S. and thus that which is caught only represents a small portion of what is coming here. We don't really know the exact amount coming in illegally for obvious reasons or else it would be apprehended. It's largely assumed most of it is coming in through illegal venues. As well, many POE's, while technically legal, are illegally crossed, which a border wall would stop as people would be funneled through the checkpoints as opposed to driving around them. So for example, a legal POE may be several miles wide, even though the road you are supposed to drive down through a checkpoint is only a few yards wide. A border wall prevents, driving around this road you are supposed to take. There are essentially unguarded parts of legal ports of entry that will be guarded by a border wall now.

Furthermore, better border security allows you to redirect manpower to legal POE's, and the border wall package isn't just about a wall but guards, more border security, drones, an underground tunneling detection system, cameras and so on. It's not only going to be a wall, but the term border wall applies ot the whole thing, including the guard towers and so on. Drugs are also not the only problem.

[Bombadil]

In his resignation letter, Mattis said Trump deserved a defense secretary “whose views are better aligned with yours.”

..like, maybe, Kim Jong Un..

[Manokan Republic]

You can build around it essentially, rather than exactly on the border you're a few hundred feet back or so, or even a few miles. Ceding a few miles of land that won't be protected by the border is probably fine as the fear is the contraband and people going inland, not that an exact spot on a map is protected. If all the illegal immigrants go to native american territory, than it's probably fine for the rest of us. But, the U.S. government can actually build in these places if it wants to, not that it would likely try to piss off the native americans for no reason.

This isn't a question of a few miles. The nation's part of the border spans 75 miles and, at its furthest, the nation's northernmost boundary is over 100 miles from the border.

You build around it. What difference does it make. xP

But in reality the U.S. can legally build on the border itself as the actual border of the U.S. is not owned by that nation, it is merely adjacent to the border. It would be easy enough to build around it, as I said. Even if you build the wall around the entire thing, it's only a small amount added to the overall length of the wall. Mostly likely knowing trump he will just build it on the border and not really care. You effectively end up with a mishapen border wall that might end up being a little bit longer.

[Chernoslavia]

Farn’s a she?

Yes.

I’ve seen lots of people refer to him as a he.

[Thermodolia]

This isn't a question of a few miles. The nation's part of the border spans 75 miles and, at its furthest, the nation's northernmost boundary is over 100 miles from the border.

You build around it. What difference does it make. xP

But in reality the U.S. can legally build on the border itself as the actual border of the U.S. is not owned by that nation, it is merely adjacent to the border. It would be easy enough to build around it, as I said.

No they can’t. Legal cases have set a precedent that those who own land that goes right up to the border must have final say