Advertisement
by Zapato » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:17 pm
by Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:19 pm
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Thermodolia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:21 pm
Shrillland wrote:Thermodolia wrote: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.
by Shrillland » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:23 pm
by Vassenor » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:27 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote: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.
by The South Falls » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:29 pm
Shrillland wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:29 pm
Shrillland wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:31 pm
Vassenor wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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?
by Corrian » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:32 pm
Thermodolia wrote:Kaggeceria wrote: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
by Shrillland » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:32 pm
The South Falls wrote:Shrillland wrote:
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.
by Chernoslavia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:39 pm
by Vassenor » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:39 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Vassenor wrote:
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.
by Thermodolia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:41 pm
Shrillland wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:42 pm
Chernoslavia wrote:Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?
by Shrillland » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:43 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Shrillland wrote:
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.
by Shrillland » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:43 pm
Chernoslavia wrote:Ain’t this thread supposed to be locked by now?
by Thermodolia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:44 pm
by Thermodolia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:45 pm
by Chernoslavia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:47 pm
by Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:51 pm
by Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:51 pm
Vassenor wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:
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
by Bombadil » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:52 pm
by Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:54 pm
Shrillland wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Chernoslavia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:56 pm
by Thermodolia » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:57 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Shrillland wrote:
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Decapoleis, Post War America, Spirit of Hope, Tarsonis, Tungstan
Advertisement