It is currently Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Quote:
No, you rushed to make a snarky post and in doing so posted something stupid.


I’m actually glad you think a simple snarky comment is stupid. Because that comment was about exactly what the major Dem “leadership” floated as part of the solution to “border security”.

Ironic

Did you think it was also stupid when Pelosi and her minions said it? If so, I’m glad to hear.

And besides single snarky comment about more judges what the hell else is wrong with anything else I’ve said here.

Particularly for you to call me a dumb fuck.

Do you REALLY need a study to determine a wall can effectively keep people out.

And since I was being playful in my snarky comment t and in turn you are being hostile I’ll ask a more hostile type of question.

And that is, do you have a shread if common sense Lit?

A barrier is literally the most effective first step in securing the area. You build out from there with additional methods.

A study on the most effective way??

I brought up Israel. Their wall works pretty damn good.

As do others. But no, let’s spends billions and billions more doing a “study” to determine how to keep some over there from getting over here and do it 24/7.

You tell me your first idea. Mine would be an adequate barrier.

Your turn.

A drone? A study? Ask them kindly not to enter? More border patrol that catches and releases?

Quite sensitive Lit.


Last edited by 955876 on Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 1278
Still Lit wrote:
alancac98 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
There’s already a lot of wall.

Here’s the real kicker. The BP has no firm idea what matrix of security measures will best secure the border. They themselves have not carried out the necessary studies to determine it!

Read this (and note the date, it’s a Trump admin era study):
https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-397T

So no. Just bc patrol agents ask for it is not proof it is best practice.

All I ask of my govt is that it spend money according to what has actually been studied.

And I am a leftist pussy that is concerned about what more wall will do to animal migration.

A lot of scientists are very worried about it.


You worry about the price tag of a wall vs other alternatives, how effective it will be, and the animals it may effect - all valid points. As far as price tag goes 5.7 mill. is still a lot smaller than 100+ mill that we spend every year on illegal immigrants for food, housing, medical, and schooling. As a middle class American, it pisses me off that I have to shell out a small fortune and that my kids have to mortgage their futures with student loans in order to go to college, yet illegal immigrant's kids go to college for free! Think about that. It pisses me off that older Americans shell out money after working their asses off to build this country, yet illegals get everything free, including the kitchen sink (literally w/ free housing). It pisses me off that our American soldiers come home from serving their country only to have horrible healthcare and be kicked to the curb (literally in many cases as well). So, I guess I really don't care about best practice as the govt. is busy spending huge amounts of money to care for people who aren't even American taxpayers!

If there are better alternatives, then sure. I think the best practice is going to be a combination of several strategies, including a wall. You will still need men on the ground, cameras, drones, and seismic equipment in order to do the job most effectively - to me that just makes common sense, so one thing is not going to do the job all by itself. So start by building the wall and add the necessary pieces to it. Oh, and scientist are always worried about this and that. Animals will be fine - the American Bison has adapted rather well.


To be clear, I am not worried about price tags. Just worried about whether security funding being asked for is based on studies of best instruments and practices or whether it is based on a campaign meme.

And I am concerned about wolves, big cats, etc. Humans by and large are assholes and are fucking and multiplying at a pretty good clip. Wolves and big cats not so much.

Do want this tread to be about the ills of illegal immigrants or whether we should have a wall?

Please do not be offended, but because you are not an expert in animal migration and ecology, I can't take your opinion seriously on the idea that big cats and wolves will "be just fine." American Bison do not migrate across the Mexican border. And my concern does not mean that no more wall should be built either. But shouldn't we at least consult the scientists that study animal patters to see about how and where building more wall would affect these animals.

Again: we need an honest debate about the advantages and disadvantages of ALL the tools available at our disposal. That is not happening and so the public is not at all being well served.


I'm not offended. It was my bad to go on a rant about illegal immigration when I posted about a wall. My only point about the Bison was that long ago, they had free range of the entire mid-west. Now, private fences scatter the countryside they used to roam freely to graze. Yet they have adapted. Same can be said for the wild mustang. My only thought is that if other animal species have had to adapt to their environment, wolves and big cats can also adapt. In fact, they do everyday as man constantly intrudes into their once private territories to build roads, houses, and other structures. That's all. It is worrisome, but history shows that animals have amazing adaptive qualities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 10835
955876 wrote:
Quote:
No, you rushed to make a snarky post and in doing so posted something stupid.


I’m actually glad you think a simple snarky comment is stupid. Because that comment was about exactly what the major Dem “leadership” floated as part of the solution to “border security”.

Ironic

Did you think it was also stupid when Pelosi and her minions said it? If so, I’m glad to hear.

And besides single snarky comment about more judges what the hell else is wrong with anything else I’ve said here.

Particularly for you to call me a dumb fuck.

Do you REALLY need a study to determine a wall can effectively keep people out.

And since I was being playful in my snarky comment t and in turn you are being hostile I’ll ask a more hostile type of question.

And that is, do you have a shread if common sense Lit?

A barrier is literally the most effective first step in securing the area. You build out from there with additional methods.

A study on the most effective way??

I brought up Israel. Their wall works pretty damn good.

As do others. But no, let’s spends billions and billions more doing a “study” to determine how to keep some over there from getting over here and do it 24/7.

You tell me your first idea. Mine would be an adequate barrier.

Your turn.

A drone? A study? Ask them kindly not to enter? More border patrol that catches and releases?

Quite sensitive Lit.


You're confusing my thinking you're being an idiot about this for me being sensitive. And if you think I lack common sense because I prefer policy to be based on evidence and thorough debate of the advantages and disadvantages of all the options rather than assumptions (common sense), I'll wear that hat.

We already have walls. It's not like we don't have any. The question is, what is the best way to enhance security on OUR border in OUR specific situation going forward?

Again, unlike you, I do not presume to know.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
What exactly am I being an idiot about here Lit? Snarky comment aside. Although that was nothing more than reciting Pelosi’s lame idea.

Like you, I also want policy based on evidence. I hate wasteful spending. But have you seen the numbers on what we spend processing, sheltering, providing legal advice, food, education, and medical care? That is not sustainable policy.

And my opinion is far from simple partisan politics and following the “company line”.

I don’t work that way. I form my own opinion on things.

And about the common sense thing. Do you really think we are going to get an honest debate here? Do you really think that even if a conclusive study was done that Pelosi and Schumer would say by golly we were wrong, awall will work?

Not happening. Even though almost all of them to a person have voted for and verbally supported these very things in the past. Now they don’t. Not as a matter of policy but rather as matter of “resistance”.

Nothing is getting accomplished in that environment.

And I am not claiming to have all he answers. But it literally is a common sense thing when you boil down to the basics of whether or not a wall will “work” or not. They do. It will.

Provided an actual legitimate wall is built. Not more of the speed bump type steel slats that can easily be climbed over. No an actual modern structure designed to do as intended.

The real issue here isnt whether a wall will work. The issue is there is no political will on the part of the left to allow one to happen. Because that will be a win for Trump and hey cannot allow that to happen heading into 2020.

Even though they have voted in support of these very things in the past.

As for the wildlife impact, I’m on board with you there. Something needs to be looked at. However, I do t think you dont do it simply for that reason. It’s nit like we are discussing drilling for oil up in ANWR ir similiar.

I live I CA. I see much of this first hand. My state tax dollars pay for these policies. Policies such as free healthcare for illegals now in our state.

My wife’s grandparents are actually immigrants from Mexico. Came here decades ago. Literally worked the fields up and down the state for years and years while raising their family.

You’d be surprised to hear her grandmothers opinion on this matter. You’d think it was straight out of a Donald Trump campaign speech.

Again, I dont claim to have all the answers. I dontt want wasteful spending nor do I want to adversely impact the wildlife in the area.

At the same time, we can’t allow several thousand people to march on our border and demand benefits once they arrive. Might as well tell the world all the free shit is over here, come and get it.

It’s foolish to think they won’t.

Don’t need years of intellectual debate to know a barrier can and will keep people out. From there you work out additinal endorsement in areas where a barrier can’t be done or would adversely impact something else.

Real issue is that we have had endless debate over this and the real truth is until Trump nobody want Ed to actually do anything about it. Instead hey wanted to simply give the imprsssion they did for political purposes. It’s an issue now because they know Trump is serious and it isn’t yet another empty campaign promise.

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants of this country”.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of Barrack Obama. Funny how he wasn’t referred to as “Hitler” for saying them.

I’ll leave it where I started. What exactly am I being an “idiot” on here? You act like I’m spewing a bunch of falsehoods or something.


Last edited by 955876 on Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 7165
Still Lit wrote:
Again, unlike you, I do not presume to know.
You know what I know? I know I've witnessed this debate for over 45 years. And every time immigration or illegal immigration is brought to the forefront it is either to a) instill fear, or b) a partisan football* used for political gain. Do an image search for "illegal immigration rates." Every graph I saw shows a decline in illegal immigration, and hovers around 10-12 million - in a country of 323 million or so inhabitants. I remember the same fearmongering debate in the 70's, and the number was even smaller.

But never mind that. This admin, along with it's followers, want to destroy the New Colossus. Something that defined America since it's inception. And even more so when it became a super power while stepping on the backs of the rest of the world. Central and South America included. It's public knowledge that this admin wants to cut LEGAL immigration in half by 2022, or thereabouts. This isn't about an undocumented immigrant stealing your job. If anything, it drives wages down because employers know they can hire an immigrant for half the wage an american would accept. Even dumpster had illegals working for him for 12 fucking years ironing his tighty whities!! Corporate america wants cheap labor.

This is all about the browning of america and the public relation efforts to get people on board with preventing that.

*And notice I used the term "football" just to keep this legit. :mrgreen:

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4897
COR-TEN wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Again, unlike you, I do not presume to know.
You know what I know? I know I've witnessed this debate for over 45 years. And every time immigration or illegal immigration is brought to the forefront it is either to a) instill fear, or b) a partisan football* used for political gain. Do an image search for "illegal immigration rates." Every graph I saw shows a decline in illegal immigration, and hovers around 10-12 million - in a country of 323 million or so inhabitants. I remember the same fearmongering debate in the 70's, and the number was even smaller.

:


Are you stating that since the numbers are dwindling, the current situation/circumstances is fine and you would leave it as status quo?

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Immigration is different now than it was in the past Cor.

And it isn’t about “keeping brown people out”.

It’s about preventing massive inflows of people. All arriving demanding benefits.

That is not sustainable.

You are correct about one thing, that it’s been used as political football. The left wants to increase their voter base and the right has wanted the cheap labor.

So they play games and appear to want to solve the problem but up till now nobody ya really been serious about doing so.

This is also not about shutting down immigration. It’s about shutting down the inflow of peope jumping the line and coming in illegally.

This meme about “keeping out brown people” is nothing more than a liberal talking point geared toward steering the conversation toward race rather than what it really is about which is the economics of the matter as well as the rule of law and fairness.

It’s also about keeping out the unfavorable element. Women and girls are trafficked across the border. Drugs and crime are imported from across the border.

A young police officer was just murdered out here in CA. He was a LEGAL immigrant from Fiji. Waited in line and did so legally. Worked hard to learn English and became a police officer because he wanted to serve. Has a young wife and child. Gunned down late Christmas evening while out serving his community.

The scumbag that shot him was here illegally and already a multiple DUI offender. Instead of facing a 3rd DUI arrest and possible deportation he figured it better to murder the officer and flee to Mexico.

You think keeping gang members like Gustavo Arriaga that are not here to add any value to our society is simply to “keep brown people out”?

Murdered officer Corporal Singh was brown too.

Chucky Schumer once said immigration should be merit based. Just like Trump.

Was he also trying to “keep brown people out”??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 7165
Donnie Brasco wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Again, unlike you, I do not presume to know.
You know what I know? I know I've witnessed this debate for over 45 years. And every time immigration or illegal immigration is brought to the forefront it is either to a) instill fear, or b) a partisan football* used for political gain. Do an image search for "illegal immigration rates." Every graph I saw shows a decline in illegal immigration, and hovers around 10-12 million - in a country of 323 million or so inhabitants. I remember the same fearmongering debate in the 70's, and the number was even smaller.

:


Are you stating that since the numbers are dwindling, the current situation/circumstances is fine and you would leave it as status quo?
Nope. But I said the same thing in 1975. Apparently nobody really cares to solve the problem. As I always say, where there's a will, there's a way. But there is no will. Everybody is against a digital federal database for gun owners, but yup, we want e-verify.

Nobody wants to fix a small problem that can be used for manipulation. It's been used for my entire lifetime. But here's a start :

Supposedly we're all in favor of rooting out terrorism wherever it is. How about rooting out human rights violations, and help those countries help themselves. . .economically, socially, governmentally? Since you know, the US has had it's dick in practically every country of the world.

Oh wait. Because it doesn't affect us like terrorism?

Oh wait. Because it's not our responsibility?

Wait. Because building an archaic wall is better?

If the US and Central and South American countries want to fix the "caravan invasion," then fix the fucking problem systemically. Building a wall is just a fucking bandaid, and doesn't really solve the issue. But it sure does make for a good campaign slogan.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Quote:
If the US and Central and South American countries want to fix the "caravan invasion," then fix the fucking problem systemically. Building a wall is just a fucking bandaid, and doesn't really solve the issue. But it sure does make for a good campaign slogan.


It’s not a band-aid. It’s actually a long-term solution to what will always be an issue. That being people trying to get into the county illegally. Europe is already having regrets over allowing in the massive caravans they did.

And you do realize you can have a wall AND do all those other things you mentioned that will help the cause rather than just addressing the symptoms.

Those fixes you mentioned also take multiple years to decades. Not easy or quick.

I guess my question is, why is a wall so offensive? Wasn’t offensive when we’ve put barriers and walling up in the past.

It’s only an issue now because of who championed it.

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants of this country”... Barack Obama

Given you can not realistically deploy enough manpower to physciall stop them 24/7 a more robust barrier system is only logical.

A wall also does not mean nobody can get in ever. We obviously need an actual policy. It can’t simply be if you get here you can stay AND be compensated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 10835
955876 wrote:
Don’t need years of intellectual debate to know a barrier can and will keep people out. From there you work out additinal endorsement in areas where a barrier can’t be done or would adversely impact something else.


This is why you're being silly. I never said we need evidence that a massive wall from shore to shore would keep people out. You made fun of me for suggesting we actually have a thorough study and debate about the pros and cons of all the tools at our disposal to see what matrix of tools would best get the job done with least amount of adverse consequences.

I even cited a Trump admin study that explains that C and BP have not even carried out the necessary data collection on the effectiveness of the various tools at their disposal.

So, I don't care that you don't need a debate to know that a wall will help keep people out because I never claimed that it would not.

Stop being an ass.

All this other stuff about Pelosi not caring about such evidence were it to be produced or how much it costs to process and shelter illegals has nothing to do with discussing what type of border security matrix best suits our particular needs. That's you wandering off from the topic of the OP: wall or no wall.

"Like you, I also want policy based on evidence. I hate wasteful spending."

Boom. The End. Turns out we agree.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4897
COR-TEN wrote:
Nope. But I said the same thing in 1975. Apparently nobody really cares to solve the problem. As I always say, where there's a will, there's a way. But there is no will. Everybody is against a digital federal database for gun owners, but yup, we want e-verify.

Nobody wants to fix a small problem that can be used for manipulation. It's been used for my entire lifetime. But here's a start :

Supposedly we're all in favor of rooting out terrorism wherever it is. How about rooting out human rights violations, and help those countries help themselves. . .economically, socially, governmentally? Since you know, the US has had it's dick in practically every country of the world.

Oh wait. Because it doesn't affect us like terrorism?

Oh wait. Because it's not our responsibility?

Wait. Because building an archaic wall is better?

If the US and Central and South American countries want to fix the "caravan invasion," then fix the fucking problem systemically. Building a wall is just a fucking bandaid, and doesn't really solve the issue. But it sure does make for a good campaign slogan.



As Lit pointed out, a partial wall exists already. Why are people so upset about expanding the wall?

I don't think anyone truly believes a wall (being it physical or some advanced electromagnetic/digital device) is going to solve 100% of the ILLEGAL immigration issues. But I am concerned about all the resources that get devoted to these illegals.

So I'm typically of the mindset that you have to start somewhere and just do it to see where the weaknesses lie. Because doing the same thing isn't going to make anyone happy.

You believe fixing things systematically is going to solve the problem and I respect that. But just like anything, if a person is committed to skirting the system, they'll find a way to do it. Just like if you built some sort of wall, a truly committed person is going to find away around it.

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is that the US should be like a stadium: you have to have a ticket to be inside (birth or other legislative means). But stadiums also have walls to keep the people who don't have a ticket out. The people who have tickets have been screened for weapons and penchants for starting trouble.
If you get too many people inside the arena, the restrooms and concessions get overused and everyone has a bad time. That doesn't even began to touch on the safety issue of overcrowding and the like.

I believe there is more common ground here between the 2 parties that what is set forth in the media.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Quote:
This is why you're being silly. I never said we need evidence that a massive wall from shore to shore would keep people out. You made fun of me for suggesting we actually have a thorough study and debate about the pros and cons of all the tools at our disposal to see what matrix of tools would best get the job done with least amount of adverse consequences.


I never made fun of you for that Lit. Shit, I agree with it. At the same time it’s irrelevant because the powers that be are not sitting on their hands simply because the proper studies have yet to be done.

They’ll never agree on the results of said study anyways. It’s been made to a huge political issue so the rights and wrongs of it will matter little.

If the way I phrased my comments led you to believe that I was making fun of that aspect of your post then I either didn’t word or state things as eloquently as I could have or you misunderstood which part I was commenting on.

This all started when you asked for various ideas and I (snarkly) replied I like the idea of more judges and immigration attorneys. To which accusations were made in terms of me being “stupid” or a “dumbfuck”.


Last edited by 955876 on Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Quote:
A partial wall exists already. Why are people so upset about expanding the wall?


Because Trump championed it during the campaign so the “resistance” is against anything and everything related to it.

Additionally, some of the barriers already in place are a joke. Short fences or the one that is easy to scale given it’s poor design.

Need an actual barrier. Not a speed bump of a fense.

Border patrol has stated they would prefer one with some ability to see through at the lower level. I think that’s useful as well.

The rest of your post was spot on....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1332
955876 wrote:
Quote:
A partial wall exists already. Why are people so upset about expanding the wall?


Because Trump championed it during the campaign so the “resistance” is against anything and everything related to it.

Additionally, some of the barriers already in place are a joke. Short fences or the one that is easy to scale given it’s poor design.

Need an actual barrier. Not a speed bump of a fense.

Border patrol has stated they would prefer one with some ability to see through at the lower level. I think that’s useful as well.

The rest of your post was spot on....


My understanding is part of the issue with the barriers that are currently in place is that the “funneling” strategy used has had undesired consequences. Mainly making it much more treacherous to cross and thus the rise in coyotes to help traffic illegals across and more deaths from attempting to do so. They underestimated the will of people that want to find a better way of life.

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
You can’t forgo the security and sovereignty of the nation because a non-citizen might get hurt while attempting to enter the country illegally.

At the same, measures could be taken to address this as well.

For example, drones could be utilized to a greater extent to monitor areas and identify those where tunneling is occurring.

Electronic monitoring devices could be used to identify traffic. Shit, they use these way back in Vietnam to identify traffic down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

They use them today around sensitive government locations.

The tech is readily available.

The will to use it has not been.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 2183
alancac98 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
What is the evidence that border security is best spent on a wall? Read my post above.


It may not be the best alternative. All I know is that a wall, once built, can stand for a long time so the cost can be spread over the coarse of 100 years possibly.


I don't particularly care about the rest of this conversation that much, but this line caught my interest.

I'm a software engineer for a company that makes a bridge management software package used by 40 state DOTs across the country. One of the things our software does is a bunch of incredibly detailed calculations to predict bridge deterioration modeling over the course of a variable number of years (all the way to 100).

While bridges and walls obviously aren't the same, I suspect the maintenance is going to have a lot of similarities. Both are going to be made of steel and concrete and face some similar issues with wear just from being out in the elements, not to mention damage from people inevitably trying to tear it down.

For comparison, the Golden Gate bridge costs over $65 million per year to maintain and is only 1.7 miles long. The length of the Mexico-US border is almost 1,954 miles.

Now, obviously, a bridge has some more complicated pieces than a wall, and probably won't have car traffic on it. So it's certainly not going to cost $65 million per year for every 1.7 miles. But it will cost money. A LOT of money. Enough money that initial cost of building it is going to look like a drop in the bucket 40 years down the road.

Unless of course, it's built and the next administration immediately cuts all maintenance on it. Which is a very real possibility. In that case, we just dumped billions of dollars into a project that isn't going to be maintained.

And other than I don't think it'll be effective enough to warrant the price tag, my biggest issue with the wall is that the next administration's first act in office could very well be to kill the wall while it's already been started, and all the money is just going to be wasted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Good points Lipp.

Here is a novel idea and literally the most cost effective.

How bout we simply stop incentivizing people to come here?

No you are not getting free healthcare just because you stepped foot in California.

No your kids cannot go to our colleges for free.

No we are not going to give you a tax refund when you paid no taxes.

We incentivize the activity then squabble over how to solve the problem.

I just read an article (no, not on Fox) that stated how successful Israel’s southern wall has been in keeping out illegal immigrants from Africa. A year prior to completion of that southern wall they had 17,000 enter illegally. That number dropped to 43 the year following completion.

Walls do in fact work.

But it didn’t stop there. In addition to the wall, they inacted policies to make coming into the county far less desirable.

And that is likley the key there. We make it FAR too attractive to come into this country illegally.

No wonder we now have caravans that are being schooled in how to properly claim asylum rather than simply being an immigrant.

Taking away the incentive and red carpet treatment could go a long way in curbing this.

Has certainly worked elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 1278
From what I am reading, there are a lot of great points. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that it is going to take numerous methods to make our border as secure as possible. We can also agree that some of those methods are going to be met with lots of resistance. But the question is, Where do we begin and how long should it take to get there? I don't think it is feasible to bury it in committee until case studies can be done as that could take years! The problem faces us today. The wall will be costly and so will maintenance, but there will be maintenance on every method we use. You will always need new cameras, drones, atv's, trucks and such, so those factors will always be on the books.

So, a border package will nonetheless take years to get totally implemented, but we have to start somewhere. When I begin thinking about the drugs that are pouring into our communities everyday and the kids this epidemic is effecting, I can't help but think that there are a lot of crooked bastards in our government and the scale is much greater than we can possibly perceive. I believe it was Ted Cruz who had suggested to use El Chappo's confiscated drug money/assets to build the wall. What and where is all the money we seize from drug dealers going to? I believe I heard El Chappo's money totaled somewhere near 27 billion! If that's the case, hell, we can build the wall, add more cameras, create some seismic centers where tunnels are being built and more-and that is with just his money. What about everything else that is seized from others? Sell it and use the money. Unfortunately, I know he said it, but no one has really talked about the idea that I know of. Every leader in our government has talked about border security and/or voted for bills that would pay for border security, yet, here we stand - still facing the problem today. Nothing is going to be perfect, but you have to start somewhere. Nothing we do is going to be able to be implemented tomorrow either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 2183
alancac98 wrote:
The wall will be costly and so will maintenance, but there will be maintenance on every method we use. You will always need new cameras, drones, atv's, trucks and such, so those factors will always be on the books.


Again, only commenting on this part because it's the part I can offer actual, professional, knowledge on, but you're going to need the same cameras, drones, ATVs, and vehicles to inspect that wall.

Continually inspecting a structure that is almost 2,000 miles long is not easy.

And it's not as easy as just taking a glance at a section and saying it's cool. They use sonar technologies to do deep inspections on concrete structures, as spalling created by water damage often isn't visible from the outside. Rebar often rusts away before the outer structure shows signs of significant wear. Areas that go over water are going to need special inspections because water will erode the foundation of the wall over time. If its built through a body of water that's deeper than a few feet, a team of scuba divers will be needed to check the structure at the bottom.

If there's a tunnel in the wall to allow a roadway to go through, that's going to require special inspection to make sure it doesn't cave in.

Multiply all of that over 2,000 miles.

For one thing, that $5.7B estimate to build the wall is a joke. It'll cost twice that or more. Second, the long term maintenance is going to be astronomical.

Or you build it, cut corners on maintenance, and watch as sections cave in over time, making it less and less effective.

This is the stuff the average person isn't knowledgeable enough to even begin to think about it and therefore no one seems to be talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 10835
Well golly! Look! Actual expertise!

Like I said.

We need an honest conversation informed by experts about the advantages and disadvantages of all the tools before doing something that cannot be undone.

Glad I lack common sense enough to need that discussion since I am not informed enough to presume whether it is the best solution.

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1332
955876 wrote:
You can’t forgo the security and sovereignty of the nation because a non-citizen might get hurt while attempting to enter the country illegally.

At the same, measures could be taken to address this as well.

For example, drones could be utilized to a greater extent to monitor areas and identify those where tunneling is occurring.

Electronic monitoring devices could be used to identify traffic. Shit, they use these way back in Vietnam to identify traffic down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

They use them today around sensitive government locations.

The tech is readily available.

The will to use it has not been.

I’m not saying forego security. I’m just saying piecemeal solutions can have unintended consequences.

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 1278
But, you can't hire men to walk along the border 24/7. You can't expect to use the military all day -every day. Now, towers with HD cameras that can zoom with night vision capabilities could identify potential groups of illegals trying to cross the border, but you still need men on the ground that could get there rather quickly to arrest them and send them packing. Here's the problem though, current laws need to be tweaked and the deportation process streamlined to remove them quickly - but that too is going to cost money and people will always try to get here. As long as people think they have a chance, they will come! Also, how would the system handle a group of 6000 people moving through the desert at night - would we have the available man power to handle that all across the border (yes, all along the 2000 mile span?) In order to effectively diminish a person's desire to make that journey, there has to be something substantial to place a huge amount of doubt in their mind and make the trip no longer a valid option. Right now, we don't anything that screams, "it's impossible"! Would a wall do it? I don't know. But land mines are out as the first woman and child that gets killed would be an international nightmare for the US (no, I'm not suggesting a mine field either, but it would offer a sense of impossibility to trying to cross the boarder. High risk of death, makes things less attractive) You can't give people a huge amount of hope that they could possibly get through - you have to squash that hope. Whatever it is we do, it must be big, represent that sense of impossibility, and carry swift action if caught!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 4897
Still Lit wrote:

No idea.

I was pretty taken aback by that Govt Office of Accountability report I linked to. Why in the world Customs and BP have not bothered to undertake the necessary studies to better inform Congress what it should be funding with respect to security measures seems weird. But maybe the study I linked to lacks context and I misunderstand it.

Dems have voted for walls in some spots does not *necessarily* make them hypocrites for not voting for walls in other spots. I'm no expert AT ALL, but one could imagine that a wall of a particular sort might be appropriate in some locations, but not others. And *some* Dems do seem interested in funding security, but not a wall.

The public is not well served by stupid campaign memes (goes for both sides). Politicians should be educating the public via honest debate about studies. It needs to be wonkish. But wonk does not win campaigns.


Lit- caught this part of your post. Can you elaborate on why you believe Dems would vote for some part of the wall but not all of it?

_________________
#CdnSteelerFanStrong


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
Still Lit wrote:
Well golly! Look! Actual expertise!

Like I said.

We need an honest conversation informed by experts about the advantages and disadvantages of all the tools before doing something that cannot be undone.

Glad I lack common sense enough to need that discussion since I am not informed enough to presume whether it is the best solution.


Let’s assune a massive (and expensive) study is done, Will Pelosi and Schmuer actually give the Homeland Secretary her due curtesy and respect and at least listen to her report? Or will they simply shut her down (again) and “reject her facts” before she even presents them?

And once again, you are distorting the nature and intent of what was actually said. Your common sense wasn’t questioned for wanting to see data or a study.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wall or No wall?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 4688
SteelPro wrote:
955876 wrote:
You can’t forgo the security and sovereignty of the nation because a non-citizen might get hurt while attempting to enter the country illegally.

At the same, measures could be taken to address this as well.

For example, drones could be utilized to a greater extent to monitor areas and identify those where tunneling is occurring.

Electronic monitoring devices could be used to identify traffic. Shit, they use these way back in Vietnam to identify traffic down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

They use them today around sensitive government locations.

The tech is readily available.

The will to use it has not been.

I’m not saying forego security. I’m just saying piecemeal solutions can have unintended consequences.


Of course. I realize that.

At the same time, if you (a citizen) tried to burrow under something to gain access to something located inside the country that you did not have legal access to what do you suppose the response would be if you were hurt or worse during your attempt?

Most would simply say dumbass got what he deserved.

As I posted earlier in the thread, taking away the incentive to come here illegally would go a long way in preventing at least some this.

Telling the world you can have free healthcare if you step foot in CA accomplished the exact opposite.

We have politicians literally inviting and encouraging people to take these risk and make the attempt to come here illegally.

No wonder we have thousands upon thousands attempting to step foot on our soil.

And by “our” I’m referring to the American taxpayer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group