The plan is already there. We have data that shows border barriers SIGNIFICANTLY (unless 80-90% reduction isn't "significant" enough for you) reduce overland illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug trafficking. The plan is to erect a barrier over most of the southern border in conjunction with natural barriers to funnel most human traffic to legitimate ports of entry. Combine that with human patrols and technology (cameras, drones, etc).
A border barrier and the illegal immigration coming across is NOT some "new" or "sudden" issue. It's been a problem FOR DECADES. And people are SICK of it. The "screaming toddler" in this scenario are the DEMOCRATS They won't negotiate. They don't give a crap if it throws their constituencies (including the DACA recipients) under the bus.
Basically all the stuff being talked about was PERFECTLY acceptable to the Dems when Obama or anyone named "Clinton" talked about it.
This is pure, malicious political sabotage by the Democrats. And this is why they aren't arguing FACTS. They're arguing "feelings".
How is a wall "immoral"? Do YOU live in a gazebo on a golf course?
And if you want to talk about immoral? How moral is it that some of these industries "can't work without illegal immigration"? You're essentially creating a permanently near-slave economic sub-class based on the argument of "Who will pick our cotton?"
Yep. But you're presenting it as an either-or problem.
It isn't, therefore you're being a dishonest bullshitter.
The country can tackle BOTH simultaneously.
And, if the Chicken Little Brigade would actually come up with a viable solution, we could. Screaming "Hottest *INSERT HERE* EVARRRR!" or trying to implement some gamified social engineering scheme DOES NOT GET IT DONE.
Right now, we're talking about a border barrier that costs 1/1000th of the total US budget. Meanwhile, foreign aid, and other pork projects will cost us several hundred times that.
Because, in the end, the default for a physical impediment is "use the door".
The default for a virtual impediment (drones, patrols, etc) is "No cop. No crime."
A wall forces you to breach, surmount or tunnel under.
All of which take progressively more time, take more resources and generally force the crosser to get "noisy" in some way, increasing the likelihood of being caught.
What? Because I'm willing to accept the economic impact of a shutdown? Because I'm willing to deal with a rise in the price of goods and services if businesses are FORCED to use citizens and legal immigrants at fair, legal rates of pay? Because I'm unwilling to allow the plight of furloughed workers to be used as an emotional cudgel against me?
Sorry, but unlike many of the jellyfish (past and present) in the GOP, I actually have a spine that I refuse to shit out on command.
And, again with the conflation. I'm not talking about legal immigration. I'm not talking about refugees. I'm talking about ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRATION. Whether it destroys the country or not remains to be seen. Remember, the countries these people come from pump out people at well beyond replacement rates. So we take a million in this year, next year the countries in question have birthed a million-PLUS. So we take a million-PLUS. The next year the countries in question have pumped out a million-PLUS-PLUS.
Ultimately, economically, we simply CANNOT outpace that sort of growth. Nor do we owe it to simply accept anyone who wants to come here, regardless of the legality of their method of migration.
And no, the shutdown isn't pointless. This issue has been danced around long enough. And we're currently seeing outright obstruction of it. Based on political grounds, not ideological grounds. And the opposition isn't willing to even deal. Nancy Pelosi refuses to even accept factual information and will not negotiate whatsoever. Declaring it to be immoral. Not quite sure what's so "moral" about creating an economic underclass of illegal immigrants as virtual slaves.
The thing is the influx of illegal immigrants (not immigrants, not refugees) ebbs and flows.
The wall allows for more efficient use of human and tech assets. It acts as an actual barrier in places where there currently are none (human or geographic). It acts as a superior barrier in places where we have old, short, ineffective barriers. We have data from the barriers in the San Diego region that show that such things drastically reduce illegal immigration overland and forcing people to ports of entry allows us to screen more effectively. The structure being proposed has sufficient space between uprights that border agents can see the far side without needing to resort to patrolling the far side. But insufficient space to actually push even an infant through. Again, it limits the need for excessive human/tech assets.
A wall, once in place, allows us to allot resources to tackle issues like visa overstays without worrying that we're kicking out one to be replaced by three more.
If they're legal part-time workers, coming in legally isn't any more difficult than going to the airport. Is it still a hassle? Sure. But so is getting groped by TSA agents.
1: One less person the government has to spend money on in terms of social safety net. 2: One less person the government has to spend money chasing down and deporting.
Incorrect. Visa overstays are the majority. About 58%. But fly-ins only account for about 30-40% of all illegal immigration attempts. The remainder are primarily over-land. Yes, a lot of that are people who walk in through ports of entry. But a good chunk are people simply walking across an unfenced area, climbing a short fence, or swimming a river. The new structure basically raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across here or climb a chain link fence" to "How the fuck do I get over that!"
Also, with those type of illegal immigrants, we have PRECISELY NO CONTROL over who we're getting. Are we getting Juan, the guy who just wants to build houses, provide for his wife and kids, and live an upright life? Or are we getting Juan, the narco-gang member who wants to rape, kill and steal until he's caught or killed? Or do we get Juan, the guy who tries to work hard, but loves his hooch too much and doesn't see a problem drinking and driving?
THIS is the kind of thing we need control over.
A border barrier is an aide to border patrol. In that it allows for more efficient use of manpower and technical resources to monitor the border (you don't have to keep an eyeball on every last centimeter 24x7).
Unfortunately, as everyone knows, YOU don't really get a say with YOUR tax dollars, save during elections.
As for the flow of immigrants, that sort of thing waxes and wanes. The last surge was after an amnesty.
If we simply give up on border security, guess what we're gonna see. Another surge in illegal immigration.
While it isn't my preference, I'd probably be okay with physically securing the border, getting our immigration laws and procedures fixed, then simply issuing a blanket amnesty to every non-violent, non-drug offender in the country and simply making them citizens.
It'd basically give these people an easy path to citizenship, end the illegal immigrant debacle and we'd already have everything in place to guard against a post-amnesty surge.
Also, are they conflating "illegal immigrants", "immigrants" and "refugees"?
And, even if legal immigrants, refugees and citizens were pulling at the same 7-1 rate, it still doesn't change the fact that the illegal immigrants AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.
Yet they still get it anyhow. In spite of the laws.
Remember, it's illegal for an emergency room to turn away a patient because they don't have health care. Immigrant kids STILL go to school. And some of them even qualify for school lunches.
And it's still ignoring the fact that THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!
If you want to come to this country, fine. DO IT LEGALLY.
And yes, for every illegal immigrant here just trying to pay his bills, stay off the radar, etc. we have drunk drivers, gang members and cop killers as well.
It's not that we don't want ANYONE coming in. The Mexican/Central American legal migration into the US is ALREADY dwarfs the Italian, German and Irish migrations in terms of quantity and success.
But we need serious oversight into who we're letting in. Which means we need actual, physical border control.
This way we can differentiate between Juan, the guy who builds people's houses, pays his taxes and goes to church every sunday and Juan, the guy in MS13 looking to rape and kill and steal.
How does stopping the formation of an economic underclass of illegal workers, saving the money currently being spent on the illegal immigrants and improving the job prospects for legal immigrants and citizens occupying the lowest economic echelons make the US a "shithole"?
You want to come here? Come on! Just do it according to our laws.
Currently the walls in place are little more than chain link fencing.
The new structure is going to be 1/2"-3/4" steel angle iron uprights, linked by cross-members of the same size, buried in a concrete foundation and with an anti-climb plate at the top.
Climbing will be difficult without an extremely large (and heavy) ladder. Most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their tunnel boring machine. And at 1/2" to 3/4", you're NOT going to cut it with a set of tin snips, or even a bolt cropper. Again, most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their giant angle grinder.
And even if they did, it'd still take an inordinate amount of time to cut through. A patrol or a drone will likely spot them WELL before they get done.
Also, the structure isn't going to be on all 2000+ miles. It doesn't need to be. There are various areas which are natural geographic impediments. We simply need to cover areas currently not blocked or upgrade the infrastructure that's already there in terms of border fencing.
These people don't have any intrinsic right to be in this country. So if it gets slowed down, SO THE FUCK WHAT?
And more "I know you didn't say this, but I will for you, so that's why WE SHOULD JUST DO NOTHING!"
A wall will still be patrolled. And it'll still have surveillance. It'll just cut down on the need to have a human eyeball on every last centimeter of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Also, not many people are going to hump their own 30+ foot ladder across the border. As for a water crossing. We already have dummies drowning themselves in the Pacific down by San Diego. Also, this is what we have THE COAST GUARD for.
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is saying that a wall, all by itself, is a be-all-end-all solution. It's part of a greater system of border control.
It raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across" or "I'll just hop this short chain link fence" to "HOLY SHIT! I can't climb that!"
Isn't that the same thing you're doing by demanding we never shut down anything because someone might be inconvenienced?
And who's the authoritarian here? Myself? Or someone demanding enforced, top-down government with separate systems fo rules for the rulers and the ruled?
Slashdot Mirror
So now we simply react to "accusations"...
How soon before Riot goes under because of this poisonous ideology.
The plan is already there.
We have data that shows border barriers SIGNIFICANTLY (unless 80-90% reduction isn't "significant" enough for you) reduce overland illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug trafficking.
The plan is to erect a barrier over most of the southern border in conjunction with natural barriers to funnel most human traffic to legitimate ports of entry.
Combine that with human patrols and technology (cameras, drones, etc).
A border barrier and the illegal immigration coming across is NOT some "new" or "sudden" issue.
It's been a problem FOR DECADES. And people are SICK of it.
The "screaming toddler" in this scenario are the DEMOCRATS They won't negotiate. They don't give a crap if it throws their constituencies (including the DACA recipients) under the bus.
Basically all the stuff being talked about was PERFECTLY acceptable to the Dems when Obama or anyone named "Clinton" talked about it.
This is pure, malicious political sabotage by the Democrats. And this is why they aren't arguing FACTS. They're arguing "feelings".
How is a wall "immoral"? Do YOU live in a gazebo on a golf course?
And if you want to talk about immoral? How moral is it that some of these industries "can't work without illegal immigration"?
You're essentially creating a permanently near-slave economic sub-class based on the argument of "Who will pick our cotton?"
Yep. Because we have such a good history with completely electronic systems. Where physical access allows pretty much anyone to do anything.
And no paper trail means that it's just that much easier to cheat.
Yep. But you're presenting it as an either-or problem.
It isn't, therefore you're being a dishonest bullshitter.
The country can tackle BOTH simultaneously.
And, if the Chicken Little Brigade would actually come up with a viable solution, we could.
Screaming "Hottest *INSERT HERE* EVARRRR!" or trying to implement some gamified social engineering scheme DOES NOT GET IT DONE.
Right now, we're talking about a border barrier that costs 1/1000th of the total US budget.
Meanwhile, foreign aid, and other pork projects will cost us several hundred times that.
Not INSTEAD of one.
Because, in the end, the default for a physical impediment is "use the door".
The default for a virtual impediment (drones, patrols, etc) is "No cop. No crime."
A wall forces you to breach, surmount or tunnel under.
All of which take progressively more time, take more resources and generally force the crosser to get "noisy" in some way, increasing the likelihood of being caught.
And they're now tying Huawei to a bunch of front companies in sanctioned nations in the Middle East.
Is THAT what they're calling the little fucking grievance-mongers now?
Considering that they sell a tier of service SPECIFICALLY designed (and marketed) at sharing an account...
You're right.
Please forgive me my tresspass!
Any excuse to maximize their bottom line!
Stupid cocksuckers...
Freedom of association.
Private social media platform.
And simply blocking someone IN NO WAY takes away their freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
This ruling kinda sounds like it make it okay for me to simply force my way into the presence of a politician and just heap endless abuse on them.
What? Because I'm willing to accept the economic impact of a shutdown?
Because I'm willing to deal with a rise in the price of goods and services if businesses are FORCED to use citizens and legal immigrants at fair, legal rates of pay?
Because I'm unwilling to allow the plight of furloughed workers to be used as an emotional cudgel against me?
Sorry, but unlike many of the jellyfish (past and present) in the GOP, I actually have a spine that I refuse to shit out on command.
And, again with the conflation.
I'm not talking about legal immigration.
I'm not talking about refugees.
I'm talking about ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRATION.
Whether it destroys the country or not remains to be seen.
Remember, the countries these people come from pump out people at well beyond replacement rates.
So we take a million in this year, next year the countries in question have birthed a million-PLUS. So we take a million-PLUS. The next year the countries in question have pumped out a million-PLUS-PLUS.
Ultimately, economically, we simply CANNOT outpace that sort of growth.
Nor do we owe it to simply accept anyone who wants to come here, regardless of the legality of their method of migration.
And no, the shutdown isn't pointless.
This issue has been danced around long enough. And we're currently seeing outright obstruction of it. Based on political grounds, not ideological grounds.
And the opposition isn't willing to even deal. Nancy Pelosi refuses to even accept factual information and will not negotiate whatsoever. Declaring it to be immoral.
Not quite sure what's so "moral" about creating an economic underclass of illegal immigrants as virtual slaves.
The thing is the influx of illegal immigrants (not immigrants, not refugees) ebbs and flows.
The wall allows for more efficient use of human and tech assets.
It acts as an actual barrier in places where there currently are none (human or geographic).
It acts as a superior barrier in places where we have old, short, ineffective barriers.
We have data from the barriers in the San Diego region that show that such things drastically reduce illegal immigration overland and forcing people to ports of entry allows us to screen more effectively.
The structure being proposed has sufficient space between uprights that border agents can see the far side without needing to resort to patrolling the far side. But insufficient space to actually push even an infant through. Again, it limits the need for excessive human/tech assets.
A wall, once in place, allows us to allot resources to tackle issues like visa overstays without worrying that we're kicking out one to be replaced by three more.
If they're legal part-time workers, coming in legally isn't any more difficult than going to the airport. Is it still a hassle? Sure. But so is getting groped by TSA agents.
Every person stopped by a wall is:
1: One less person the government has to spend money on in terms of social safety net.
2: One less person the government has to spend money chasing down and deporting.
Incorrect. Visa overstays are the majority. About 58%.
But fly-ins only account for about 30-40% of all illegal immigration attempts.
The remainder are primarily over-land. Yes, a lot of that are people who walk in through ports of entry.
But a good chunk are people simply walking across an unfenced area, climbing a short fence, or swimming a river.
The new structure basically raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across here or climb a chain link fence" to "How the fuck do I get over that!"
Also, with those type of illegal immigrants, we have PRECISELY NO CONTROL over who we're getting.
Are we getting Juan, the guy who just wants to build houses, provide for his wife and kids, and live an upright life?
Or are we getting Juan, the narco-gang member who wants to rape, kill and steal until he's caught or killed?
Or do we get Juan, the guy who tries to work hard, but loves his hooch too much and doesn't see a problem drinking and driving?
THIS is the kind of thing we need control over.
A border barrier is an aide to border patrol. In that it allows for more efficient use of manpower and technical resources to monitor the border (you don't have to keep an eyeball on every last centimeter 24x7).
Unfortunately, as everyone knows, YOU don't really get a say with YOUR tax dollars, save during elections.
As for the flow of immigrants, that sort of thing waxes and wanes. The last surge was after an amnesty.
If we simply give up on border security, guess what we're gonna see. Another surge in illegal immigration.
While it isn't my preference, I'd probably be okay with physically securing the border, getting our immigration laws and procedures fixed, then simply issuing a blanket amnesty to every non-violent, non-drug offender in the country and simply making them citizens.
It'd basically give these people an easy path to citizenship, end the illegal immigrant debacle and we'd already have everything in place to guard against a post-amnesty surge.
Also, are they conflating "illegal immigrants", "immigrants" and "refugees"?
And, even if legal immigrants, refugees and citizens were pulling at the same 7-1 rate, it still doesn't change the fact that the illegal immigrants AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.
Yet they still get it anyhow. In spite of the laws.
Remember, it's illegal for an emergency room to turn away a patient because they don't have health care.
Immigrant kids STILL go to school. And some of them even qualify for school lunches.
And it's still ignoring the fact that THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!
If you want to come to this country, fine.
DO IT LEGALLY.
And yes, for every illegal immigrant here just trying to pay his bills, stay off the radar, etc. we have drunk drivers, gang members and cop killers as well.
It's not that we don't want ANYONE coming in. The Mexican/Central American legal migration into the US is ALREADY dwarfs the Italian, German and Irish migrations in terms of quantity and success.
But we need serious oversight into who we're letting in. Which means we need actual, physical border control.
This way we can differentiate between Juan, the guy who builds people's houses, pays his taxes and goes to church every sunday and Juan, the guy in MS13 looking to rape and kill and steal.
And how many drones do you think it'll take to cover the border?
No. No we shouldn't.
We don't owe these people anything other than a fair hearing when they present themselves at a port of entry.
How does stopping the formation of an economic underclass of illegal workers, saving the money currently being spent on the illegal immigrants and improving the job prospects for legal immigrants and citizens occupying the lowest economic echelons make the US a "shithole"?
You want to come here? Come on!
Just do it according to our laws.
Currently the walls in place are little more than chain link fencing.
The new structure is going to be 1/2"-3/4" steel angle iron uprights, linked by cross-members of the same size, buried in a concrete foundation and with an anti-climb plate at the top.
Climbing will be difficult without an extremely large (and heavy) ladder.
Most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their tunnel boring machine.
And at 1/2" to 3/4", you're NOT going to cut it with a set of tin snips, or even a bolt cropper.
Again, most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their giant angle grinder.
And even if they did, it'd still take an inordinate amount of time to cut through.
A patrol or a drone will likely spot them WELL before they get done.
Also, the structure isn't going to be on all 2000+ miles.
It doesn't need to be. There are various areas which are natural geographic impediments.
We simply need to cover areas currently not blocked or upgrade the infrastructure that's already there in terms of border fencing.
These people don't have any intrinsic right to be in this country.
So if it gets slowed down, SO THE FUCK WHAT?
And more "I know you didn't say this, but I will for you, so that's why WE SHOULD JUST DO NOTHING!"
A wall will still be patrolled. And it'll still have surveillance.
It'll just cut down on the need to have a human eyeball on every last centimeter of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Also, not many people are going to hump their own 30+ foot ladder across the border.
As for a water crossing. We already have dummies drowning themselves in the Pacific down by San Diego. Also, this is what we have THE COAST GUARD for.
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is saying that a wall, all by itself, is a be-all-end-all solution.
It's part of a greater system of border control.
It raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across" or "I'll just hop this short chain link fence" to "HOLY SHIT! I can't climb that!"
Isn't that the same thing you're doing by demanding we never shut down anything because someone might be inconvenienced?
And who's the authoritarian here? Myself? Or someone demanding enforced, top-down government with separate systems fo rules for the rulers and the ruled?
It's all very easy to explain.