Should America Build a Virtual Border Wall? Or Just Crowdfund It... (chicagotribune.com) 462
As America's government faces its longest-ever shutdown over the president's demands for border wall funding, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested "possible alternatives to a physical wall," according to one Silicon Valley newspaper:
Among the president's justifications for a wall is to stop drugs from coming into the United States, so Pelosi proposed spending "hundreds of millions of dollars" for technology to scan cars for drugs, weapons and contraband at the border. "The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said during her weekly press conference.
That didn't go over well with Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group that on Friday started a petition asking Democrats to drop plans for a "technological wall" that it says could threaten Fourth Amendment rights that guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. "Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," the group's petition says...
In December, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General released a report that showed searches of electronic devices at the border were up nearly 50 percent in 2017. The report also found that border agents were not always following standard operating procedures for searches, including failing to properly document such searches. In addition, information copied by agents were not always deleted as required.
The article also notes that Anduril Industries -- founded by Oculus Rift designer Palmer Luckey (and funded by Peter Thiel) -- is one of several companies already working on "a virtual border wall."
CNN also reports on a GoFundMe campaign started by an Air Force veteran to simply crowdfund the construction of the wall. Though 340,747 people pledged over $20 million, it failed to reach its $1 billion goal, and is now pointing supporters to a newly-formed non-profit corporation -- named "We Build the Wall."
Meanwhile, another 7,121 GoFundMe members have pledged $160,985 to a rival campaign raising money for ladders to climb over Trump's wall.
That didn't go over well with Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group that on Friday started a petition asking Democrats to drop plans for a "technological wall" that it says could threaten Fourth Amendment rights that guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. "Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," the group's petition says...
In December, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General released a report that showed searches of electronic devices at the border were up nearly 50 percent in 2017. The report also found that border agents were not always following standard operating procedures for searches, including failing to properly document such searches. In addition, information copied by agents were not always deleted as required.
The article also notes that Anduril Industries -- founded by Oculus Rift designer Palmer Luckey (and funded by Peter Thiel) -- is one of several companies already working on "a virtual border wall."
CNN also reports on a GoFundMe campaign started by an Air Force veteran to simply crowdfund the construction of the wall. Though 340,747 people pledged over $20 million, it failed to reach its $1 billion goal, and is now pointing supporters to a newly-formed non-profit corporation -- named "We Build the Wall."
Meanwhile, another 7,121 GoFundMe members have pledged $160,985 to a rival campaign raising money for ladders to climb over Trump's wall.
Apples and oranges... (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, the "wall" is supposed to be built outside of official border crossing points. "Official" border crossings have used x-ray or similar scanners since at least 2012; they probably check for radiation too.
https://www.cnet.com/news/dhs-... [cnet.com]
I'm not actually in favor of a wall, but Nauseating Nancy Pelosi seems to be discussing an entirely different issue. What's the long-term solution? Fix the broken immigration system, issue an amount of guest-worker permits that's sufficient to meet demand for immigration.
If we're going to build a "wall" along the border, I'm not sure that either a wall or high-tech will do much. Anyone willing to cross a hundred miles of desert isn't going to be fazed by another obstacle that's surmountable. Want to patrol the more rugged parts of the border? First build a road or track along it, then use Border Patrol mounted on horseback combined with drones with IR cameras. The terrain is such that mounted troops are actually more effective than motor vehicles or walls.
Re:Apples and oranges... (Score:5, Insightful)
Border Patrol disagrees with you:
https://www.kusi.com/cnn-reque... [kusi.com]
The advantage of a physical wall is it doesn't care who is in the white house. When you rely on catching people crossing illegally what to do with them after is a matter of policy that can be determined by the administration. If you prefer ignoring the law and allowing illegal immigration this is a feature.
Re:Apples and oranges... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Majority of illegals enter legally (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have pointed out Israel doesn't have a lot of wall or fence. Unless you're gonna station somebody at every inch of fence they're just gonna go over it. Israel's solution is snipers and a willingness to kill. I suppose we could do that.
Re: (Score:3)
The advantage of a physical wall is it doesn't care who is in the white house.
It should start caring, because the only thing more useless than a border wall, is a perpetually unfinished border wall.
Re:Trumptards are morons. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tunnels take time to dig and create a single entry point that can be monitored more easily. Claiming a shovel makes the entire wall useless is an idiotic argument, especially when walls have been demonstrably effective where we already have them.
Re:Trumptards are morons. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the quoted article form politfact.com really, you'll see it is not so clear:
Rated "mostly true", however it is hotly debated in Israel in howfar the 90% reduction (not 99%) is due to the fence or due to other factors.
A fence/wall is told to be only effective "on a small scale and with many guards". The situation on the US-Mexican border is found to be completely different from the Isaeli southern border, no conclusions can be drawn from this to the effectivity of a fence or border on the 2000 mi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Trumptards are morons. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trumptards are morons. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Israel border is 440 miles long - about 22% of the US Southern border. I think we can agree we have more than 5 times the resources available to patrol?
As far as most people coming through the airports - citation needed. We know how many came through because we have paperwork/visa entry information on them. Do we have equivalent data on those illegally crossing the border - those never checked, never vetted, never issued a visa? No? Then how can you make the claim?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Clinton (both), Pelosi, and most high-profile Democrats were in favor of border security, including a wall, before Trump was involved. Didn't Bill Clinton even promise a wall in some year's SOTU?
It's not about the wall, clearly. They don't want Trump to get a win. Pure pettiness. Which is fucking stupid: do you utter morons really expect to beat Trump in a war of petty childish behavior? Seriously? That outranks a land war in Asia for a fight not to pick! Both sides are holding their breath until they
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apples and oranges... (Score:4, Insightful)
"What's the long-term solution?"
The long term solution is to remove the incentives that brings illegals here in the first place.
Eg: Birthright Citizenship
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, some of the things the US does in Latin America are fucking awful. It's a shame that the Americans involved in the following incident weren't arrested in Honduras, put on trial, and hanged from a short rope...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re:Well if you want a real solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of them are not refugees from political violence. Most of them are leaving for financial reasons. And the caravans started because Pueblos Sin Fronteras organized them and told these people their life would be much better if they left for the US. There's a reason the last one hit the border right at election time.
Re:Well if you want a real solution (Score:4, Informative)
An illegal migration is not a reason to enter the USA.
The US embassy will then consider and if approved grant the needed documents to any person with a real reason to enter the USA.
For a holiday, education, visit, approved health care, to stay in the USA, to move to the USA.
They can tell their story at any legal crossing location.
The wall AC stops random criminals and illegal migrants from wondering into the USA AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Running the numbers ... (Score:2)
1/12/2019 @ 6:46 PM CST
Goal $1,000,000,000
Current Donations $20,360,122
Current People 340,800
Current Days 26
People/Day 13,108
Donations/Day $783,082
Days Til Goal 1,277
People Til Goal 435,203,679
The idea was to get $80 from all Americans (I don't know what that means ... babies can't participate).
Currently, it's at $59.74 per donor, on average.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was $80 from everyone who voted for Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right (I think you are) about that. The narrative has changed since gofundme declared the goal was not reached in time.
Medicaid for immigrants? (Score:2)
Pension bailout? Planned Parenthood? New Aircraft Carrier group?
Just crowdfund it. It'll be apparent everybody just want everyone else to pay for their pet cause.
Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Advantage to new pro Russian gov
Citizen can't escape.
Disadvantage to US citizens
They can't escape.
Re:How about we just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take $20B out of the DoD budget and build a really awesome border wall.
Because the total cost is $150B just for construction. Would congress even agree to a $20B DoD funding cut?
* $20B that is spent domestically.
It's already spend domestically.
* $20B that builds things that last (ie not ordnance, bullets, etc.)
A wall requires regular maintenance just like our failing infrastructure.
* Will pay for itself quickly with the reduction in human traffic across the border.
It literally will do nothing to reduce human traffic. The people coming in are presenting themselves to request asylum.
* Keeps the flow of new Democratic voters reduced.
Non-citizens cannot vote.
* Forces the Chamber of Commerce to hire more native low skilled workers.
No, it wouldn't. It would go to the same companies that are currently working on the fence.
Actual disadvantages:
* It's ineffective and waste of money.
* It would be rewarding bad behavior and thus encouraging more of it.
* The people that live along the border don't even want it.
* It makes the US look cowardly and racist (like you pro-wall people).
* It will cost way more money than current estimates.
* There are still maintenance/repair costs.
* The nation is going into debt just to fund it.
* The US started the mess in the 1980s that has has people fleeing Honduras now.
Re:How about we just... (Score:5, Informative)
* The people that live along the border don't even want it.
Excuse me? Who the holy fuck are you to say what we want?
I'm the fucking guy that reads polling data from border states regarding the wall. Who are you to discount multiple polls?
Illegals are still flooding across the border.
The numbers say otherwise. It's at 20 year low.
Saw a group of 5 of them yesterday (you bet your ass I called them a CBP taxi). If they were here to request asylum, why were they sneaking through the bushes? People who want asylum cross at a point of entry and present themselves to the authorities.
Excellent anecdotal straw man argument. Well done.
You've just been proven to be a liar. Carry on.
Your idea of what constitutes proof does not behove you.
Re:How about we just... (Score:4, Insightful)
Low does not equal zero. We're seeing plenty of them here in San Diego County.
Perfect is the enemy of good. There is also low crime but it doesn't mean there is zero crime? Should we do away with our person freedoms until we route out the remaining criminals?
You say there are no illegals, I see them with my own eyes. It's not a straw man.
Sounds like you don't understand what a straw man argument is.
I don't know what polls you are reading
Then you clearly haven't looked at any polling data for border states.
or how accurate they are (I'm gonna assume you didn't vet them) so I'm going to dismiss your appeal to authority out of hand.
Actually, the polls were conducted by various companies that poll the public regularly on issues. They have gained a reputation for accurate polling. I looked at the questions posed they were no leading. You dismissing polls the just saying you don't agree with them so it doesn't matter.
I can conduct a poll too. It's called speaking to my neighbors. Some oppose the wall and a some favor it. I don't know the ratio, but It's certainly pro-wall.
It's not really a poll if you can't get actual numbers and it's not representative of anything other than your street. Sorry amigo, that's a double fail.
Re:How about we just... (Score:4, Interesting)
Non-citizens should have *zero* voting rights, period,
I can agree with that federal elections but shouldn't it be up to states and cities to determine their own laws so long as they do not conflict with federal law?
and certainly not those who willfully break the law in the first place.
It's true they violated the law at one point but it's reductive and dehumanizing to simply classify them as criminals and then dismiss them entirely.
I'm not sure why liberals think that enforcing immigration to the US using the methods currently legally available
You got me all wrong. I'm all for people legal immigration and I think the onus should be upon those who employ illegal immigrants. That said, it's something that the Republican party has rejected because they want the cheap labor. They pretend to be hardliners against illegal immigration because it gets them votes. Rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them is just like the wall, they know it wont actually do anything to address the problem but it gets votes.
If they were actually wanted to address illegal immigration then they would go after the corporations that provide them the money to stay here.
and strictly controlling who we let in
We already have a strict immigration process. This comes across as a racist dog whistle to keep brown people out more than anything else.
You must be new (Score:2)
around here.
Well you'd need one anyway. (Score:3)
Any barrier that can be built by tools can be penetrated by tools, it's just a matter of time and preparation. And in the very remote places the wall will go through, people have lots of time.
For the wall to work, it needs pretty close to continal surveillance in those remote places. Not only along the wall, but in front to detect people who went through or over or under. You also need to be able to catch those people. Once you have those things, you don't really need the physical wall anymore.
Re:Well you'd need one anyway. (Score:4, Funny)
"Any barrier that can be built by tools can be penetrated by tools, it's just a matter of time and preparation."
Do you have locks on your doors? They won't stop a thief that wants in either, but I bet you use them all the same. Locks do at least retard their entry and keeps the thieves with low initiative out so there is at least some benefit.
"For the wall to work, it needs pretty close to continal surveillance in those remote places. Not only along the wall, but in front to detect people who went through or over or under. You also need to be able to catch those people. Once you have those things, you don't really need the physical wall anymore."
A statement of ignorance. Surveillance does not need to be continual. In fact the building of a wall is usually so you can avoid that expense. Only occasional surveillance is necessary.
It is an open border without a wall that would need continual surveillance because there is no wall to delay entry at all.
I don't even agree that we need a stupid wall, but I am smart enough to figure that out, why aren't you?
Re:Well you'd need one anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Physical barriers only work when the delay they add is proportional to the response time, or when the barrier improves the response time.
Police response time to your house is often only a matter of minutes. A door lock works because either it adds a few minutes of delay for the thief trying to bypass it stealthily (giving neighbors or homeowners a chance to spot the intrusion and call police) , or because it draws attention if you bypass it quickly (neighbors or homeowner hear door kicked in or window being broken). Even a 15 second delay may be all it takes for a homeowner to run and retrieve a gun from a safe.
Walls/fences work in urban areas because they prevent casual flow of people back and forth, and because they are well monitored. The 15 seconds it takes someone to scale a fence is plenty of time to mobilize the guards and intercept. These are the areas where we already have walls/fences built.
Out in the desert, even if you know the exact moment that someone breaches the border, the response time can be hours. Adding 5 or 10 minutes for someone to scale the wall is trivial. If you can track down and intercept someone who breached the border 1 hour 50 minutes ago, you can almost surely track down someone who breached the border 2 hours ago.
Re: Well you'd need one anyway. (Score:2)
The most recent proposals for a steel slat wall could be breached with common tools in minutes. Certainly less than an hour. Explosively formed penetrated can do it in seconds, and since you don't need standoff capability like insurgents taking out an armored cehicle, even simpler designs can be used than the garage built examples we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even a cutting torch or diamond bladed rotary cutter will make reasonably short work of structural steel.
What this means is you have have t
How to build a wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Make sure the wall cant be climbed physically without effort and that all legal attempts to stay in the USA after such attempts fail.
Make sure any illegal migrant who attempts the get over the wall has no legal rights to the stay in the USA after that attempt.
That stops years and decades of legal court work in the USA after each and every attempt to get over the wall.
The illegal migrant is set back to there side of the wall and never allowed back into the USA.
Attempt to get over the wall and that is a crime and no further access to the US is ever permitted for any reason for that illegal migrant.
That will force all illegal migrants to have to buy fake random documents. Such new documents are now more easy to detect at any legal crossing location.
Wondering int the USA at some random location is no longer an option.
Demanding US legal protection later after wondering into the USA will not work.
Use all detection methods the US mil has to detect any new deeper tunnel attempts.
That removes the legal and easy attempts to cross into the USA illegally. All later US court and legal attempts to stay in the USA after getting over the wall.
That then allows more enfacement at ports, airports and all other legal entry locations.
Crime, illegal migration and drug imports are reduced.
Win, win, win.
Re: (Score:2)
Wandering into the USA at some random location is no longer an option.
The 'wall' plan really has a big hole: Canada. Seriously, if you were a terrorist, which would be easier to cross?
Re: (Score:2)
Great grammar and spelling could give away all the decades of winning anthropologist work done.
Re: (Score:2)
People who want to enter the USA will be directed to a location along the wall where they can present their documents and be allowed into the USA.
A task for a US embassy in another nation.
Con man ... (Score:2)
... he is [businessinsider.com].
NBC News reported that Kolfage, who was associated with websites that published false stories and had pages shut down by Facebook, claims to have gathered 3.5 million email addresses through his border wall campaign.
Virtual / Tech border walls are lousy (Score:4, Insightful)
Virtual walls are expensive to buy and maintain. Its not like the cameras will be simple IR illuminated CCD style you buy at a big box store. They'll be high resolution with thermal imaging. They have to survive difficult environmental conditions. Hundreds of miles of fiber optics and fiber switchgear. Expensive servers and front-end clients. Federal contractors to maintain it all.
Versus a physical barrier CBP can drive by and inspect for damage on occasion.
Versus a Virtual Fence, they're not much of a deterrent. "Woooo, I'm so scared of being caught on video. OMG! What if they use facial recognition that isn't used in my home country?" vs "Hmm... 30ft wall, spikes and/or barbwire... Maybe I should just use an actual border crossing?"
If your donors include many defense contractors, which system are you going to pitch?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we've had a virtual fence before. Janet Napolitano decided that it wasn't working, and turned it off. A physical wall can't be turned off on a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Without surveillance, how will you know whether the wall is working? How do you expect to find and catch anyone after they've hopped the wall?
How will migrating animals get through? Are you going to shuttle them through somehow?
False Dichotomy (Score:5, Informative)
The most bizarre thing about this is that all of this technical funding (well, at least a lot of it) is already in the request that the Trump Administration is making. Border walls do work (ask any resident of San Diego), and technology can be used in places where the border fencing is not necessary. (As an example, the border wall ends about 20 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean here [google.com] as the urbanized portion of Tijuana ends and the mountain terrain on both sides provides a good deterrent.)
Here's more detail on the request from a few days ago. Really not sure what Pelosi is yelling about at this point, since a comprehensive mixed-focus border strengthening is ostensibly what both sides want:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-asks-for-billions-of-dollars-to-fund-border-operations/ [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the White House is demanding $563 million for 75 additional immigration judges and support staff,
Woah, those people are making a lot of money.
Re:Another lying Republican faggot? Throw on the p (Score:4, Interesting)
San Diego is an urban area where walls EXIST. Yes, they work there - at slowing people slightly - because THEY ARE MANNED AND PATROLLED NEARBY. That is not happening along the entire border, nor proposed.
The 2006 study on GK's effectiveness noted a 76% drop from 1992-2004 in San Diego County, so I'd put it at more than "slowing people slightly". It's a fair argument that some/many of the would-be crossers tried crossing more East instead (not just into Imperial County, but much further east... past Yuma in AZ, NM, and TX). One doesn't need to build an entire wall everywhere and Trump's proposal doesn't do that. CBP knows where walls are needed and where they're not, and they're fully capable of allocating resources accordingly.
The technology in the budget requests goes to a lot of IR, drones, and the like... Exactly the kind of smart allocation of resources everyone on all sides appears to claim to want.
So, again... What's the problem?
Easy Solution (Score:2)
+sarcasm
I think I now what we can do with all those surplus landmines laying around. Cheap and very effective.
-sarcasm
Wall is STUPID (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The over part is also something a modern mil can detect as they face drones all over the world.
A "surveillance satellite" still needs US efforts to get to the illegal migrant groups in time.
Once the illegal migrants are in the USA they can demand access to the US legal system.
The wall ensures any person trying to enter the USA has to face a legal crossing location.
Their documents can be looked at. Questions asked.
One lie to the US gov and they not going
Sounds like another scam (Score:5, Informative)
CNN also reports on a GoFundMe campaign started by an Air Force veteran [Brian Kolfage] to simply crowdfund the construction of the wall. Though 340,747 people pledged over $20 million, it failed to reach its $1 billion goal, and is now pointing supporters to a newly-formed non-profit corporation -- named "We Build the Wall."
Guess who sits on the Board of Directors of this new non-profit and will probably get paid to do so? Yup, Brian Kolfage, along with his team [webuildthewall.us] including:
Erik Prince, an American businessman known for founding the security firm Blackwater (he is also Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' brother), David Clarke, the former Wisconsin sheriff known for expressing controversial views on immigration, and Kris Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state.
Business Insider (and others) also note [businessinsider.com]:
Kolfage's previous endeavors, which included stints running conspiracy-theory websites [businessinsider.com] and a related Facebook page that was kicked off the platform in October.
People getting refunds from the GoFundMe campaign will be contacted via email and offered the opportunity to donate to this new "501(c)(4) non-profit Florida Corporation named 'We Build the Wall, Inc.'" -- which will probably *not* be refundable (which will be nice for Brian and his team).
In addition, this Business Insiderarticle Man behind 'Build the Wall' GoFundMe has reportedly made a potentially lucrative contact list thanks to a shadowy email-harvesting operation [businessinsider.com] notes (from interviews with former employees and public records):
NBC News reported that Kolfage, who was associated with websites that published false stories and had pages shut down by Facebook, claims to have gathered 3.5 million email addresses through his border wall campaign.
Those addresses, NBC News reported, have allegedly been used to encourage people to support Kolfage's websites, to buy a coffee brand he owns, or to be stored for future use by conservative campaigns.
Lindsey Lowery, a former staff writer at the now-defunct conservative website FreedomDaily, shared a text message with NBC News in which Kolfage discussed his email harvesting plans.
In the texts, Kolfage told Lowery in September 2017 that "we can make our own [petition] through the website to steal/collect emails."
So... this guy sounds great. /sarcasm
Dafuq? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps a bit misleading... (Score:2)
Much of the border has a physical walls and fences today, and there's already 'virtual fences' monitored by motion-triggered remote cameras and such.
Automated turrets (Score:3)
Towers spaced every 200m with .50cal automated machine guns, shooting anything that approaches the border. Problem solved
Far more important... (Score:3)
In addition to a physical barrier. (Score:3)
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.
Ask the guys who walk the walk (Score:2)
The ultimate wall (Score:3)
Wish we'd debate immigration itself (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish we would debate immigration itself and not get stuck in the weeds discussing walls, whether drugs or illegal immigrants come over the border frontier or airports and shipping containers, or whether they're all criminals, and all the other fringe elements of the debate.
I think there are serious questions about the economic impact of high levels of impoverished immigrants. They burden school districts, local social welfare systems, low-income housing, etc. Does their very low wage employment, even in an ideal situation where they are W-2 workers, actually pay off their added economic burden, or are they actually subsidized, perhaps even for a long time -- like a generation. Or even longer, since we know that escaping poverty is hard.
Our social welfare system does a very marginal job of serving US citizens, it seems unlikely to expand sufficiently to cover significant numbers of poor migrants and serve US citizens. This seems like a real issue to me.
Then there are real questions about the US job market and corporate hiring policies for non-impoverished immigrants. Very few of them are "rock star" types, most of them are cheap filler for corporate jobs that actually seems to harm skilled US workers.
Re:When did this shutdown happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want to fly when air traffic controllers are working without pay and probably even more stressed out than usual? That's how mistakes happen and mistakes get people killed.
Notice I'm not weeping for the "papers please" TSA jobsworths, but things like air traffic control, FAA inspections, FDA inspections, Dept of Ag, are actually useful and desirable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "nonessential" people like sysadmins who are not at work updating the latest local root bugs, or updating certificates, while Iran is doing a major attack against DNS servers? These "nonessential" people normally ensure that when you go to www.irs.gov to file taxes, you are really going to "www.irs.gov", and not "www.irs.ir", "www.irs.ru", or whatever TLD Lower Elbonia uses. Hopefully your tax return won't be captured and your refund snatched, but "nonessential" people prevent that from happening
800,000 federal employees w/o paychecks this week (Score:2)
But of course you know all this and are just trolling. I shouldn't feed the trolls, but there's a slim chance someone might believe you. There's a mountain of stuff private industry won't do because it's not profitable enough but it still needs doing.
Re: (Score:2)
As would any air traveler who's stuck waiting in line because they're closing terminals due to a TSA shortage.
Easily solved with less government: remove the TSA entirely. Go back to airports with private security. Return to respecting the 4th amendment. Government agents searching you without probable cause in order to fly is such a blatant violation of our rights, and I don't ecall anything in the Bill of Rights that says "unless we're scared".
There's no evidence that the TSA improves security over the process we had in 1999. Other changes did help security, but not the TSA. We don't like them. We don't need them. But the government will never relinquish any power, no matter how petty or useless, over the people.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be too young to remember all the bombings and hijackings of the 60's and 70's.
Those occurred when there was NO screening. Then the airlines implemented security screening, and the problem mostly disappeared.
Then 9/11 happened, and the feds took over. The cost doubled, and the delays tripled. Yet the TSA does no better on penetration tests than the private security firms they replaced.
The TSA should be abolished, and airport security should be re-privatized.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't read the news, you wouldn't know there is a federal shutdown.
There is literally no impact on regular Americans outside of DC.
As long as the taxes are removed from my paycheck, the government is not shut down.
I don't even feel sorry for the nonessentials. Go look for a new job not funded by taxpayers if you want to avoid political gridlock delaying your paycheck.
That's just not true. 800,000 Americans have been directly impacted by the shutdown. By directly impacted, I mean that they are not receiving a paycheck. You have a right not to feel sorry for those impacted but don't go around saying that nobody outside of DC is effected as that is just plain false.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't read the news, you wouldn't know there is a federal shutdown.
There is literally no impact on regular Americans outside of DC.
As long as the taxes are removed from my paycheck, the government is not shut down.
I don't even feel sorry for the nonessentials. Go look for a new job not funded by taxpayers if you want to avoid political gridlock delaying your paycheck.
Unless you're a government employee who isn't receiving a paycheck.
Or planning to go to a National Park and noticed it's either closed or opened and trashed.
Or flying and dealing with longer lines due to pissed off and absent TSA screeners.
Or you'll just be dealing with some bureaucratic BS in a few months time and whining about lazy government employees not realizing the BS you're dealing with is because the department got way behind dealing with the shutdown caused by your hero's temper tantrum.
Re:The human cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The human cost (Score:5, Informative)
i can't speak to the murder statistics
The murder statistics are nonsense. Saying "Mexicans murder people in America, therefore we should have a wall", is as silly as saying "Californians murder people in Nevada, therefore we should have a wall".
Illegal immigration does not increase violent crime [npr.org]
Mexican immigrants are LESS likely to commit violent crimes than native born Americans [washingtonpost.com]
Re:The human cost (Score:4, Funny)
As a Texan, I am highly motivated to keeping the masses of people from California, New York, Illinois, oh and especially Oregon and Washington and to a much lesser extent the liberals in Colorado from migrating here after their own states have started failing.
But, alas, like Britain and the Poles, we don't have the authority to do that.
I'm all for a Texit. 250%. Or a Calexit. Either would enable this goal to be possible.
Re:The human cost (Score:5, Insightful)
The murder statistics are nonsense. Saying "Mexicans murder people in America, therefore we should have a wall", is as silly as saying "Californians murder people in Nevada, therefore we should have a wall".
No, it's not silly. Because Californians living legally in the US are different than people who we should be preventing from being here when they cheat to do so. If we can reduce some of the tens of thousands of crimes committed in the US by those who are illegally present, that's tens of thousands of crimes fewer we have to deal with. People who end up alive, instead of dead.
Let me guess. You're going to say that there are simply a fixed number of crimes, and if the illegals who commit thousands and thousands of violent felonies every year weren't in the country, then law-abiding citizens would step up and commit those crimes instead? Do you realize how absurd your position on this actually is? How about we just use that old liberal/progressive staple: "If we can save just one life by [banning/regulating/taking-away-liberty-in-some-way], then it's worth doing." So, if we can prevent thousands of violent felonies from being committed by people, many of whom have been repeatedly deported and who simply walk back across the border because there's nothing stopping them or even slowing them down, doesn't that more than qualify for a Progressive "Think Of The Children" blessing for whatever method contributes to that end? No? I see.
Re: (Score:3)
the wall forces most shipments to pass into inspection.
A wall is no barrier to a drug trafficker armed with a drone or a tshirt cannon.
Re:The human cost (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thats why walls work"
There's one thing I don't understand, though... I have clear memories of Trump stating it was going Mexico the one to pay for the wall so, what's the problem with the wall not having a line in USA's budget? Wasn't exactly that what Trump expected -and promised?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention, almost ALL illegal immigrants are coming via airports comparatively. And SEVEN TIMES as many terrorism suspects are caught at the NORTHERN border than the Southern.
Republicans are ideological morons by choice. Kick them to the curb, let them be in whatever swamp they want to run, but they suck at governance. The shutdown over BS proves it undeniably.
Re: Mueller laughs last. (Score:3, Informative)
Visa overstays are between 25 and 40 percent of illegal aliens in the US. Most come across the border illegally, hence the wall.
Re: (Score:3)
Your estimate appears to be low. According this fact check [slashdot.org], around 40-45% of illegal immigrants were overstays during the 90s. There is no real current reporting on the source of illegal immigration right now, the department that previous published that report no longer exists. However, that was near the peak of illegal border crossings, they peaked in 2000, and since then border crossings have dropped by around 70% (they are now the lowest they have been since 1971), and it seems the best estimate is th
Re: (Score:3)
No one believes that. You know, because of all the evidence against it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How will a wall help with any of that? Most illegal immigration is the cumulative result of people overstaying visas. In other words entering through a port of entry and then just not leaving. Furthermore the rate of illegal immigration into the US has steadily declined over the years in total, and in particular from Mexico. Immigration from other non-North American countries has increased, but the overall rate seems to be declining.
This current so-called crisis in Tijuana has nothing to do with border w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If we would simply sit on the sidelines for the next " War on X ", we could easily build that wall 10x over.
Folks talk about how it would be a waste of money to build it, yet where is all that outrage when the US is spending TRILLIONS of dollars in the never ending conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. etc. ?
Re: (Score:2)
yet where is all that outrage when the US is spending TRILLIONS of dollars in the never ending conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. etc. ?
There was plenty of outrage. Probably more than on any other issue since Vietnam. But most of those trillions are already spent, or are being spent on things like disability pay and long term care of wounded that are unavoidable. The on-going cost of out small remaining footprint is not much.
Besides, opposition to "The Wall" is not about it being expensive, but about it being stupid. I would oppose it even if Mexico really was paying for it. We should have cooperation and positive engagement with our n
Re: (Score:3)
There's an old saying: good fences make good neighbors, and good neighbors build good fences.
You are misinterpreting the "old saying". It is from Mending Wall [wikipedia.org], a poem by Robert Frost. His neighbor says "Good fences make good neighbors." But the point of the poem is that the fence actually serves no real purpose at all, and is a barrier between two people who would likely be better friends without the fence.
But don't worry, you are in good company. Sarah Palin also completely missed the point [theatlantic.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, then we need to expand and enhance ICE and get unconstitutional "sanctuary State/city" laws tossed... More ICE for everyone!
Or we could just legalize drugs. If a law isn't working, sometimes the solution is to repeal it rather than to pile on more laws, police, and walls. Just a thought.
Re:The human cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Arizona had 240 illegal immigrant inmates incarcerated in federal prison for homicide related charges. California had 2430, Florida had 480, New York had 1350, and Texas had 900
That's some interesting math considering that it's more than the total number of inmates in federal prison for homicide charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, he didn't. You can be a Federal prisoner but held in State prison. Illegal Immigration is a Federal offense, Homicide is a State offense [goudiekohn.com]. You would be a Federal and State prisoner, and probably held in State prison. But still counted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
But I get it, better to nit-pick a tiny point, ignoring the fact there are literally thousands of convicted, illegal alien murders in our system. Nope, no problems with illegal aliens - ignore the thousands who we've convicted for murde
Re:The human cost (Score:5, Informative)
There is also the human cost to consider.
Rep. Brooks outlines the cost [breitbart.com] of not having a wall:
“With the southern border, we have the loss of at least 15,000 Americans a year. You have 2,000 that are homicides by illegal aliens, according to federal government data. You’ve got another 15,000, 16,000 that die each year from heroin overdoses, 90 percent of which comes across our porous southern border. That’s not counting the 55,000 additional deaths that are caused by overdoses, a significant amount of which comes across the southern border,” Brooks stated."
I've looked into this, and the numbers are accurate.
And completely irrelevant to a wall. Do you really think people are carrying bags of heroin on their backs through the desert? The heroin comes through ports of entry, hidden in trucks or ships.
Rep Mo Brooks is lying to you.
The GAO estimates for 2009 [nationalreview.com] show that Arizona had 240 illegal immigrant inmates incarcerated in federal prison for homicide related charges. California had 2430, Florida had 480, New York had 1350, and Texas had 900.
"Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens."
For comparison, automobile deaths in the US is around 35,000 annually.
Total non-medical deaths in the US is about 161,000 annually. Deaths due to illegals is more than 2% of that
Wow that article is hilarious.
"DACA is bad because a much larger group of which DACA is a very unique subset committed bad crimes!! And I'm skeptical of studies that completely contradict my thesis but won't actually say why!!!!"
depending on where you put the blame for overdosing.
All of this is fact, and should be the basis for any political arguments about the wall.
The human cost of not having a wall is very high.
Even assuming illegal immigration was as terrible as you say did you notice last year when Democrats and Trump agreed to a deal for $25 billion in wall funding, but then immigration hardliners came in and blew it up?
There's a reason they did that, a wall is a giant waste of cash and not that useful for stopping illegal immigration.
But if President Crybaby really wants a wall he can do the thing Presidents are supposed to do when they want a policy and needs the other party's support. Negotiate and find something of value they'll take in exchange.
The US system does not give Trump the right to build a wall without congressional support.
Re: (Score:3)
Which border did the ones in New York cross illegally?
The main problem with the statistics, however, is that the US does not incarcerate murderers for only one year. To find the yearly homicide rate, divide 5400 by the average length of a sentence in years. Then it's not 2%, but something much closer to statistical noise.
If you want to talk about reducing deaths from overdoses then by all means let's talk about building a high quality public health system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it can (Score:2)
Cokain warrior you really are overhigh if you think a wall stops people arriving at airports,
Well it could if you built it across the middle of the runway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess we should just strike through that "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" crap, eh?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Entering the USA now as an illegal migrant now via some random location is not legal.
People with an approved reason to enter theUSA, move tot the USA will still be accepted.
People can still enter the USA at a legal crossing location as normal people do.
Present their documents issued and they are legally in the USA.
The wall keeps out criminals, drugs, illegal migrants by making them have to risk a legal crossing location
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite the statute you are referring to here?
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no, it won't. The vast majority of drugs are smuggled through the legal checkpoints and a wall won't stop them at all.
No, they aren't. Because most of them claim asylum from persecution or imminent danger in their home country and those claims by law have to be investigated before they are repatriat
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Criminals can do all the crime they want until detected.
A wall makes the illegal migrants and criminals have to pass under a camera, get scanned, pass K9 units and have a legal reason to enter and stay in the USA.
Their documents have to be accepted. Their reason to be in the USA has to be accepted.
Count every person into the USA. Count every person out of the USA. No more illegal immigr
Re: (Score:3)
Informants talk.
The problem with a tunnel is the entry part and exit part. Too much new activity gets noticed a short distance from each side of the nation.
Governments get really good at watching for new patterns and understand changes to transport weight AC.
All faces are on CCTV.
The wall makes it just that much more difficult no not have the ability to drive/move into the USA without detection and searches
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Socialism" is what makes life in the "Capitalist world" good. Public roads, public education, subsidized medicine research, safety regulations, military, police, equality... All "socialist" ideas, borrowed and implemented in every place you'd want to live.
Re: (Score:2)
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