-
@Rembrandt like anything really, those determined enough will find a way, plus those who make a business of it, will find a way.
-
@taniwharugby Of course. But a 90% improvement is massive. It's not everything but a significant decrease in drug supply, human trafficking and border rape should be well worth the expense.
-
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
like anything really, those determined enough will find a way, plus those who make a business of it, will find a way
Do you lock your door when you go away? Because apparently it is pointless because if someone is determined they will just break it down.
-
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt like anything really, those determined enough will find a way, plus those who make a business of it, will find a way.
You could say the same about any fence anywhere that protects a premises. The point is to provide a deterrent and to limit intrusion as much as possible. Obviously the best deterrent would be if Mexico (and much of Latin America) wasn't such a violent shit show, but if that can't be improved then a farking great wall is a pretty good option.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback @Rancid-Schnitzel I dont actually get notifications for this thread as it is on ignore...I just browse from time to time to poke my head in for a fish...
I do lock my doors, but if I didnt and my house was robbed, my insurer might try not to pay me...
Not to mention I never it was a bad idea, I am just not convinced (particularly in that part of the world) it is going to be the silver bullet to stem the tide of illegals and drugs...
-
@taniwharugby said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback @Rancid-Schnitzel I dont actually get notifications for this thread as it is on ignore...I just browse from time to time to poke my head in for a fish...
I do lock my doors, but if I didnt and my house was robbed, my insurer might try not to pay me...
Not to mention I never it was a bad idea, I am just not convinced (particularly in that part of the world) it is going to be the silver bullet to stem the tide of illegals and drugs...
We agree. Nobody is saying it is a silver bullet. It is part of the solution.
-
Below is a nice little example of the shit China has been able to get away with.
China are economic nationalists par extreme (while publicly advocating free markets and globalism where it helps them)
They have been allowed to get away with in the US because the Senators and Congress members of both parties (especially Republicans) are paid off by the Chamber of Commerce.
Trump faces the weird situation of his own party being against his interests but not being able to publicly say it because of the dis-unifying effects. The establishment GOP make noises about China for the constituents they claim to represent , but behind the scenes they are in really tight with the anti-tariffs pro-offshoring pro-China Chamber of Commerce. -
Here's a simple rundown of what already exists in the way of 'wall'
'Trump's Wall' is simply a concept to appease a fan base without explanation of what already exists and what is or isn't effective. Other arguments/ideals aside it is a waste of money.
West of El Paso could conceivably have a few areas upgraded and a few others filled in (but these are likely assessed as low risk and low value for money or they would have been done already).
East of El Paso already has a moat instead of a wall and would require relinquishing land by cutting off corners (Make America smaller). Some Americans already have their livelihoods in an effective no-mans land from earlier border reinforcements.
I have no issue at all with maintaining borders and sovereignty or the right to police them. I do think it is stupid though to waste money you don't have on something that will reduce the effective size of your own land on a misrepresented premise.
Causing financial suffering to govt employees to try and force a result counter to the normal democratic process is a shit move as well.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Here's a simple rundown of what already exists in the way of 'wall'
It's an important point. The public argument at the moment has been simplified to "Wall" or "No Wall". It isn't even close to being accurate.
The wall Trump campaigned will not get built because that is not what he is asking for. His designs have got shorter and more like current fencing. Also the distance covered has shrunk.
Of course it would be suicide for Trump to go into 2020 without a wall. However it's difficult for him to shrink his barriers anymore and call it a wall. On the other side the Dems don't want him to say "I built the wall".
Also, how retarded have certain Dems arguments have been? If a wall is immoral then so are existing fences. Why don't they put forward legislation remove existing barriers? Surely they are immoral too? Oh they are just talking shit?
If the Dems were smart they would put up a border security bill with at least the same amount of funding. It should limit barriers to existing fence designs (Trump already claimed they work, see twitter fight with Acosta two days ago). The bill could be called the "Extend and Repair Existing Fences Act"
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Glenn Greenwald and the FBI's actions against Trump.
The usual flailing from Greenwald, Henry Wallace is a pretty weak person to base an article around considering even if he wasn't a Russian spy his judgement was pretty bloody questionable . He was gullible enough to be taken in by the Potemkin villages he visited and overlook Stalins pre war purges and famines in his assessment of the Soviets.
Oliver Stone who is a coke addled creep and surely on the list to be #metooed did a similarly one eyed doco about Wallace on his batshit crazy/dishonest unauthorised history of the US. -
You have to laugh.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Cede some funding to stengthen the weak parts of the border, as well as some investment in tech to better detect breaches & drug smuggling.
I agree. But that is basically the policy over the last ~15years. It would be hard for Trump to declare a political victory on his biggest campaign promise (or was that 'lock her up'?)
A complete wall is symbolic. The argument against it is the lack of effectiveness. Some areas have natural barriers and no crossings.. drones make more sense here. Then there is the problem that most illegal immigrants arrive at airports and overstay..
I find it fascinating that Trump is meant to be so hard on illegal immigration but won't implement the Republican's 2012 plan. If you want to limit illegal immigration, make it hard to hire illegal immigrants.
A mandatory and improved e-verify system would make it simple for an employer to check the status of a new hire. If they still hire an illegal immigrant the employer would be prosecuted
(Of course there would still be issues with how tough to be on current long term illegals etc)No jobs, therefore no carrot to cross the border. Self deportation was the term used at the time
In 2012 Trump said this policy was "maniacal" and "mean spirited". Judging by policy decisions he hasn't changed his stance on this
I'm not sure how seriously to take his illegal immigration stance without a policy shift that targets employers.
No jobs = higher crime rate.
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
-
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
No jobs = higher crime rate.
Yes, the 2012 plan had an amnesty for the current tax paying employees who had behaved themselves. How generous that would be was the question.. too strict would equal crime.
From memory it was on the generous side.The more important part of the plan was the disincentive for new illegal immigrants
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
He claims anyone crossing illegally is on his radar. 'They need to be vetted' etc etc.
However, by not removing the carrot of relatively easy employment for illegals, more illegals will arrive.
Other countries manage it betterEven if a barrier was 100% effective there is still the problem of airports. Around half of the illegal immigrants in the US arrived at an airport, sea port or crossed a land border legally and overstayed.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
No jobs = higher crime rate.
Yes, the 2012 plan had an amnesty for the current tax paying employees who had behaved themselves. How generous that would be was the question.. too strict would equal crime.
From memory it was on the generous side.The more important part of the plan was the disincentive for new illegal immigrants
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
He claims anyone crossing illegally is on his radar. 'They need to be vetted' etc etc.
However, by not removing the carrot of relatively easy employment for illegals, more illegals will arrive.
Other countries manage it betterEven if a barrier was 100% effective there is still the problem of airports. Around half of the illegal immigrants in the US arrived at an airport, sea port or crossed a land border legally and overstayed.
Overstaying is part and parcel of having an economy that has accessible borders. You have to strike a balance between welcoming the 99% and deterring the 1%.
'Vetting' is another point like the wall that is spoken about as if it isn't being done already. The US is already one of the more painful western countries to enter or travel through and has very invasive laws around what border control can do such as demanding passwords for all electronic equipment, email and social media accounts. You already need to turn up with all of your paperwork perfect and a lack of flags raised. If you are getting through the border control now with the checks in place and an intention to break the rules then you are probably set up well enough to do so after any reasonable tightening.
Homeland Security also admit that their figures on 'overstayers' are guesswork as there is no biometric system in place to record when someone leaves the country. They estimate overstaying at around 1% of entries. Perhaps investment in the basic recording of when visitors enter and leave is more pertinent than beefing up the checklist on whether to let them enter in the first place? It would mean that people would know that their name was flagged the moment they overstayed and the chances of being caught are reduced. At present the system encourages those that overstay to keep their heads down and stay longer to see if they can go unnoticed.
To @Duluth s point, integrating IRS systems and stronger policing/penalties for employers is what most countries do. In the UK employers are obliged to cover their arses with copies of passports and visas or face the potential of hefty fines.Of the estimated 1% that overstay it is pretty easy to imagine that a fair sized chunk are 'only' committing the crime of overstaying and other than that aren't a risk.
Another aspect is that when entering the US the time frame you are granted is not actually shown on your passport or on any record provided back to you. They basically make it easy for people to screw up and get dates wrong.
Equating overstaying with terrorism or crime is very misleading. That fact that a person has overstayed means that they passed the difficult entry tests in the first place. They can commit a crime just as easy within their allowed period as outside of it.
A few facts and figures here- http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/
US Politics