Democrats push technology as alternative to Trump wall in shutdown impasse

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Here are the reasons why the wall is a bad idea:-

 

1. There is already 654 miles of barriers along the southern border covering the most vulnerable areas.

2. No one can actually come up with a true cost of the wall - Estimates range from $12bn to $70bn. 650 miles of fencing built under George W. cost $7bn - and that was just fencing. Nothing like what Trump is proposing. (just so that you can get an idea of numbers as everyone now bandy's around billions; 1 million seconds is nearly 12 days. 1 billion seconds is nearly 32 YEARS).

3. Since it's peak in 2000, illegal southern border crossings have steadily declined from 1.6 million to just under 400k.  

4. Most illegal immigration (approx. 700k per year) comes from people overstaying their visa's. These people flew into the country.

4. Every congress person along the southern border (including Republicans) oppose the wall, arguing it will NOT improve security. Republican Will Hurd (Texas 23rd district) went as far as to say '..it's the most expensive and least effective way to do border security'. 

5. A wall will not stop drugs - apart from the fact that most drugs come in via the sea, tunnels or private flights, what does come in over the border is smuggled in through legal ports of entry. 

 

No sensible person opposes border security or clamping down on illegal immigration. They just oppose the ineffectiveness of this wall it and the complete waste of money it will be. Trump and his people must know this and since he has had 2 years when Republicans controlled both houses and still didn't get it passed, the only conclusion must be this is a political stunt to re-animate his illiberal base who love nothing more than to blame immigrants for all their problems. 

Thanks, those are reasonable arguments.  To counter, I would say that what Trump wants is NOT a contiguous barrier across the entire border. Rather he is asking for a continuation of your first point- further barriers in vulnerable areas to increase security where needed. 

 

Yes, illegal crossings are down since 2000. Ever wonder why? Perhaps the border fences/walls already in place have something to do with that.... which supports the idea that more walls/fencing will make that number decrease even more.  As to visa overstays, that is a separate issue that also needs to be confronted.

 

Yes, many congresscritters oppose the wall. However, the Border Patrol largely thinks it is a good idea.  I know which of those two groups I would trust. 

 

Finally, about drugs, I am in almost complete agreement with you there. 

 

So in conclusion, no I don't think that adding to the existing barriers is a waste of money at all. No need for a sea-to-sea wall, but nobody is proposing that.  But more fencing, along with other measures, can be part of a winning strategy to combat illegal immigration. There are no quick or simple answers.

[Jingthing]

No I included camps and dictators because those are common words used by "the other poster" to describe the President and his activities. They are simply other examples of hysterical overreaction which do not invite discussion but rather confuse the issue and attempt to belittle others who disagree. I mean after all, who could possibly be on the side of a dictator who takes hostages and has concentration camps?

Totally ridiculous. Nobody brought up concentration camps except you. That's a blatant troll move.

Of course "trump" shows no regard for the suffering of people. From the government workers he's taken hostage to get a political win he can brag about at scary rallies to the record numbers of migrant children he has cruelly separated from their families in many cases permanently. There is no morality in supporting such a totally amoral toxic narcissist.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Basil B]

[Guest Jerry787]

the only wall to be built is the one around trump residence and lock him up for life .

[farcanell]

Damn.... I’m upsetting sad face mcambl61 again.... sorry mcambl61... 

[samran]

7 hours ago, dcutman said:

This liberal argument about technology is so flawed in so many ways, its a joke.

This wall seems to be fairly effective and has been for hundreds of years.

As like many liberal dem Trump haters, the man that lives behind this wall, enjoys his security, and would never give it up, even though he calls for building bridges not walls

You know the Vatican is all of 44ha and guarded by celibate (but deadly) Swiss men dressed in colourful livery?

 

Whats your next proposal, ninja's on the top of the border wall?

[spidermike007]

5 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Walls/barriers work. It's pretty simple, otherwise they wouldn't exist in places outside the US context. 

 

They aren't perfect, but that is not being claimed. Nor are they necessary for the entire border area, but that is not being claimed either. They ARE effective in certain situations and certain locations.  Remember the migrant caravans of last November? What would have happened had their not been a wall between Tijuana and the US when they stormed the border in an attempt to enter the US illegally?

 

It has become a political football rather than a national security issue for a number of reasons:

 

1/ Chuck and Nan can't stomach giving in to Trump, no matter the merits of the situation

2/ Chuck and Nan face growing resistance from the younger, farther left leaning members of their own party, and may be put out of power if they compromise

3/ It looks a tad hypocritical for Pelosi to call a wall "immoral" when she has a stone wall herself, surrounding her 20 million dollar winery/estate in the Napa Valley.

 

Illusory perceptions. The democratic party, and the majority of Americans, are firmly behind "Chuck and Nan". There are no merits of a wall. Period. You simply cannot build a wall across the Rio Grande Valley. It is simply not possible. All you can do is build a tall fence across select areas. Pelosi is doing a superb job, of deflecting the hysterical, and fear mongering nonsense coming from Don. She outclasses him on every level, and is a rocket scientist, intellectually, in comparison to this man of very modest intelligence. I do agree the left leaning members of the party do not want a compromise. The hole that Trump has dug for himself is getting deeper by the day. Some are enjoying watching a hate monger suffer. I myself, am enjoying the drama, known as the waning days of the lame duck term.

 

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Illusory perceptions. The democratic party, and the majority of Americans, are firmly behind "Chuck and Nan". There are no merits of a wall. Period. You simply cannot build a wall across the Rio Grande Valley. It is simply not possible. All you can do is build a tall fence across select areas. Pelosi is doing a superb job, of deflecting the hysterical, and fear mongering nonsense coming from Don. She outclasses him on every level, and is a rocket scientist, intellectually, in comparison to this man of very modest intelligence. I do agree the left leaning members of the party do not want a compromise. The hole that Trump has dug for himself is getting deeper by the day. Some are enjoying watching a hate monger suffer. I myself, am enjoying the drama, known as the waning days of the lame duck term.

 

I agree that Pelosi is no dummy, she's a very canny political operator. Far ahead of Chuch Schumer IMHO.  Still, you can't dismiss Trump so casually. Many have done so and wound up on the losing end of things.  I count myriad well qualified and respected GOP Presidential hopefuls among them, not to mention Sen. Clinton. Trump walked into their world, turned it upside down, and won.  He is easy to underestimate, but behind the buffoonery there's definitely intelligence. 

 

As to the wall, nobody is suggesting building it across the Rio Grande Valley. Just in places where it can do good. People are also forgetting that Trump's offer included hiring more immigration judges to clear up the backlog of claims, thousands of extra border agents, extended protection for DACA recipients, and so on.  It's not an unreasonable proposal by any means.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Thanks, those are reasonable arguments.  To counter, I would say that what Trump wants is NOT a contiguous barrier across the entire border. Rather he is asking for a continuation of your first point- further barriers in vulnerable areas to increase security where needed. 

 

Yes, illegal crossings are down since 2000. Ever wonder why? Perhaps the border fences/walls already in place have something to do with that.... which supports the idea that more walls/fencing will make that number decrease even more.  As to visa overstays, that is a separate issue that also needs to be confronted.

 

Yes, many congresscritters oppose the wall. However, the Border Patrol largely thinks it is a good idea.  I know which of those two groups I would trust. 

 

Finally, about drugs, I am in almost complete agreement with you there. 

 

So in conclusion, no I don't think that adding to the existing barriers is a waste of money at all. No need for a sea-to-sea wall, but nobody is proposing that.  But more fencing, along with other measures, can be part of a winning strategy to combat illegal immigration. There are no quick or simple answers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/how-long-would-the-wall-be/ 

 

'In March 2017, Customs and Border Protection told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that 1,827 miles of the border could contain a physical barrier. This would cover the extent of the currently un-walled portion of the U.S.-Mexico border.' So no, he is proposing a wall the full length of the border, excluding the parts you simply cannot build a wall on.

Illegal crossings are down for a myriad of reasons, but they were already dropping before the fencing built by Bush was constructed in 2006. However, economics are a big part of the reason (better economics in the offending countries and worsening economics in the US for example) and although border security certainly played its part, more sophisticated border security is more the reason than just more walls. 

You mention that visa over-stayers is 'a separate issue that also needs to confronted' but if your true goal was to clamp down on illegal immigration and this was your main source of this illegal immigration, why wouldn't you pour time and resources into combating this? But you never hear about this from Trump? Could it be that it isn't as sexy as a big, bad wall and doesn't play as well with his oh so predictable base? 

Asking border patrol is never going to get you a balanced argument as if you also ask them if they would also like a robot sentry dog that can smell illegals and kill them with laser eyes from 2 miles away but cost $10 million each, you can bet they would be 100% behind this as well.

In conclusion he is asking for a wall the full length of the border. This will cost so much money that can be much better suited propping up existing deterrents and investing in better and more effective technologies. Even now the Democrats are willing to give Trump his $5 billion for border security, but are rightly insisting that it isn't used on a wall that everyone sees as an ineffective waste of money and the vanity project it's become.  

 

 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

28 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/how-long-would-the-wall-be/ 

 

'In March 2017, Customs and Border Protection told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that 1,827 miles of the border could contain a physical barrier. This would cover the extent of the currently un-walled portion of the U.S.-Mexico border.' So no, he is proposing a wall the full length of the border, excluding the parts you simply cannot build a wall on.

Illegal crossings are down for a myriad of reasons, but they were already dropping before the fencing built by Bush was constructed in 2006. However, economics are a big part of the reason (better economics in the offending countries and worsening economics in the US for example) and although border security certainly played its part, more sophisticated border security is more the reason than just more walls. 

You mention that visa over-stayers is 'a separate issue that also needs to confronted' but if your true goal was to clamp down on illegal immigration and this was your main source of this illegal immigration, why wouldn't you pour time and resources into combating this? But you never hear about this from Trump? Could it be that it isn't as sexy as a big, bad wall and doesn't play as well with his oh so predictable base? 

Asking border patrol is never going to get you a balanced argument as if you also ask them if they would also like a robot sentry dog that can smell illegals and kill them with laser eyes from 2 miles away but cost $10 million each, you can bet they would be 100% behind this as well.

In conclusion he is asking for a wall the full length of the border. This will cost so much money that can be much better suited propping up existing deterrents and investing in better and more effective technologies. Even now the Democrats are willing to give Trump his $5 billion for border security, but are rightly insisting that it isn't used on a wall that everyone sees as an ineffective waste of money and the vanity project it's become.  

 

 

 

 

Good point, according to Politifact something between 40-50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstayers. Which means, logically, that the other 50% come over the border.  Of course it is possible to deal with both, but why ignore one completely? Agreed that a wall is a 'sexy' solution, but also necessary. As is better visa enforcement, which takes longer but also can have a real difference. $5 billion is a relative rounding error in terms of the federal budget, far less than one percent of the money spent on the military, for example.  

 

Not sure what to make of your comment about the Border Patrol, didn't sound like you have much respect for them.  I don't think they are bloodthirsty or lusting for death as you implied.  

[55Jay]

Can't focus on just one bean in this issue.  You gotta bite the whole burrito. 

 

Both sides are still posturing like kids on the playground.  He kicks the old hag off military aircraft.  She's livid and answers by locking the door to "Her" house in his face. 

 

Neener Neener Neee-Ner! 

 

And all this fake crying on television about "the poor government workers". 

 

Yeah, right!  <deleted>!  ????

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Can't focus on just one bean in this issue.  You gotta bite the whole burrito. 

 

Both sides are still posturing like kids on the playground.  He kicks the old hag off military aircraft.  She's livid and answers by locking the door to "Her" house in his face. 

 

Neener Neener Neee-Ner! 

 

And all this fake crying on television about "the poor government workers". 

 

Yeah, right!  <deleted>!  ????

I guess that's a big majority of Americans engaged in that fake crying. Even Rasmussen has Trump way down since he started his shutdown. Only a creep wouldn't have sympathy for workers who who are used and abused as pawns. And the creepiest of the creeps are those who claimed to support Trump because he was for working people. Many of these workers are forcedto work without paychecks, like TSA workers start at 15 dollars per hour. 

[Ulic]

Many people are simply hypocrites. We like doors and locks on our bathrooms, our bedrooms, our front door, our front gate. We have personal borders all around us for both privacy and security. Those who don't believe in border security still lock the front door, have passwords on phones and computers and also have antivirus protection on those same phones and computers. There is nothing wrong with border security/walls. The wall is so people understand entering the US is not a free for all. The days of come one and all have passed. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, Ulic said:

Many people are simply hypocrites. We like doors and locks on our bathrooms, our bedrooms, our front door, our front gate. We have personal borders all around us for both privacy and security. Those who don't believe in border security still lock the front door, have passwords on phones and computers and also have antivirus protection on those same phones and computers. There is nothing wrong with border security/walls. The wall is so people understand entering the US is not a free for all. The days of come one and all have passed. 

Houses have doors and walls to keep the uninvited from entering. They're not nearly so effecting in keeping people from crossing over. What you neglect to consider is that houses are generally located next to other houses. And often there are people inside. And they are usually located next to other houses. So there are lots of eyes and ears around even if no one is at home. Houses are not comparable to border walls. 

[ecoscape]

Robert Frost

Mending Wall

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,

But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather

He said it for himself. I see him there

Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top

In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies have been removed.   A rather lengthy discussion of firing federal employees has also been removed.   It is off-topic in this thread.  

[Trouble]

17 hours ago, Lungstib said:

The Wall and border security are two completely different issues. The wall, like many before it, will be bypassed and overcome. Modern technology, more camera's, sea patrols, checks at legal borders are the answer, especially to the oft touted drug problem. Its not difficult, but we have two sides who have set their hearts on 'winning' and that's all they care about.

The purpose of a physical barrier in some areas is to force the illegal crossings of people, drugs, or whatever into areas where the modern technology can be used. Kind of hard to use just technology if there are no choke points.  Drones might be able to see things happening from the sky but can't drop a bomb to stop the activity like in a war zone. It takes people to get there and follow up, maybe on time maybe not.  Why do airports today have fences around them?  It makes security easier so people can monitor and guard the gates.  Same along the border.  These are just basic security practices that are used everywhere.  Problem is the Dems who three years ago voiced opinions that seem very similar to the Administrations plans today hate Trump so much they are not willing to look at the problem rationally and give him any kind of win. This is all a fight over politics not practical border security. 

 

This battle also shows everyone how much power Congressional have over their fellow parties.  It's hard for me to believe that not one Dem is willing to give Trump his lousy 5 billion dollars if it helps with an overall border security plan.  This is exactly why the government is broken. Representatives and Senators no longer have the ability to vote as there constituency might want or their own conscience dictates but they can only vote as the leadership wants because that is where the reelection funds come from.  The system is broken and the public knows it. 

[jm91]

19 hours ago, dcutman said:

This liberal argument about technology is so flawed in so many ways, its a joke.

This wall seems to be fairly effective and has been for hundreds of years.

As like many liberal dem Trump haters, the man that lives behind this wall, enjoys his security, and would never give it up, even though he calls for building bridges not walls

The silliness here is that you are stating this as a liberal conservative argument. The argument should be is there a border crisis? The answer is no there is no border crisis. 

[Credo]

2 hours ago, Trouble said:

The purpose of a physical barrier in some areas is to force the illegal crossings of people, drugs, or whatever into areas where the modern technology can be used. Kind of hard to use just technology if there are no choke points.  Drones might be able to see things happening from the sky but can't drop a bomb to stop the activity like in a war zone. It takes people to get there and follow up, maybe on time maybe not.  Why do airports today have fences around them?  It makes security easier so people can monitor and guard the gates.  Same along the border.  These are just basic security practices that are used everywhere.  Problem is the Dems who three years ago voiced opinions that seem very similar to the Administrations plans today hate Trump so much they are not willing to look at the problem rationally and give him any kind of win. This is all a fight over politics not practical border security. 

 

This battle also shows everyone how much power Congressional have over their fellow parties.  It's hard for me to believe that not one Dem is willing to give Trump his lousy 5 billion dollars if it helps with an overall border security plan.  This is exactly why the government is broken. Representatives and Senators no longer have the ability to vote as there constituency might want or their own conscience dictates but they can only vote as the leadership wants because that is where the reelection funds come from.  The system is broken and the public knows it. 

The wall does not accomplish anything.  Comparing it to a fence around a airport is silly.   The fence is to help anything from straying onto the airfield.   You don't want deer, packs of dogs, or kids on bikes there.

 

The wall will destroy the ability of native animals, some endangered, from movement across the border.   This is just one of the environmental concerns.

 

I recently saw a picture of a guy crawling over the wall and on the otherside was a border guard waiting to arrest him.   Many of the people crossing now from Central America are trying to seek asylum, so the border guard could do nothing, until the person actually dropped down on the US side.   Once on the US side, he can't simply be sent back, legally.

 

 

 

[ballpoint]

"Democrats push technology as alternative to Trump wall in shutdown impasse"

They should go one step further:  "Democrats push technology as alternative to Trump".  An upright vacuum cleaner would be a suitable like-for-like replacement.  

[goferman]

[goferman]

On 1/24/2019 at 9:13 AM, spidermike007 said:

So, he has backed himself into a corner, and continues digging the very deep Trump hole.

is this the hole you referenced?

[EVENKEEL]

22 minutes ago, goferman said:

How about some statistics from the real world. Overall it's up 57%. 

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

How about some statistics from the real world. Overall it's up 57%. 

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

 

Neither the word "overall" nor the number "57%" appear anywhere on that page.  I suspect you found two numbers and set them up as a ratio to get 57% - in other words you cherry-picked your data.  Care to elucidate?

 

 

[goferman]

How's a wall stop them anyway? This video was taken on Monday.

 

[Hanaguma]

Nobody is saying that walls are 100% effective in 100% of places. Is it your position that they have no value at all? If so then perhaps we can tear down the barriers that are already in place, and thereby decrease illegal border crossings. 

 

They work well in some places, not in others. I trust the Border Patrol to know their job and also to know where barriers are needed.  Walls are also great places to mount technology such as cameras and sensors which will further enhance security.   It's not a simple problem, and there isn't a simple solution. Given that 50-60% of illegal immigrants come across the southern border, it makes sense to do something to prevent them from entering. Or don't you think they should be prevented from entering?

[goferman]

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Nobody is saying that walls are 100% effective in 100% of places. Is it your position that they have no value at all? If so then perhaps we can tear down the barriers that are already in place, and thereby decrease illegal border crossings. 

This is the very sort of extreme 'yes or no' reasoning that has created such a controversy. It's reminiscent of W's "are you with us or agin us?" threats in gaining support to bomb Iraq. It's hard to say which of these two issues has been more confused with government-produced propaganda but certainly the need for a wall now is not a valid threat to national security, despite what you say.

[goferman]

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

They work well in some places, not in others. I trust the Border Patrol to know their job and also to know where barriers are needed.  Walls are also great places to mount technology such as cameras and sensors which will further enhance security.   It's not a simple problem, and there isn't a simple solution. Given that 50-60% of illegal immigrants come across the southern border, it makes sense to do something to prevent them from entering. Or don't you think they should be prevented from entering?

Again, this is problematic 'yes or no' reasoning. It's ridiculous to build a multi-billion-dollar wall (that the country cannot afford) just to hold a camera. Do you think the camera from the video was on the wall? No. There are more reasonable solutions involving the technological options which is the basis of this thread. Read it again.

[55Jay]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

How about some statistics from the real world. Overall it's up 57%. 

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

This article and Chart 2, highlights Trump Admin's faltering illegal alien arrest stats in comparison to President Obama's Administration. 

 

It breaks down 2 types of arrests to demonstrate that ICE's own activity has remained fairly consistent over the years, while the decreasing rate of transfer of illegals from State/Local agencies/jails to ICE (falling throughout President Obama's tenure), hasn't gotten a big bounce, commensurate with Trump's tough talk on illegal immigration.

 

It's one thing to slam the President for this if "his" ICE were slacking off, which doesn't appear to be the case.  They are still out there slogging away in the US Interior.

 

But it's pretty jacked up to slam him when the ICE effort always relied on cooperation between Fed, State and Local LE/Corrections agencies, and that cooperation is being intentionally withheld by elected politicians for petty, political and personality reasons.  It's like blaming a guy for not putting out the fire because the people who control the water, turned it off. 

 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-isnt-breaking-immigration-arrest-records

[goferman]

59 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

But it's pretty jacked up to slam him when the ICE effort always relied on cooperation between Fed, State and Local LE/Corrections agencies, and that cooperation is being intentionally withheld by elected politicians for petty, political and personality reasons.  It's like blaming a guy for not putting out the fire because the people who control the water, turned it off. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-isnt-breaking-immigration-arrest-records

The problem is a complete void of good leadership at the top. Why should those underlings cooperate and trust Trump when he constantly stoops (yes, stoops, not stops) at nothing to attack and belittle them? Face it ... Trump's a wannabe wall-builder, not a bridge-builder. There's only one way to put out the fire with a flame-thrower like Trump and that day will hopefully be not far away.