(03-27-2018 05:54 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:10 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  So build a wall and walk away. Ever heard of a ladder. If there are no border patrol there to see it does illegal immigration cease to exist?

This strawman of yours has already been put to the torch. Not sure why you continue to drag the ashes out, but I'll type it slower so maybe you'll understand this time:


A defensible position like a wall takes fewer personnel to secure than an open border. You take the superfluous personnel from that section of the border and you assign them to a spot where they are needed. US government agencies reassign personnel from areas they aren't needed to areas they are every single day. Part of the prerequisites for taking a job with DHS is that you are subject to be reassigned as needed. The only person in this discussion who thinks we are just going to build a wall and not man it is you.

Let me know if that doesn't sink in. If it doesn't I'll go across the street and get my neighbor's six year old to spell it out in crayon and scan it for you.

Again how many people manned the Berlin Wall?

No idea, but I feel certain that our technology is better than the Cold War era East Germans by a longshot.

Some figures on why the cost of the wall is actually a money saver....

Ice handled 240,000 deportations in 2016 and it cost $10,854 on average for each of those. So if the wall stopped half of the illegals that got deported by ICE each year....120,000 from entering thats a savings of $1,302,480,000 a year or just 10 years to pay for a 13 billion dollar wall.

That's just the saving from ICE and I think you can easily double that in government services...medical, schooling, help programs that the money could be used for Americans.

So we are really talking 5 years to pay for it and we are not even getting into the cost of crime committed by illegals. We are not talking about the drugs sold. We are not talking about the loss of life. There's a list of other things that adds up to millions and millions and 10s of millions each and every year.

Knowing something is costing us 1.3 billion a year just to deport half that are caught after entering the US....

why would anyone be against it? Hell 13 or even 20 billion seems like a great deal

Quote:http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/13/news/eco...index.html

During fiscal 2016, ICE spent $3.2 billion to identify, arrest, detain and remove undocumented immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE handled some 240,000 of the roughly 450,000 total deportations that took place last year. (Customs and Border Patrol was responsible for the rest. It also arrests and deports undocumented immigrants, but mainly as they try to enter the U.S.)

Each deportation conducted by ICE cost taxpayers an average of $10,854 in fiscal 2016, an official from the agency told CNNMoney. This amount includes everything from housing and feeding a detainee to transporting him back to his home country.

(03-27-2018 03:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 02:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  This White Elephant Wall will never be funded and will never be built.

First, Mexico was going to pay for it.

Then, Congress would appropriate the money....

Today, Trump wants to take it from the military budget.

The cost estimates of $21 billion to $33 billion to build this Wall doom it. The money will never materialize.

Terry why is building more walls and fencing such as big deal to your team? Schumer, Obama, and Hillary (along with a lot of Dems) voted for the Secure Fence Act, and hundreds of miles of fencing was built. Why is becoming more secure such as issue today? Is it because of Trump? Anything Anti Trump is good?

Nothing wrong with becoming more secure. The problem is this wall costs too much for a problem that isn't what it's made out to be. Net illegal immigration is not the issue it once was. What needs addressed more is the illegals already here and the employers who keep illegally hiring and paying them.

Not to mention, with the state of the world, I certainly don't want our military wasting time, money and personnel on the thing.

There probably 15 million here illegally. It is a massive issue. They will continue to come. Net illegal immigration? Are you suggesting more leave than come in? Nope.
Even arresting and deporting is a problem with the left. The IRS knows who is using fake and stolen SSNs, and there is nothing done about it. State of world is always a mess. The Army corp of Engineers and similar MOS are mainly in the USA.

I haven't researched it in a year or so, but the net number of illegals coming here had dropped to next to nothing near the end of the Obama presidency. Meaning we were sending back about as many as were coming in. So changing nothing, the real issue would be the excessive number still here...not those coming in. And reports in the first few months of the trump presidency were that even fewer illegals were coming IIRC.

(03-28-2018 08:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 02:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  This White Elephant Wall will never be funded and will never be built.

First, Mexico was going to pay for it.

Then, Congress would appropriate the money....

Today, Trump wants to take it from the military budget.

The cost estimates of $21 billion to $33 billion to build this Wall doom it. The money will never materialize.

Terry why is building more walls and fencing such as big deal to your team? Schumer, Obama, and Hillary (along with a lot of Dems) voted for the Secure Fence Act, and hundreds of miles of fencing was built. Why is becoming more secure such as issue today? Is it because of Trump? Anything Anti Trump is good?

Nothing wrong with becoming more secure. The problem is this wall costs too much for a problem that isn't what it's made out to be. Net illegal immigration is not the issue it once was. What needs addressed more is the illegals already here and the employers who keep illegally hiring and paying them.

Not to mention, with the state of the world, I certainly don't want our military wasting time, money and personnel on the thing.

There probably 15 million here illegally. It is a massive issue. They will continue to come. Net illegal immigration? Are you suggesting more leave than come in? Nope.
Even arresting and deporting is a problem with the left. The IRS knows who is using fake and stolen SSNs, and there is nothing done about it. State of world is always a mess. The Army corp of Engineers and similar MOS are mainly in the USA.

I haven't researched it in a year or so, but the net number of illegals coming here had dropped to next to nothing near the end of the Obama presidency. Meaning we were sending back about as many as were coming in. So changing nothing, the real issue would be the excessive number still here...not those coming in. And reports in the first few months of the trump presidency were that even fewer illegals were coming IIRC.

So you have no issues with 450,000 crossing our border every year? That is the number from 2016 we sent back....

According to the article I linked from CNN...During fiscal 2016, ICE spent $3.2 billion to identify, arrest, detain and remove 450,000 undocumented immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security. As for the numbers dropping in the first few months of the Trump presidency. Its the next person and the one after them and so on that people are worried will allow the flow to go back up.

Let me ask you again.....

you OK with spending 3.2 billion dollars a year to send illegals back once they cross the border. But not 13 billion that will cut down the numbers flowing in by well more than half?

(03-28-2018 09:02 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 03:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Terry why is building more walls and fencing such as big deal to your team? Schumer, Obama, and Hillary (along with a lot of Dems) voted for the Secure Fence Act, and hundreds of miles of fencing was built. Why is becoming more secure such as issue today? Is it because of Trump? Anything Anti Trump is good?

Nothing wrong with becoming more secure. The problem is this wall costs too much for a problem that isn't what it's made out to be. Net illegal immigration is not the issue it once was. What needs addressed more is the illegals already here and the employers who keep illegally hiring and paying them.

Not to mention, with the state of the world, I certainly don't want our military wasting time, money and personnel on the thing.

There probably 15 million here illegally. It is a massive issue. They will continue to come. Net illegal immigration? Are you suggesting more leave than come in? Nope.
Even arresting and deporting is a problem with the left. The IRS knows who is using fake and stolen SSNs, and there is nothing done about it. State of world is always a mess. The Army corp of Engineers and similar MOS are mainly in the USA.

I haven't researched it in a year or so, but the net number of illegals coming here had dropped to next to nothing near the end of the Obama presidency. Meaning we were sending back about as many as were coming in. So changing nothing, the real issue would be the excessive number still here...not those coming in. And reports in the first few months of the trump presidency were that even fewer illegals were coming IIRC.

So you have no issues with 450,000 crossing our border every year? That is the number from 2016 we sent back....

According to the article I linked from CNN...During fiscal 2016, ICE spent $3.2 billion to identify, arrest, detain and remove undocumented immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security. As for the numbers dropping in the first few months of the Trump presidency. Its the next person and the one after them and so on that people are worried will allow the follow to go back up.

Let me ask you again.....

you OK with spending 3.2 billion dollars a year to send illegals back once they cross the border. But not 13 billion that will cut down the numbers flowing in by well more than half?

Not to mention the fact that the line of thought that since illegal immigration is possibly currently down we don't need the protection in the future is like thinking that since you haven't had any fires in your house in the past few years you don't need smoke detectors, or since you haven't been burglarized lately you can remove the locks on your doors.

One of the main reasons for the wall is to guard against future administrations. Sure, they can put "big beautiful gates" in it. But they take a hit doing so.

(03-27-2018 05:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:49 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:51 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 12:47 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  apply resources saved by construction of the wall to those new locations. In this case, illegal entry by sea is the most logical successor to a wide open southern border. Miami (and the rest of southern FL) are already pretty decent about catching immigrants sneaking in and smuggling drugs by sea. Apply their tactics to coastal TX, LA, and CA. It's not rocket science.

Don't forget that securing the border is only step one of a comprehensive immigration plan. Slapping up a wall by itself is not sufficient.

Brilliant! Build a super expensive wall, that in some areas of the border is not even needed due to natural terrain, only to move your resources to other areas. Few resources and the wall is subject to damage or the simple use of ladders. How heavily guarded was the Berlin Wall and people still risked it.
Also have you asked those resources if they would like to up and move?

You: Build a wall even though not needed in some places due to terrain.
Also you: How heavily guarded was the Berlin wall and people still risked it?

Com' on man!!! Do you not think people are going to try to cross more rugged terrain when the easily crossed terrain is walled off? Build the wall on the entire border. Spend the damned money and do the job right.

As for moving the resources, who gives a **** if the people would like to up and move? I'm sure many will to keep govt pensions, plus I'd wager plenty would rather patrol coastal areas than choke on dessert sand all day.

Don't be a don'tbe, be a doobie.

My point was you don’t just get to move resources. If you do, you leave the wall unprotected which not very smart. If you do then the government is going to pay relocation costs or more likely have to employ more people. Thought you guys did not like big government.

It won't take as many people to maintain and patrol a 30 ft high wall as it does a ****** fence.

Use some common sense.

one has to have a little before one can use a little......he/she has 0.00%

once a troll, always a troll....

(03-27-2018 05:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:49 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:51 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 12:47 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  apply resources saved by construction of the wall to those new locations. In this case, illegal entry by sea is the most logical successor to a wide open southern border. Miami (and the rest of southern FL) are already pretty decent about catching immigrants sneaking in and smuggling drugs by sea. Apply their tactics to coastal TX, LA, and CA. It's not rocket science.

Don't forget that securing the border is only step one of a comprehensive immigration plan. Slapping up a wall by itself is not sufficient.

Brilliant! Build a super expensive wall, that in some areas of the border is not even needed due to natural terrain, only to move your resources to other areas. Few resources and the wall is subject to damage or the simple use of ladders. How heavily guarded was the Berlin Wall and people still risked it.
Also have you asked those resources if they would like to up and move?

You: Build a wall even though not needed in some places due to terrain.
Also you: How heavily guarded was the Berlin wall and people still risked it?

Com' on man!!! Do you not think people are going to try to cross more rugged terrain when the easily crossed terrain is walled off? Build the wall on the entire border. Spend the damned money and do the job right.

As for moving the resources, who gives a **** if the people would like to up and move? I'm sure many will to keep govt pensions, plus I'd wager plenty would rather patrol coastal areas than choke on dessert sand all day.

Don't be a don'tbe, be a doobie.

My point was you don’t just get to move resources. If you do, you leave the wall unprotected which not very smart. If you do then the government is going to pay relocation costs or more likely have to employ more people. Thought you guys did not like big government.

It won't take as many people to maintain and patrol a 30 ft high wall as it does a ****** fence.

Use some common sense.



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep.

(03-27-2018 06:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:54 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:10 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  So build a wall and walk away. Ever heard of a ladder. If there are no border patrol there to see it does illegal immigration cease to exist?

This strawman of yours has already been put to the torch. Not sure why you continue to drag the ashes out, but I'll type it slower so maybe you'll understand this time:


A defensible position like a wall takes fewer personnel to secure than an open border. You take the superfluous personnel from that section of the border and you assign them to a spot where they are needed. US government agencies reassign personnel from areas they aren't needed to areas they are every single day. Part of the prerequisites for taking a job with DHS is that you are subject to be reassigned as needed. The only person in this discussion who thinks we are just going to build a wall and not man it is you.

Let me know if that doesn't sink in. If it doesn't I'll go across the street and get my neighbor's six year old to spell it out in crayon and scan it for you.

Again how many people manned the Berlin Wall?

No idea, but I feel certain that our technology is better than the Cold War era East Germans by a longshot.

The real irony of history is that East Germans would now probably be better off if it had not been torn down.

Think about it

(06-20-2018 09:15 AM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 05:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 04:49 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:51 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:11 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Brilliant! Build a super expensive wall, that in some areas of the border is not even needed due to natural terrain, only to move your resources to other areas. Few resources and the wall is subject to damage or the simple use of ladders. How heavily guarded was the Berlin Wall and people still risked it.
Also have you asked those resources if they would like to up and move?

You: Build a wall even though not needed in some places due to terrain.
Also you: How heavily guarded was the Berlin wall and people still risked it?

Com' on man!!! Do you not think people are going to try to cross more rugged terrain when the easily crossed terrain is walled off? Build the wall on the entire border. Spend the damned money and do the job right.

As for moving the resources, who gives a **** if the people would like to up and move? I'm sure many will to keep govt pensions, plus I'd wager plenty would rather patrol coastal areas than choke on dessert sand all day.

Don't be a don'tbe, be a doobie.

My point was you don’t just get to move resources. If you do, you leave the wall unprotected which not very smart. If you do then the government is going to pay relocation costs or more likely have to employ more people. Thought you guys did not like big government.

It won't take as many people to maintain and patrol a 30 ft high wall as it does a ****** fence.

Use some common sense.



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

Yep.

As flat as the Rio area is, it will only take a small garrison team of 5 men with high powered "military style" sniper rifles and a Jeep every 10 miles.

(03-25-2018 04:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  'M' = military?

Did President Trump negotiate a better deal for the military, knowing he would siphon funds off for the wall? Are we experiencing dimensions of chess that shouldn't even be possible?

Quote:Trump suggests the military might build the border wall

Trump, who has said a wall is necessary to keep drugs and illegal immigrants from flowing over the border, suggested in his remarks that he would use the military to erect the barrier as part of a “national defense” strategy.

“I want to address the situation on border security, which I call national defense. I call it stopping drugs from pouring across our border. And I call it illegal immigration. It’s all of those things,” he said at the White House signing ceremony. “But national defense is a very important two words. Because by having a strong border system, including a wall, we are in a position, militarily, that is very advantageous. ”

Trump’s nod to military involvement is significant because among the omnibus bill’s military funding is $654.6 billion to continue the global fight against terrorism.

The president has been working with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Homeland Security to build the wall.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/25/trump-sugg...rder-wall/

I thought that ! was an I. So Trump was going to build a wall between Northern Michigan and Canada?

(03-26-2018 05:32 PM)CatMom Wrote:  If you think this is going to stop the flow of drugs coming in by plane (Middle & Far East), boats, or border crossings, that's ridiculous. It also won't stop the flow of drugs into Florida.
One of the major entry points from South and Central America is Laredo, a border crossing.
Do we wall off the coast of Florida next? How about around the whole 19,995 miles of border.

Typical leftist, praying for failure. What are the lefts ideas?

I think something like this would be perfect.

[Img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Hadrian's_wall_at_Greenhead_Lough.jpg[/img]

(06-20-2018 09:44 AM)shere khan Wrote:  [Img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Hadrian's_wall_at_Greenhead_Lough.jpg[/img]

Broken link, no image.