(12-20-2018 10:50 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 10:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 10:41 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 09:53 AM)Claw Wrote:  We need the administration to come out and say they have a way to actually accept and use the money.

I'm not sure that exists.

Interesting question. Can you just give the government money?

Yes, but you can't tell them how to allocate it. That is up to Congress.

Yet another reason why this is a bad idea.

That's my first thoughts as well. If I thought they could do it I'd write a check.

Give it directly to Trump. I promise they will do the right thing with it...as in spend it on themselves. LOL. Maybe a down payment on Trump tower Moscow.

Over 8.3

(12-20-2018 06:56 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Over 8.3

10.3

(12-20-2018 03:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 02:48 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 02:45 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 02:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 02:25 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I would wager there would be much less illegal immigration from south of Panama if we had never given control of the canal back to panama.

Are people from South america really driving or walking thousands of miles north through dangerous, poorly developed countries to cross our border? Seems unlikely to me, but genuinely curious if you have read much aboit that actually being a problem.

Right. There are no roads or anything between Colombia and Panama through the Darien Gap (which is some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world).

No South American countries crack the top 10 list of illegal immigrant country of origin.

Yeah I assumed not. It would simply be cheaper to fly than to drive (which like you mention is impossible through thr Darien gap unless you have a super specalialized 4wd vehicle) or even walk (it would take months and staying alive costs money).

Most immigrants coming to the US are from Central America and Mexico. South Americas largest issue is Venezuela. Millions of Venezuelans have left and are now in neighboring countries such as Peru. Im down in Peru now for the holidays and there are Venezuelans everywhere.

Someone tell me if Aruba’s been invaded too, can see the failed state of Venezuela from Hooiberg, it’s a short flight or (now) canoe trip over.

Hope that’s not the case. Would completely screw up my leisure plans...

And yea, ima kicking in.

We have 350 mm people in this joint, about 30mm shouldn’t be here, another xxmm too dumb to not do dumb stuff, another 50mm too dumb to not be broke-ass drains on everyone else.

Soooooo, quick math, that leaves us with about 50mm that can still kick in.

Could likely private fund true border security in relatively short order.

(12-20-2018 10:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 10:41 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 09:53 AM)Claw Wrote:  We need the administration to come out and say they have a way to actually accept and use the money.

I'm not sure that exists.

Interesting question. Can you just give the government money?

Yes, but you can't tell them how to allocate it. That is up to Congress.

Yet another reason why this is a bad idea.

Actually--you can---and you can tell them how it will be allocated. The government doesnt have to take it---but citizens can most certainly set up an account that offers to donate money to the government with the stipulation that it be used for "X" and if it is NOT to be used for "X", then the donation offer is withdrawn.

That said, you can't force the government accept donated money tied to a condition---but if individuals are willing to engage in self taxation to fully fund the wall---most any reasonable voter would say government officials too stupid to take the free wall are too stupid to remain in office.

(12-21-2018 02:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 10:42 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 10:41 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 09:53 AM)Claw Wrote:  We need the administration to come out and say they have a way to actually accept and use the money.

I'm not sure that exists.

Interesting question. Can you just give the government money?

Yes, but you can't tell them how to allocate it. That is up to Congress.

Yet another reason why this is a bad idea.

Actually--you can---and you can tell them how it will be allocated. The government doesnt have to take it---but citizens can most certainly set up an account that offers to donate money to the government with the stipulation that it be used for "X" and if it is NOT to be used for "X", then the donation offer is withdrawn.

That said, you can't force the government accept donated money tied to a condition---but if individuals are willing to engage in self taxation to fully fund the wall---most any reasonable voter would say government officials too stupid to take the free wall are too stupid to remain in office.

Pretty much. You can give and say "Hey put it towards a wall" but if congress says "Nah, We want to use it to fund doughnuts in the staff room" there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

I'm a big fan of whoever came up with the ladders for migrants go fund me. They've gotten like 20,000 bucks on what is a joke. Its amazing what you can get people to give money to online.

$11.6mil and couting...

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

Is Barbie supposed to be some type of insult...or personal attack? Let me know if I should be reporting it...lol

Okay...sure, use $10 billion instead...and now you're .116% of the way there!

(12-21-2018 11:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

Is Barbie supposed to be some type of insult...or personal attack? Let me know if I should be reporting it...lol

Okay...sure, use $10 billion instead...and now you're .116% of the way there!

If the shoe fits... and I said under $10 billion, but funny that you think that this is the only way the wall is getting funded...

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.

$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition

TOTAL = $24.9 Billion

For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?

The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.

But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.

$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition

TOTAL = $24.9 Billion

For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?

The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

whether its $8B or $25B, its still silly to think thats the crowdfund will be the only way to get the wall funded.

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.
But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.
$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition
TOTAL = $24.9 Billion
For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?
The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

Which is why I’m not a great fan of the wall. If Trump is a shrewd negotiator, I’d tell him to trade the wall for a package of:
1) increased border security, quite frankly including a wall in some places but focused more on technology and increased manpower;
2) increased legal immigration based on a merit-based system; I’d be fine with something like Canada’s;
3) guest worker status (“red card”) with no path to citizenship for those here illegally and their immediate families; we can’t send them back, and they should not profit from bad behavior;
4) upgrading E-Verify to something that is timely and reliable (the red card solves a lot of problems in this regard);
5) more stringent standards for amnesty immigration, including you can’t claim amnesty if you cross illegally;
6) if you serve a full hitch in the military and are honorably discharged, you get a fast track to citizenship;
7) end catch and release; catch and return until your case is adjudicated, and if you turn up on this side again before then, your immigration chances are toast.

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?

The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

Tens of thousands showing up in a given month. The wall is valid. End of story.

(12-21-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.
But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.
$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition
TOTAL = $24.9 Billion
For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?
The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

Which is why I’m not a great fan of the wall. If Trump is a shrewd negotiator, I’d tell him to trade the wall for a package of:
1) increased border security, quite frankly including a wall in some places but focused more on technology and increased manpower;
2) increased legal immigration based on a merit-based system; I’d be fine with something like Canada’s;
3) guest worker status (“red card”) with no path to citizenship for those here illegally and their immediate families; we can’t send them back, and they should not profit from bad behavior;
4) upgrading E-Verify to something that is timely and reliable (the red card solves a lot of problems in this regard);
5) more stringent standards for amnesty immigration, including you can’t claim amnesty if you cross illegally;
6) if you serve a full hitch in the military and are honorably discharged, you get a fast track to citizenship;
7) end catch and release; catch and return until your case is adjudicated, and if you turn up on this side again before then, your immigration chances are toast.

I wouldn't object to that approach at all, and it seems like a reasoned, acceptable approach.

For sane people. Problem is, with the trajectory we were hurtling toward until Nov '16, the (supposed) energy was more towards doing much the opposite.

If it could somehow be codified (Pick the correct term) where the next lunatic leftist POTUS couldn't just put an end to it, i.e. turn off the switch for the surveillance cameras and tell enforcement to NOT enforce, then I'd be all for it.

BUT it must be robust. Some reports have the fence jumpers coming in at a rate of 60,000 a month, that's insanity and National suicide.

You know the government gets back about 20% of that labor cost through taxes, right?

(12-21-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.
But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.
$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition
TOTAL = $24.9 Billion
For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?
The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

Which is why I’m not a great fan of the wall. If Trump is a shrewd negotiator, I’d tell him to trade the wall for a package of:
1) increased border security, quite frankly including a wall in some places but focused more on technology and increased manpower;
2) increased legal immigration based on a merit-based system; I’d be fine with something like Canada’s;
3) guest worker status (“red card”) with no path to citizenship for those here illegally and their immediate families; we can’t send them back, and they should not profit from bad behavior;
4) upgrading E-Verify to something that is timely and reliable (the red card solves a lot of problems in this regard);
5) more stringent standards for amnesty immigration, including you can’t claim amnesty if you cross illegally;
6) if you serve a full hitch in the military and are honorably discharged, you get a fast track to citizenship;
7) end catch and release; catch and return until your case is adjudicated, and if you turn up on this side again before then, your immigration chances are toast.

I want the wall everywhere it will be effective---ad thats the actual proposal on the table. I think at this point everyone is aware this is not going to be a continuous physical wall because there are places where its not feasible or it wont work. So, in summary--the current proposal is exactly what your point #1 is. It a funding for physical wall where a physical wall works best. So--no---I wouldnt back down.

The main reason I want that wall is this problem has been around forever. It was supposed to be fixed with the Reagan Amnesty law in 1980's---and it wasnt. It was supposed to be fixed in 2006---and it wasnt. Then we had the Dreamer Program. Now another amnesty program is being discussed. We keep having to address the back end of this illegal immigration issue because we absolutely refuse to address the actual cause.

Its time to actually build a wall and get serious about border security. No reason to back down when the general public supports the issue by a wide margin.

(12-21-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 12:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:52 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 10:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  $11.6mil and couting [sic]...

Paging P.T. Barnum.
But great...if you estimate the cost at a conservative $25 billion, you're .0464% of the way there!

Actually a conservative estimate would be less than $10 billion, a liberal estimate would be $70 billion... nice try barbie.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-b...atistician

The statistician in the article you cite said it would cost $25 billion. The "conservative" estimate of less than $10 billion comes from Trump's mouth. I'd like to see how he arrives at that number.
$12.3 Billion in materials
$12.3 Billion in labor
$300 Million in land acquisition
TOTAL = $24.9 Billion
For the most part, I agree with the author's opinion:

Quote:Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Quote:The real question the American public should be asking isn’t how much is the wall going to cost, but rather what is the best way to secure our borders and reduce illegal activity like human and drug trafficking, while at the same time promoting the American dream and helping those who are fleeing for their lives?
The question shouldn’t be about the dollar cost of the wall. It should be about the validity of the wall.

Which is why I’m not a great fan of the wall. If Trump is a shrewd negotiator, I’d tell him to trade the wall for a package of:
1) increased border security, quite frankly including a wall in some places but focused more on technology and increased manpower;
2) increased legal immigration based on a merit-based system; I’d be fine with something like Canada’s;
3) guest worker status (“red card”) with no path to citizenship for those here illegally and their immediate families; we can’t send them back, and they should not profit from bad behavior;
4) upgrading E-Verify to something that is timely and reliable (the red card solves a lot of problems in this regard);
5) more stringent standards for amnesty immigration, including you can’t claim amnesty if you cross illegally;
6) if you serve a full hitch in the military and are honorably discharged, you get a fast track to citizenship;
7) end catch and release; catch and return until your case is adjudicated, and if you turn up on this side again before then, your immigration chances are toast.

He's not. You seriously have not come to this conclusion yet? Wow!