building the wall is a stupid idea when we consider that it's solving a problem that's already in the process of resolution. mexicans are returning to mexico and immigration is down because mexico is a much wealthier country now than it was twenty years ago
you're spending billions on this wall - how much is it going to generate/replace in terms of wealth? how much will it cost to maintain and will the benefits be worth it? i mean the wall is certainly feasible and it can be built without too much difficulty - the question is why
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49810415]he's a gimmick account lol[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know why people bother replying to him. It's super obvious.
[editline]25th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49808064]
Trump wants to triple the number of ICE officers as well, so I suspect he too understands a wall alone won't be very effective.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck are we going to pay them when his tax plan eviscerates the federal governments ability to spend?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49812264]Why do you guys actually think a wall will work? Like, at all?
The human trafficking groups and the Mexican cartels are very well equipped groups for what they do. Punching holes in walls is quite easy when you have access to a shitload of weapons. Climbing over walls is also somewhat easy to perform. Going under is also an option if they can get the hardware/ literal slave labour needed to dig a tunnel.
And if building this wall is meant to lower the need for border patrols, then what good is the wall? You've now got a wall that can be bypassed by anybody who isn't actually brain damaged, but nobody to keep an eye on it in a large number of places.
Good work, you just spent +$10bn on a pretty long slab of concrete that doesn't really work.[/QUOTE]
Right so instead of literally walking/driving across the border which takes zero time, now these people need to bring along climbing equipment or tools for creating a hole in the wall. Both of these activities require more preparation, more effort, and increase the time it takes to cross the border given border patrols a larger window to detect and prevent these movements.
Further, unless they get a sizeable hole, they won't be able to get vehicles across meaning they have to walk on the other side. Plus, for human traffickers lugging untrained people over the wall if that's the approach taken will take even more time.
Not to mention we could maybe mount some cameras with some basic motion detection software to make it far easier to detect attempts; of course you don't need a wall for that, poles would do, but what the wall does do is create a larger window for security personnel to respond to the location and apprehend the individuals.
Finally, are you saying it isn't money well spent to hinder the Cartels and Human traffickers? That it's far better to continue to have an extremely permeable border in places that offers no effective barrier at all? It's ridiculous. We spend massive amounts of money securing our foreign interest and assisting other countries but we won't spend the necessary amount of money to security our own border, let alone to help our own people.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49811778]Surely then you must be directly involved in the construction and logistics? Otherwise, with claims such as you make, I might think you someone that knows little and has nothing of value to say on it.
Clearly the wall will cost money to build and obviously it will cost money to maintain and keep secured. Citing numbers that currently do not even exist (and will not until its creation is penned and real estimates from the parties involved are made) and claiming them as anything approaching factual to justify your argument is counter productive and fosters an unintelligent approach.
Neither you or I are qualified experts on whether or not the wall will be more or less effective than current methods, so I won't bother commenting on it.[/QUOTE]
How about Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute? Is he a decent source? He says $15 billion is a low ball.
[url]http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html[/url]
Great article explaining why Trump's wall and by extension people who support it are fucking stupid though.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813815]Right so instead of literally walking/driving across the border which takes zero time, now these people need to bring along climbing equipment or tools for creating a hole in the wall. Both of these activities require more preparation, more effort, and increase the time it takes to cross the border given border patrols a larger window to detect and prevent these movements.
Further, unless they get a sizeable hole, they won't be able to get vehicles across meaning they have to walk on the other side. Plus, for human traffickers lugging untrained people over the wall if that's the approach taken will take even more time.
Not to mention we could maybe mount some cameras with some basic motion detection software to make it far easier to detect attempts; of course you don't need a wall for that, poles would do, but what the wall does do is create a larger window for security personnel to respond to the location and apprehend the individuals.
Finally, are you saying it isn't money well spent to hinder the Cartels and Human traffickers? That it's far better to continue to have an extremely permeable border in places that offers no effective barrier at all? It's ridiculous. We spend massive amounts of money securing our foreign interest and assisting other countries but we won't spend the necessary amount of money to security our own border, let alone to help our own people.[/QUOTE]
Well said, I have no idea why people think/assume the wall is the be-all-end-all solution. It's one step in a mutli-step process to help secure our borders, and a big one at that. Physical security is an important step into helping boarder patrol help maintain and enforce security for the united states.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813847]Well said, I have no idea why people think/assume the wall is the be-all-end-all solution. It's one step in a mutli-step process to help secure our borders, and a big one at that. Physical security is an important step into helping boarder patrol help maintain and enforce security for the united states.[/QUOTE]
So building a multi billion dollar wall on government funds(That the USA will pay, NOT Mexico) to continue to fund a multi billion dollar annually repeating program to protect that border is the best solution?
Illegal immigration is down. The Cartels need a lot more than border patrols to be dealt with. A wall isn't going to stop Cartels who are essentially para military forces at this point(Look at the Zeta's, mostly ex military members) so what is the wall actually for? How does it increase security? An un-stationed section of the wall is going to be hit, and you're not about to tell me all of the wall will be manned unless you're going to tell me it'll be a massively more expensive venture than you'd original admit
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813815]Right so instead of literally walking/driving across the border which takes zero time, now these people need to bring along climbing equipment or tools for creating a hole in the wall. Both of these activities require more preparation, more effort, and increase the time it takes to cross the border given border patrols a larger window to detect and prevent these movements.
Further, unless they get a sizeable hole, they won't be able to get vehicles across meaning they have to walk on the other side. Plus, for human traffickers lugging untrained people over the wall if that's the approach taken will take even more time.
Not to mention we could maybe mount some cameras with some basic motion detection software to make it far easier to detect attempts; of course you don't need a wall for that, poles would do, but what the wall does do is create a larger window for security personnel to respond to the location and apprehend the individuals.
Finally, are you saying it isn't money well spent to hinder the Cartels and Human traffickers? That it's far better to continue to have an extremely permeable border in places that offers no effective barrier at all? It's ridiculous. We spend massive amounts of money securing our foreign interest and assisting other countries but we won't spend the necessary amount of money to security our own border, let alone to help our own people.[/QUOTE]
It's hardly going to "hinder" them though. The amount of time it takes them to get a person over the wall in some method will be reimbursed with even more money going to them from the emigrants. At most, it will cause each attempt to take a bit more time than normal as they prep some gear. Walls might have worked centuries ago, but today they are nothing more than a minor annoyance.
Your suggestion of sensor equipment would work, but not be infallible. You'd also need to pay for upkeep of devices that are prime targets for being destroyed, along with employing people to monitor them all day, every day without break (they will fuck up, humans are prone to this).
Rather than spending a shit load of money prevent desperate people from escaping the neighbouring shithole, why not work with the neighbouring shithole to undo the damage done over the years through US intervention in the Mexican drug trade? Why not work with the Mexican government to try and stamp out a bit of the cartel influence in a meaningful manner?
That's not only a much longer term solution, but it also doesn't make your entire country look like a fucking joke.
[editline]25th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813847]Well said, I have no idea why people think/assume the wall is the be-all-end-all solution. It's one step in a mutli-step process to help secure our borders, and a big one at that. Physical security is an important step into helping boarder patrol help maintain and enforce security for the united states.[/QUOTE]
You're quite possibly one of the more delusional Trumpites I've seen on here. Holy shit, stop taking everything that fake-tanned tangerine says as gospel. He's a complete loon with no evident ability to actually lead a country without putting his whole leg in his damn mouth at every opportunity.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49813797] How the fuck are we going to pay them when his tax plan eviscerates the federal governments ability to spend?[/QUOTE]
Trump claims his tax changes will be "revenue neutral" (though that's disputed from what I have found). That's not what I'm discussing though; I think the border should be better secured and I think a wall would be a useful part of better securing the border.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49813878]So building a multi billion dollar wall on government funds(That the USA will pay, NOT Mexico) to continue to fund a multi billion dollar annually repeating program to protect that border is the best solution? [/QUOTE]
Tax Mexican import goods.
[quote]Illegal immigration is down. The Cartels need a lot more than border patrols to be dealt with. A wall isn't going to stop Cartels who are essentially para military forces at this point(Look at the Zeta's, mostly ex military members) so what is the wall actually for? How does it increase security? An un-stationed section of the wall is going to be hit, and you're not about to tell me all of the wall will be manned unless you're going to tell me it'll be a massively more expensive venture than you'd original admit[/quote]
Illegal immigration is still very rapid even if it is "down"(come live in arizona), we still need a way to physically slow people who just walk/drive across, some of which carry drugs and illegal untaxed goods. It won't stop all cartels, but it can help stop their transporters, or slow them to where boarder patrol can respond/catch up to them. Physical security is a huge step forward in protecting something, this isn't anything new. Digital surveillance, would drive up the cost but not stupidly so. We already have a large amount of manpower guarding the boarder, re-purposing of patrols to help monitor systems and other things wouldn't be too much since we are already spending a large amount of money on security an ineffective boarder.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813910]Trump claims his tax changes will be "revenue neutral" (though that's disputed from what I have found). That's not what I'm discussing though; I think the border should be better secured and I think a wall would be a useful part of better securing the border.[/QUOTE]
I cannot think of another country in the modern age that actually considers a border wall a good method of preventing illegal immigration. Literally none come to mind.
That's how good an idea it is. So good that nobody actually uses it.
[editline]25th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813925]Tax Mexican import goods.[/QUOTE]
Excellent! Discourage trade with a nation already suffering from a shitty economy. That'll totally pay off a multi-billion dollar project in no time at all.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813815]
Finally, are you saying it isn't money well spent to hinder the Cartels and Human traffickers? That it's far better to continue to have an extremely permeable border in places that offers no effective barrier at all? It's ridiculous. We spend massive amounts of money securing our foreign interest and assisting other countries but we won't spend the necessary amount of money to security our own border, let alone to help our own people.[/QUOTE]
This is the crux of the argument. The people who disagree with you aren't saying don't spend money on the border, they are saying the way you specifically want money spent on the border is massively inefficient and will tax a budget that will already be threadbare if Trumps tax proposals go through.
Read the article I linked. They tried fencing portions of the border at a fraction of the cost and it was [I]still [/I]found to be a waste of taxpayer funds.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813847]Well said, I have no idea why people think/assume the wall is the be-all-end-all solution. It's one step in a mutli-step process to help secure our borders, and a big one at that. Physical security is an important step into helping boarder patrol help maintain and enforce security for the united states.[/QUOTE]
That's the downside of running a campaign on soundbites and no policy. All that he has said is that he is going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. It's pretty telling that you really just don't give a shit about the supposed other parts of this supposed multi-step process.
It's ironic seeing so many people arguing for Trump advocating big government when in most conservative views big government is limited. Trump will destroy the country but not by interfering with national affairs. Instead Trump will destroy the country based on a platform of making America great again and completely gut existing foreign policy.
If he wins, expect big states like CA and the East coast to leave the Union. We're currently witnessing the death of the united states and it's not at the hands of some liberal 'loon.'
Government has been too ineffective for too long, people have been too angry for too long. It's reached a boiling point and nobody can stop it. Radicalization in America is real and it's from the right, not Muslims.
I'm glad people in this thread are standing up against Trump but you can't beat an idiot with logic.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813910]Trump claims his tax changes will be "revenue neutral" (though that's disputed from what I have found). That's not what I'm discussing though; I think the border should be better secured and I think a wall would be a useful part of better securing the border.[/QUOTE]
The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation says that it will cut revenue by $10 trillion over the next 10 years. It's complete horse shit.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49813927]I cannot think of another country in the modern age that actually considers a border wall a good method of preventing illegal immigration. Literally none come to mind.
That's how good an idea it is. So good that nobody actually uses it.[/QUOTE]
here have 14, some in the EU!
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/11/these-14-walls-continue-to-separate-the-world/[/URL]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813955]here have 14, some in the EU!
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/11/these-14-walls-continue-to-separate-the-world/[/URL][/QUOTE]
3 of which used to prevent illegal immigration and the United States is one of those examples.
I mean, I guess found 3, which is more than none so good job.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813925]Tax Mexican import goods.[/QUOTE]
why? there are things that the mexicans make at a higher quality and/or more cheaply than americans can
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49813955]here have 14, some in the EU!
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/11/these-14-walls-continue-to-separate-the-world/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Literally all but 2 of those, excluding our current wall, are in locations with extreme poverty and war on the daily. There is not one instance on that list that I would be proud to use as a supporting argument for a wall in what is supposed to be the greatest country on earth.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49813988]why? there are things that the mexicans make at a higher quality and/or more cheaply than americans can[/QUOTE]
If that's true then a little taxation won't destroy the market for higher quality products made and imported from mexico.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49814006]If that's true then a little taxation won't destroy the market for higher quality products made and imported from mexico.[/QUOTE]
what's to stop any of our main importers from taxing us in that case because we thought NAFTA was unfair? You're looking at a real slippery slope this time. So we tax mexico, next thing you know, they tax us and start importing from cuba. Then all the sudden the EU starts taxing us because they see us go back on NAFTA. then we tax them. Global economy suffers.
Depending on how little you seem to know from economics, i think that you lack the foresight to see the problems taxing mexican goods would cause.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, that wall isn't happening. If he plans on Mexico paying for it, they aren't, and never will. And I sure as shit ain't sacrificing tax dollars to that loon to put up a wall that will do jack [b]shit[/b] regarding illegal immigration, because guess what? Mexico ain't the only country out there. And shit, you think that wall will do anything? Man, I sure wish we could put more money into Customs and Immigration to counteract the problem, and look into how immigration is conducted now, instead of a fucking pointless wall. This dude is going to kill America, his whole "Make America Great Again" platform gives me a sour taste in my mouth because he will be doing the opposite in my books.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;49814006]If that's true then a little taxation won't destroy the market for higher quality products made and imported from mexico.[/QUOTE]
there's such a thing as free trade you know
i.e that countries shouldn't put up arbitrary barriers to the movement of goods, information, and people
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49813944]It's ironic seeing so many people arguing for Trump advocating big government when in most conservative views big government is limited. Trump will destroy the country but not by interfering with national affairs. Instead Trump will destroy the country based on a platform of making America great again and completely gut existing foreign policy.
If he wins, expect big states like CA and the East coast to leave the Union. We're currently witnessing the death of the united states and it's not at the hands of some liberal 'loon.'
Government has been too ineffective for too long, people have been too angry for too long. It's reached a boiling point and nobody can stop it. Radicalization in America is real and it's from the right, not Muslims.
I'm glad people in this thread are standing up against Trump but you can't beat an idiot with logic.[/QUOTE]
LOL The East Coast and CA won't do shit. The last time some states tried to leave the Union we had a civil war which to date is the bloodiest conflict we ever had as a nation. Our military would be completely blown apart and fragmented, the states that secede would have no means of defending themselves and you know a country like Russia would seize the opportunity to occupy a state like CA because hey, who will stop them? The U.S? LOL fuck CA they aren't in the Union anymore.
I agree Trump would be disastrous for us as a leader but saying shit like "The Death of the United States!" sounds like something I'd expect from the radical conservatives who were worried about a black man being elected and Hillary getting into office.
I'd actually vote Libertarian so we can gut the federal government and start over. It cannot be trusted to do its job and when it fucks up it is unable to be held accountable. Look at Bush and mess made in Iraq, the war crimes committed and he walks around free. Then there was the 2008 recession partly caused by the housing bubble crash under his watch.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49813797]I honestly don't know why people bother replying to him. It's super obvious.
[/QUOTE]
Because of the fact that there are other people on this forum (And in this thread) who genuinely buy into Trump's platform and the fact that he's currently the front-runner of the Republican race, which kind of makes pointing out all the retardation in his ideas important, even if it's to a troll who does it just to get a rise out of people.
[QUOTE=Axznma;49811778]Surely then you must be directly involved in the construction and logistics? Otherwise, with claims such as you make, I might think you someone that knows little and has nothing of value to say on it.
Clearly the wall will cost money to build and obviously it will cost money to maintain and keep secured. Citing numbers that currently do not even exist (and will not until its creation is penned and real estimates from the parties involved are made) and claiming them as anything approaching factual to justify you're argument is counter productive and fosters an unintelligent approach.
Neither you or I are qualified experts on whether or not the wall will be more or less effective than current methods, so I won't bother commenting on it.[/QUOTE]
What an incredibly convenient batch of cop out arguments. They somehow manage to both belittle and dismiss your opposition while excusing you from actually having to put forth the effort into an actual argument
You don't have to be directly involved with the planning of a project like Trump's proposed wall to know it's going to cost one helluva bundle. It's nearly two thousand miles of border, most of which is open and inhospitable desert. And the toupee tyrant intends to make a wall across [I]all[/I] of it
The material costs alone are going to run up into the hundreds of millions, something as comparatively small as a concrete parking garage can run up to around six million USD in just basic materiel, and the costs only get bigger once you start to factor in the extra millions required to pay for the labor to turn those materials into a building. Depending on your contractors that can be anywhere from one to three million
On top of the giant money hole that is the wall, there's also the problem of the vast majority of the US/Mexico border being uninhabited. The best infrastructure you get across most of it is the simple dirt roads worn in by the border patrols. That's going to make shipping the massive amount of material to job sites even more difficult and even more expensive. And of course, since much of that border is uninhabited, workers start to become a problem. Finding contractors for this shitty job in the middle of the desert is going to be hard, and you're also going to need somewhere to house them on site. Not just that, you're gonna have to feed them, too. This is all going to present a logistics problem that's massive in both cost and size. And it's going to have to be solved repeatedly as the construction of the wall moves along the border. All 1,954 miles of it in the middle of the desert
And after all [I]that[/I], if it is somehow completed and the country is somehow not bankrupted, there's the thousands of men and women that you'll need to feed, house, and pay while they patrol and maintain the wall
[URL="https://www.quora.com/Can-we-build-TheGreat-Wall-of-India-around-the-India-Pakistan-border-to-prevent-terrorist-activity"]This page[/URL] provides some very nice insight into what all this might cost by examining a preexisting border wall and extrapolating its costs into another proposed border barrier
So that's a lot to do with cost, how about benefits? I don't think you have to be an expert to have something to say on the potential effectiveness of a wall for immigration control, just enough of an amateur historian to have some knowledge of other border barriers around the world
The great wall of China isn't really a very good example, not only did it spend most of its existence as separate structures, its purpose was to keep out large invading armies rather than small amounts of immigrants. A task it generally failed at due to either its massive size and lack of manpower to man it, human corruptibility, or the ability to just go around or over it. It was much more effective as a symbol of an empire's power than as an actual barrier
Hadrian's wall is a similarly poor example, as it was also a primarily military installation. It was also oversized, undermanned, and easily bypassed as a result. And it was also a much better symbol of strength than an actual barrier
Off the top of my head, the only wall I can think of that actually had immigration control as its primary function is the Berlin wall. While it was ostensibly strictly a military defense structure, its actual function is much closer to the proposed wall along the US border. To prevent people from circumventing emigration restrictions by means of a physical barrier. Granted, it was more to keep people from getting [I]out[/I] rather than prevent them from getting [I]in[/I], I think the principle is the same
At a glance, the Berlin wall was fearsomely effective at sealing the border from illegal immigration. From the first barbed wire obstacles to the heaviest point of fortification, the number of immigrants fell sharply over the years, from more than eight thousand in 1961 to only two thousand a year for the rest of the decade. By the seventies, the number had fallen to eight hundred. And from the end of the seventies to the fall of the wall, there had been a mere three hundred a year
Under closer scrutiny, though, despite having a much smaller border to control and actually having the manpower to control it, the effectiveness of the Berlin wall as an immigration barrier was questionable at best. Like the other two examples, people either bypassed it completely or went over it. Most commonly, though, they simply acquired an official permit to cross the border and simply never came back. For contrast, from 1961 to 1988, there were only forty thousand escapes directly over the wall, but there were nearly four hundred [I]thousand[/I] who escaped with legal permits
It's also worth noting that the Berlin wall was only a hundred miles long, heavily fortified with barbed wire and mines, and manned at all hours by men whose standing orders were to shoot anyone trying to cross from the East to the West. These factors contributed considerably more than the simple presence of a wall to curtailing direct escapes
Basically what I'm driving at is a wall is a terrible idea for stopping illegal immigration from just about every angle you can look at it from
Trump keeps on trumping the USA
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49814326]LOL The East Coast and CA won't do shit. The last time some states tried to leave the Union we had a civil war which to date is the bloodiest conflict we ever had as a nation. Our military would be completely blown apart and fragmented, the states that secede would have no means of defending themselves and you know a country like Russia would seize the opportunity to occupy a state like CA because hey, who will stop them? The U.S? LOL fuck CA they aren't in the Union anymore.
I agree Trump would be disastrous for us as a leader but saying shit like "The Death of the United States!" sounds like something I'd expect from the radical conservatives who were worried about a black man being elected and Hillary getting into office.
I'd actually vote Libertarian so we can gut the federal government and start over. It cannot be trusted to do its job and when it fucks up it is unable to be held accountable. Look at Bush and mess made in Iraq, the war crimes committed and he walks around free. Then there was the 2008 recession partly caused by the housing bubble crash under his watch.[/QUOTE]
It's ironic you say that but you fail to reconsider our even reconize that this country is more fragmented than its ever been. There's barely anything holding it together. We see more division now than ever before. How exactly is Russia going to take over CA? Are they going to use their outdated troop carriers? You think the US would even stand for that, having a major part of the West coast belong to Russia? Besides that CA would be better off without the federal government. You have literally no knowledge of military or Geopolitics. California would most likely let the US keep military bases here in exchange for trade rights.
Beyond that we are a country dangerously divided over stupid government and ineffectual leadership. You can say that CA would face a civil war but in all likelihood it would splinter off and nothing more than a border and otherwise would go up.
It's not 1863 anymore. There's huge consequences for the US if they decided military action.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49813815]Right so instead of literally walking/driving across the border which takes zero time, now these people need to bring along climbing equipment or tools for creating a hole in the wall. Both of these activities require more preparation, more effort, and increase the time it takes to cross the border given border patrols a larger window to detect and prevent these movements.
Further, unless they get a sizeable hole, they won't be able to get vehicles across meaning they have to walk on the other side. Plus, for human traffickers lugging untrained people over the wall if that's the approach taken will take even more time.
Not to mention we could maybe mount some cameras with some basic motion detection software to make it far easier to detect attempts; of course you don't need a wall for that, poles would do, but what the wall does do is create a larger window for security personnel to respond to the location and apprehend the individuals.
Finally, are you saying it isn't money well spent to hinder the Cartels and Human traffickers? That it's far better to continue to have an extremely permeable border in places that offers no effective barrier at all? It's ridiculous. We spend massive amounts of money securing our foreign interest and assisting other countries but we won't spend the necessary amount of money to security our own border, let alone to help our own people.[/QUOTE]
I would like to use this post as an opportunity to discuss the effectiveness of walls a little more
Walls are not an inherently difficult obstacle on their own. For most walls, a simple ladder suffices, and maybe a rug if there's something to deter climbers on the top. The obvious answer to that is simply making the wall higher and higher(And much more expensive) until you can no longer build a long enough ladder to go over it. At that point, you can still climb over it, but now you'll need some slightly more specialized equipment and a bit of extra know-how
The next alternative is tunneling, which is a bit trickier to deal with. Sinking foundations deep enough to block tunnels inflates the cost even further and can only slow a tunneling effort rather than stop it entirely
If for some reason going under and over are out of the question, there's always the option to just bypass the wall entirely. Either via the Pacific route to California, or the Gulf of Mexico to the states along the Gulf coast
The biggest problem the wall faces, though(Aside from construction costs), is simply how long it is. I've already mentioned that the US/Mexico border is nearly two thousand miles long, and that is not a small distance. Even with your idea for motion sensitive cameras in place(Which would be another huge money sink in and of itself), that is far too much distance to be effectively secured by an unmanned wall
For your point about vehicles, I'm not sure how the existence of a wall is supposed to stop them. Human traffickers are not exclusively of one nationality and they can and do operate on and from both sides of the border. There's no reason at all why a vehicle cannot be dispatched from within the states to a predetermined location
You could always devote more manpower to the problem to try and overcome some of these difficulties, but of course we keep coming back to the problem of cost. That's thousands more men and women that you now need to pay, and they need equipment to patrol and secure the border. They need somewhere to be housed, and food to eat, water to drink. You need the manpower and infrastructure and money to provide these things. You wind up completely undermining the whole point of the wall to begin with
A wall simply is not a solution
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49815159]It's ironic you say that but you fail to reconsider our even reconize that this country is more fragmented than its ever been. There's barely anything holding it together. We see more division now than ever before. How exactly is Russia going to take over CA? Are they going to use their outdated troop carriers? You think the US would even stand for that, having a major part of the West coast belong to Russia? Besides that CA would be better off without the federal government. You have literally no knowledge of military or Geopolitics. California would most likely let the US keep military bases here in exchange for trade rights.
Beyond that we are a country dangerously divided over stupid government and ineffectual leadership. You can say that CA would face a civil war but in all likelihood it would splinter off and nothing more than a border and otherwise would go up.
It's not 1863 anymore. There's huge consequences for the US if they decided military action.[/QUOTE]
If the US broke apart because of Trump being elected why would they decide to host US bases and military personnel? For trade rights? To have US protection the US would bust their balls for a lot more then that.
The US is hardly fractured like you say it is. What is breaking it apart other then same old bipartisan politics that have been around since the birth of this nation?
When Texans go around signing petitions to secede everyone on this forum say "Nothing will happen! It is illegal to secede!"
Nothing will happen.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;49815348]I would like to use this post as an opportunity to discuss the effectiveness of walls a little more
Walls are not an inherently difficult obstacle on their own. For most walls, a simple ladder suffices, and maybe a rug if there's something to deter climbers on the top. The obvious answer to that is simply making the wall higher and higher(And much more expensive) until you can no longer build a long enough ladder to go over it. At that point, you can still climb over it, but now you'll need some slightly more specialized equipment and a bit of extra know-how
[/quote]
Alright so they need two ladders (one for each side) or some climbing gear, which won't be a big deal to get but it will still slow down any attempt to cross because they have to set up the ladders, climb up hauling whatever stuff they want to get over the border.
[quote]The next alternative is tunneling, which is a bit trickier to deal with. Sinking foundations deep enough to block tunnels inflates the cost even further and can only slow a tunneling effort rather than stop it entirely[/quote]
It isn't impossible to detect tunnels and they are quite costly to produce, but obviously a wall isn't going to stop them.
[quote]
If for some reason going under and over are out of the question, there's always the option to just bypass the wall entirely. Either via the Pacific route to California, or the Gulf of Mexico to the states along the Gulf coast
[/quote]
Now they need a boat which is a lot more costly than walking across the border, plus that's where the Coast Guard and Navy come into play.
[quote]For your point about vehicles, I'm not sure how the existence of a wall is supposed to stop them. Human traffickers are not exclusively of one nationality and they can and do operate on and from both sides of the border. There's no reason at all why a vehicle cannot be dispatched from within the states to a predetermined location[/quote]
Now they need to have twice the resources (another vehicle), at least one person on the other side, communication and coordination between the two groups, and a higher chance to be detected because the vehicle has to both drive to the wall then back away.
[quote]You could always devote more manpower to the problem to try and overcome some of these difficulties, but of course we keep coming back to the problem of cost. That's thousands more men and women that you now need to pay, and they need equipment to patrol and secure the border. They need somewhere to be housed, and food to eat, water to drink. You need the manpower and infrastructure and money to provide these things. You wind up completely undermining the whole point of the wall to begin with
A wall simply is not a solution[/QUOTE]
We can supply an army across the world but we can't supply border patrol in our own country?
We can afford to spend more than the next 7 countries combined on our military but we can't afford to secure our border?
I honestly don't care if it's a wall, or better monitoring/patrols, or some other solution. I just want the border to stop being effectively undefended for the most part.
Emporer Trump
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
