The Border Wall or Fence

[Airbrush]

The US govt is shut down over the semantics of what the US needs on its' southern border, a wall or a fence.  Or border security technology and additional personnel?  Trump had said he insisted on a " concrete wall" not a fence, but recently he thinks they are the same.  So my question is about the $5 billion he demands for his "wall" does that mean he wants to begin a project of REPLACING the fencing that is already there with his "steel slats" see-thru "wall".  Does he want to tear down the inferior fencing and replace it with his super steel slats?

What I would suggest is they install total surveillance along the border to find out EXACTLY WHERE the most people are crossing illegally, and increase security in those places first. Then keep watching and determine where they NEXT are crossing illegally and then address those weaknesses, systematically, step by step improvements.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Airbrush

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The US govt is shut down over the semantics of what the US needs on its' southern border, a wall or a fence. 

I disagree with your opening premise. Instead:

Trump: I want a wall.

Dems: We disagree that a physical barrier is the right way to spend our limited tax dollars. Here's what we can do instead...

Trump: Instead of concrete, I'll accept steel.

Dems: We disagree that a physical barrier is the right way to spend our limited tax dollars. Here's what we can do instead...

Trump: I'm clearly willing to compromise, why aren't you?

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

It is abundantly clear that the whole issue is not about border security at all (and also note that 5 billions would only be part of the cost if an actual wall was built). It is about a stupid slogan and the desperate need for a "win". Rationally discussing how to improve border security (and/or the need thereof) is simply not on the table.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

It is about a stupid slogan and the desperate need for a "win".

I'm sympathetic to this view, but would suggest it's not about a need for a "win," but instead about a need for a "fight." aka: a distraction

[CharonY]

Just now, iNow said:

I'm sympathetic to this view, but would suggest it's not about a need for a "win," but instead about a need for a "fight." aka: a distraction

Fair enough.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The US govt is shut down over the semantics of what the US needs on its' southern border, a wall or a fence. 

The US government is shut down over a symbol (the "wall") that to Trump represents the basis of his presidency ("build that big, beautiful wall to make our country great again!"), and that to Democrats represents an "immoral" (see Pelosi) departure from American values.

To paraphrase an analogy I heard on NPR, it is like Trump asking for the Confederate Battle Flag to fly over the Capitol, and by compromise he'd be willing to use a somewhat smaller Confederate battle flag. It is not something either side feels they can budge on.

[Airbrush]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Dems: We disagree that a physical barrier is the right way to spend our limited tax dollars. Here's what we can do instead...

So what can we do instead?  Should anything be done?  Is the southern border secure enough already?

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

…. to Democrats represents an "immoral" (see Pelosi) departure from American values.

What is immoral about border security?  Should we remove the fencing and security that is already there?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Airbrush said:

So what can we do instead? 

Aerial and underground sensors. Cameras. Additional towers and drones. More xray machines for large trucks. Additional lawyers and judges to process asylum claims and green card requests. Invest in foreign aid for countries struggling with gang and rape problems, the places from which these folks are fleeing... I could go on

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

What is immoral about border security?  Should we remove the fencing and security that is already there?

A "wall" and "border security" should not be used interchangeably.

[CharonY]

31 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

So what can we do instead?  Should anything be done?  Is the southern border secure enough already?

What is immoral about border security?  Should we remove the fencing and security that is already there?

More than that, though there is the big question on whether more needs to be done. There good reasons for and against. One interesting aspect was back when the border was more open, there were fewer net unauthorized immigrants coming from the Mexico in the US. The reason was that folks would come over for seasonal work and return when the made some money (though they would often return for the next season). Once the border got more secured, the risk of return was higher and folks started to stay. In that time frame we see steady increase of these immigrants, with a peak around 2007. Apprehension of illegal crossings have been on a general decline from ~1.5 millions in 2000 to about 300k in 2017 (with an minimum around 2011). So at least looking at the illegal crossings there does not seem to be an urgent need for increased security, compared to historic values. There are of course the question regarding criminality, though it appears that the rate among unauthorized folks are in fact lower than the average according to a number of studies. So whatever measure is used, one could call for additional security but there is no data suggesting that right now it is really needed (when compared to historic values). 

But note that the administration is also  conflating unauthorized migrants with asylum seekers, which increasingly now cross the border illegally- because the administration has slowed down or blocked entirely lawful entry for the lawful purpose of applying for asylum. I.e. they are trying to ramble on a problem of their own making, presumably because the actual situation was not bad enough.

 

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

What is immoral about border security?  Should we remove the fencing and security that is already there?

I know that a discussion about this topic doesn't benefit from such a childish retort. Trump's tantrums seem to be contagious. 

[Airbrush]

So the thing that is immoral is a big, beautiful border wall, a "great wall." 

The moral thing is just improve security, surveillance, and patch fences when need be.  To glorify the idea of a big, strong, powerful, massive, beautiful, 30-foot, see-thru, steel slats is going too far.

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I know that a discussion about this topic doesn't benefit from such a childish retort. Trump's tantrums seem to be contagious. 

Sorry about my childish retort, I'm playing the role of devil's advocate right now.  I want to hear your arguments in favor of LESS border security, or just leave the border as is?

Edited January 7, 2019 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

To glorify the idea of a big, strong, powerful, massive, beautiful, 30-foot, see-thru, steel slats is going too far.

I think it definitely goes too far.

Especially the way you put it here, it makes it seem like you hate the folks on the other side. Or is this more abogado del diablo?

Especially because Trump is ignorant of key foreign policies and immigration's effect on societies

Especially because he's being investigated for corruption and/or treason.

Especially because this administration has a history of abusing tax-funded contracts.

Especially because Trump hires private contractors who physically and sexually abuse immigrant detainees.

Especially because border crossings have been dropping steadily for the last 20 years.

Especially because you can't secure our southern border with a wall without dispossessing some Americans of their land with protracted court battles.

Especially because the Trump administration cares fuck-all about the environmental concerns of this wall, and refuses to address them adequately.

And most especially because the easiest, most comprehensive fix is to overhaul our immigration system, which is something Trump isn't interested in, mostly because he's a moronic, ignorant fascist at the head of the most shambolic administration the US has EVER known.

[Airbrush]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

More than that, though there is the big question on whether more needs to be done. There good reasons for and against.  One interesting aspect was back when the border was more open, there were fewer net unauthorized immigrants coming from the Mexico in the US. The reason was that folks would come over for seasonal work and return when they made some money (though they would often return for the next season).  Once the border got more secured, the risk of return was higher and folks started to stay.  In that time frame we see steady increase of these immigrants, with a peak around 2007.  Apprehension of illegal crossings have been on a general decline from ~1.5 millions in 2000 to about 300k in 2017 (with an minimum around 2011).  So at least looking at the illegal crossings there does not seem to be an urgent need for increased security, compared to historic values.  There are of course the question regarding criminality, though it appears that the rate among unauthorized folks are in fact lower than the average according to a number of studies.  So whatever measure is used, one could call for additional security but there is no data suggesting that right now it is really needed (when compared to historic values). 

But note that the administration is also  conflating unauthorized migrants with asylum seekers, which increasingly now cross the border illegally - because the administration has slowed down or blocked entirely lawful entry for the lawful purpose of applying for asylum. I.e. they are trying to ramble on a problem of their own making, presumably because the actual situation was not bad enough.

Excellent explanation!  You get a plus one for that.

Now if the democrats could just memorize what you wrote above and repeat it every time Trump and company cry for the W A L L .  But alas, the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot every chance they get.

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

So the thing that is immoral is a big, beautiful border wall, a "great wall." 

The moral thing is just improve security, surveillance, and patch fences when need be.  To glorify the idea of a big, strong, powerful, massive, beautiful, 30-foot, see-thru, steel slats is going too far.

Is that all there is to it? I didn't know it was so simple.

[Airbrush]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think it definitely goes too far.

Especially the way you put it here, it makes it seem like you hate the folks on the other side. Or is this more abogado del diablo?

Especially because Trump is ignorant of key foreign policies and immigration's effect on societies

Especially because he's being investigated for corruption and/or treason.

Especially because this administration has a history of abusing tax-funded contracts.

Especially because Trump hires private contractors who physically and sexually abuse immigrant detainees.

Especially because border crossings have been dropping steadily for the last 20 years.

Especially because you can't secure our southern border with a wall without dispossessing some Americans of their land with protracted court battles.

Especially because the Trump administration cares fuck-all about the environmental concerns of this wall, and refuses to address them adequately.

And most especially because the easiest, most comprehensive fix is to overhaul our immigration system, which is something Trump isn't interested in, mostly because he's a moronic, ignorant fascist at the head of the most shambolic administration the US has EVER known.

Good one also.  You get a plus one for that!

Now I was thinking about the proposition that criminal gang members are gushing across the inadequate border fencing.  Are the criminal gangs not well-financed?  Would these gangster/drug-dealers (or ISIS and terrorists) need to WALK the length of Mexico to get here?  Would they need to climb over razor wire?  They would probably fly here in a plane first class, or ride in a boat or submarine, or their choice of hundreds of tunnels because they have drug money to spend on transit.  Right?

Edited January 7, 2019 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Now I was thinking about the proposition that criminal gang members are gushing across the inadequate border fencing.  Are the criminal gangs not well-financed?  Would these gangster/drug-dealers (or ISIS and terrorists) need to WALK the length of Mexico to get here?  Would they need to climb over razor wire?  They would probably fly here in a plane first class, or ride in a boat or submarine, or their choice of hundreds of tunnels because they have drug money to spend on transit.  Right?

I am a bit hazy on the data but do recall that at least for fentanyl the largest volume is simply shipped via container (an overwhelming majority, in fact, more than 90% IIRC). I am not sure about drugs originating from South America, but especially considering the volume I would not be surprised if it was significantly different.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Is the southern border secure enough already?

Illegal immigration from Mexico has declined every year since 2007, Mexico's share of total illegal immigration into the U.S. has been declining for years, and illegal immigration from elsewhere hasn't changed Link.

Nailing down what "good enough" looks like is tough to do but the situation has been improving and is the best it has been in of decades. Clearly current measures have been working to move this in the right direction. 

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Should we remove the fencing and security that is already there?

The removal of currently security levels is not currently being proposed by the the House, Senate, or POTUS. 

[MigL]

So Phi, your argument against 'the wall' seems to be
"how can it be good if it was proposed by D Trump ?"

Leaving aside the fact that there is already 400-500 mi of 'wall' across the Southern US border ( mostly fencing on unoccupied federal lands ), the 5.7 $Bill is for an additional 200 mi.

Is it the symbolism that makes the 'wall' a bad thing ?
If so, I gotta ask where was the outrage when the first several hundred miles were built ?
( Keeping in mind that I used to cross the border into the US several times every weekend when I was younger, with just a verbal confirmation that I was Canadian. Didn't need a passport before 9/11 )

Is border security a bad thing ? And if it isn't, and it's the 5.7 $Bill you balk at, what makes you think the Democrat proposals ( more border agents, surveillance drones and cameras, increased manpower and resources for processing LEGAL applicants, etc. ) would be any cheaper than a simple fence ( like you already have ) ?

Or are we now just opposing anything D Trump proposes, on principle ?
And while I often feel the same way, isn't that just leading to more polarization ?
His 'base' will no doubt rally behind him, now that you 'liberal commie pinkos' ( I love that A Bunker expression  ) have stopped him from keeping an election promise.
In a world where 2 $bill buys one stealth bomber, is 5.7 $Bill too much to reopen government, get people back to work, and make a useless concession which could be used to leverage a win against D Trump on an important matter ?

Please elaborate ( and educate me )

[Raider5678]

On 1/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, Phi for All said:

Especially because Trump hires private contractors who physically and sexually abuse immigrant detainees.

 

Technically all Trump's administration did was reaffirm the existing contractors who were hired by Obama's administration in 2015. 

But we can't blame Obama for it. It's not like he overlooks every last detail of the government, and he certainly isn't the one spending hundreds of hours pouring over tedious reports for which contractor to hire for different government functions. The idea that we could blame Obama for contractors hired under his administration is ridiculous.

But if Trumps administration renews those contracts, he gets the blame for it.

 

I can't help but sense a certain level of bias in this statement.

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

So Phi, your argument against 'the wall' seems to be
"how can it be good if it was proposed by D Trump ?"

Leaving aside the fact that there is already 400-500 mi of 'wall' across the Southern US border ( mostly fencing on unoccupied federal lands ), the 5.7 $Bill is for an additional 200 mi.

Is it the symbolism that makes the 'wall' a bad thing ?
If so, I gotta ask where was the outrage when the first several hundred miles were built ?
( Keeping in mind that I used to cross the border into the US several times every weekend when I was younger, with just a verbal confirmation that I was Canadian. Didn't need a passport before 9/11 )

Is border security a bad thing ? And if it isn't, and it's the 5.7 $Bill you balk at, what makes you think the Democrat proposals ( more border agents, surveillance drones and cameras, increased manpower and resources for processing LEGAL applicants, etc. ) would be any cheaper than a simple fence ( like you already have ) ?

Or are we now just opposing anything D Trump proposes, on principle ?
And while I often feel the same way, isn't that just leading to more polarization ?
His 'base' will no doubt rally behind him, now that you 'liberal commie pinkos' ( I love that A Bunker expression  ) have stopped him from keeping an election promise.
In a world where 2 $bill buys one stealth bomber, is 5.7 $Bill too much to reopen government, get people back to work, and make a useless concession which could be used to leverage a win against D Trump on an important matter ?

Please elaborate ( and educate me )

You obviously read only parts of what I write, so why should I bother responding to this bullshit claim? You aren't interested in learning anything from me, it seems.

[CharonY]

45 minutes ago, MigL said:

Please elaborate ( and educate me )

Have you looked at the other points Phi made (including e.g. rates of border crossings)? As well as there is virtually no measure that could show that an addition 5 billion for yet another stretch would have any positive outcomes? Characterizing and reframing it as just an opposing move to Trump is at best ingenious, and I thought (much) better of you. 

Moreover it is not about a wall in principle. When the border got further secured it was expected to curb illegal crossings. As we know now, this was an erroneous assumption (rates in fact increased steadily as I and others mentioned). Thus, if an experiment does not yield the desired outcome, do you suggest to add more money to it, just out of principle?

 

Edit: crossposted

[John Cuthber]

On 1/7/2019 at 5:57 PM, Airbrush said:

 Is the southern border secure enough already?

Some people come through the current barrier.

Is this doing any harm?

If not, the current barrier is good enough.

On a related note, what's going to happen when Trump asks Congress for for enough money to buy all the ladders in Mexico?

In other news...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/test-steel-prototype-border-wall-showed-it-could-be-sawed-n956856
 

It's things like that which make it abundantly clear that this is a vanity project, not a real security feature.

(and, btw, weren't the Mexicans going to pay for it?)

37 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Technically all Trump's administration did was reaffirm the existing contractors who were hired by Obama's administration in 2015. 

Were they contracted to build "The Wall"?
If so, how come Obama didn't point that out during Trump's "I will build a wall" campaign?
Nothing would have destroyed it as a campaign promise better than saying "we are already doing that".

Or is Trump not really just "renewing  the contract" but massively expanding  it- in which case your post is misleading?

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by John Cuthber

[Raider5678]

27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Were they contracted to build "The Wall"?
If so, how come Obama didn't point that out during Trump's "I will build a wall" campaign?
Nothing would have destroyed it as a campaign promise better than saying "we are already doing that".

Or is Trump not really just "renewing  the contract" but massively expanding  it- in which case your post is misleading?

You've misread it. Take a second look.

[rangerx]

When he doesn't get his way, Trump threatens to shut down the entire border merely by his word. By that logic, a wall isn't necessary at all.