To All my OPP Friends who oppose Trump's Wall (Page 4): 21st century technology can't be had at the price they are willing to authorize. $1.3 billion to pay for: Border infrastructure;...

JoyV

Airforceone wrote:

Yes a wall works this is the 21st century not the 15th century. So in the 15th century walls worked but we are in the 21st century where we have virtual walls. Democrats want 21st century technology to protect our borders not a 15th century technology.

21st century technology can't be had at the price they are willing to authorize. $1.3 billion to pay for:

Border infrastructure;
• Border security technology and equipment;
• Hiring additional Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) law enforcement officers;
• Increased capacity to administratively detain i*****l a***ns and incarcerate criminal aliens;
• Increased capacity to adjudicate immigration cases at the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR); and
• Increased removals of i*****l a***ns.

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Funding by Year: FYs 2010 -2019
($ billions)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 PB2018 PB2019
CBP $10.1 $9.6 $10.2 $10.3 $10.6 $10.9 $11.2 $12.1 $13.9 $14.2
ICE $5.4 $5.5 $5.5 $5.4 $5.3 $6.0 $5.8 $6.4 $7.6 $8.3
EOIR $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.6
Total $15.8 $15.4 $16.0 $16.0 $16.2 $17.2 $17.4 $18.9 $22.0 $23.1

Note that the needed budget of $23.1 billion does NOT include building any portion of wall or fence. But Congress expects all the above, AND a virtual fence on $1.3 billion????

buffalo Loc: Texas

JoyV wrote:

21st century technology can't be had at the price ... (show quote)

What would be wrong with permanently stationing enough troops (with the accompanying current technologies) along the border and giving them the needed authority to use wh**ever force necessary to STOP the invasion of the US by i******s, terrorists, criminals and gangs, not to mention drugs at the border.

There would be no need for more detention centers, or immigration courts or any other expenses. After all the troops were going to be paid regardless, so that would be no additional cost.

Stationing them there permanently would necessitate the need for housing for their families, auto purchases, groceries, etc. It would mean a boom for all the US towns and cities along the US/Mexico border. A win/win deal.

JoyV

buffalo wrote:

A wall spanning the entire US/Mexico border is eas... (show quote)

But Trump is only asking for $5 billion to pay for the areas with the greatest need. Once that is done, we can evaluate whether more wall is needed and where.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

buffalo wrote:

What would be wrong with permanently stationing en... (show quote)

Not a bad idea but the minute any kind of lethal force being taken would have the lefties screaming to high heaven !

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

buffalo wrote:

Really? And just what the hell do you know about the Texas/Mexico border and the people and wildlife that depend on the Rio Grande for their lives?

I am not saying that the invasion of the US by i******s, criminals, terrorists, gangs, etc is not a serious problem that MUST be addressed, I just don't think a disruptive wall is the best answer.

Listen to the people that actually LIVE on the border and make their living from border land and the river that will be affected by a wall.

There will always be folks that cry against anything and yes I've heard ranchers on the border say they live there at great risk !

There's not going to be a continuous wall period just wall the places that are the worse in illegal crossings

I read this morning that another caravan is forming in Honduras heading this was it's either stop illegal crossings now or they will keep coming !

JoyV

buffalo wrote:

Israel's walls, fences, border, etc are still heavily guarded by Israeli troops.

Of course! But the troops by themselves were ineffective before they built the wall.

What we need is a wall wherever feasible, monitoring and manning of the wall with at least a continuation of the technology already in use, continuation of CBP, continuation of ICE, and regular maintenance.

Idaho

For me the obvious answer is to have solid fence where feasible and open where it is not. Large grazers will change their migration routes to go around the solid sections, eliminating that argument. But i******s will also be funnelled to shorter spaces where they can be more easily intercepted.

Bend National Park can sit entirely outside the wall and the crossing points through the wall can also serve as the Park entrances. No problem there either.

As for ranches being split, they can have a crossing point - same principle as my first point - much smaller strategic point to defend. Even having such a point every mile would not defeat the benefits.

fullspinzoo

4430 wrote:

Airfart thank you for proving again that you are as stupid as can be this wall is not in the 15th century

1) A Wall is effective. -
"The wall Netenyahu is referring to is the Israel-Egypt barrier on the southern border, which began construction in November 2010 and was completed in December 2013. The 152-mile long barrier was built at the urging of Netenyahu to curb an influx of i*****l i*******ts and terrorists from African nations.

Now people who were high up in the Obama admin. are 100% behind the idea of 'border security'. Mark Morgan, head of homeland, came on Cavuto Live and made all strong argument for the wall. The 3 biggest hypocrites: https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-limbaugh/content/2019-01-09-rush-limbaugh-blog-flashback-schumer-obama-and-hillary-advocating-for-a-wall/

bggamers Loc: georgia

Airforceone wrote:

Yes a wall works this is the 21st century not the 15th century. So in the 15th century walls worked but we are in the 21st century where we have virtual walls. Democrats want 21st century technology to protect our borders not a 15th century technology.

well, we will put a pretend wall up then with all the bells and whistles. Though Trump did tell them he would include all that if they approve the wall they refused

JoyV

vernon wrote:

They have almost ended people getting in I read some where people getting in illegally is down 98% Don't ask me where.

If being down 98% means 200,000 people a month (50,000 a month stopped by CBP which they estimate to be about 15% of the numbers actually crossing. I gave a conservative estimate of it being as high as 25% so am using the 200,000 figure.) is only 2% of previous years; we'd have 10 million a month in bygone years. If we start counting i******s when Obama came to office, as if there had been zero before; there would be far more i******s alone than the entire population of the USA. Our current population as of 2018 is 3326,766,748. If the 98% down were accurate, just in the 8 Obama years we'd have 960 million i******s. Wherever that figure came from, it is fantasy!

Numbers haven't gone down, they've gone up. Just since 2017 there has been a 200% increase in i******s detained by CBP. The number of unaccompanied children caught entering illegally jumped by 300%, and the number of families detained while attempting the journey surged by nearly 700%. Obama claimed the numbers were going down after he initiated chages on how and who were to be counted. The numbers suddenly dropped on paper. But if you ask CBP agents, they saw no decrease. Now that the apprehensions are again being allowed for EVERY illegal and the counting methods have been returned to counting EVERY apprehension; the numbers went up.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Great post... I for one feel the need to rethink m... (show quote)

I am not changing my views but this article makes some good points. I have been down on the border many times and indeed there are many places whee a wall would literally be impossible.

However, Trump isn't wanting to actually wall up the entire border, just those areas of high illegal traffic which can act as a funnel for the i******s, funneling them towards points of legal entry. Without a barrier, the border patrol gets over run and they can only apprehend a small percentage of the immigrants. The border patrol have also pointed out that a wall/barrier can act as an anchor for technology as well.

I am sure there will be problems associated with some ranchers but if you listen to the ranchers in Arizona, they are very much in favor of a wall/barrier. WE need to remember that the evidence is over whelming as to how a barrier/wall has improved the lives of the locals in many areas like El Paso. The wall, howeer, is not the total solutions, obviously. Technology and manpower will also be needed in increased amounts.

We also need to remember, these things are wlll known to the designers and there are probably solutions already in the works but they are not being reported. We can hardly trust the media as to what they tell us about is as well. 90% of the media are simply arms of the democratic party and for the dem's, this has nothing to do with i*****l i*********n. It is ALL about Trump and politics. Don't forget that!

son of witless

Airforceone wrote:

Yes a wall works this is the 21st century not the 15th century. So in the 15th century walls worked but we are in the 21st century where we have virtual walls. Democrats want 21st century technology to protect our borders not a 15th century technology.

Total BS. If Democrats could build a virtual wall, then why haven't they done it ? I can show you real walls that work. Show me a virtual wall that is working ?

This is nothing but another lame excuse for doing nothing.

bahmer

fullspinzoo wrote:

Now people who were high up in the Obama admin. are 100% behind the idea of 'border security'. Mark Morgan, head of homeland, came on Cavuto Live and made all strong argument for the wall. The 3 biggest hypocrites: https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-limbaugh/content/2019-01-09-rush-limbaugh-blog-flashback-schumer-obama-and-hillary-advocating-for-a-wall/

Amen and Amen

JoyV

buffalo wrote:

10,000 Conservative Ranchers Just Came Out Against... (show quote)

Texas Wildlife Association is NOT ranchers. And you mistook conservation for conservative. Nor do the political views of the 4 officers necessarily reflect all 10,000 members.

fullspinzoo

JoyV wrote:

21st century technology can't be had at the price ... (show quote)

Keep in mind, $5 Bil is less than 1/10th of 1% of the total budget....a drop in the bucket. And Pelosi/Schumer are only doing this to prevent Trump from having another BIG WIN!!! And, on top of that, they're looking foolish. I haven't heard one person, even from Obama homeland people, like former Homeland Director, Mark Morgan, (Obama homeland Dir.) be anything close to negative on the Border wall. Obviously, all the leaders, directors, those on the front lines are all for more border security (ie a barrier wall). Two things are for sure: those people who are effected by the shutdown need their check, and secondly, the President is not going to budge on what he campaigned on, "a wall". That was the number one primary issue and one of the biggest reasons he got elected. Let spell it out to you guys on the left, "He's not going to wuss out, like an Obama type, period."