Illegal Immigration

[GUBU]

The real issue is how everyone looks at this.   Lots of people believe its a race issue that you don't want them here because they are Mexican or not what ever.  Yet the reality is you would not have a party at your house and let just anyone walk in.  You invite those you trust. If you have a open door policy eventually someone will enter the party who doesn't like the music and try to change it. The owner of the house then gets up set that his music was changed and then there is a controversy. Its about providing a safety net for those who are already here.  Simple solution is for the left to give the money for the wall with stipulations on the amount of immigrants who can come in every year. The right would have to agree to a certain amount of immigration.   Then both sides get close to what they want.  Then the people who feel death is going to ride in from the south unchecked are happy. The people who feel that the poor and desolate people of Mexico need to  have a place to come look for the dream are happy.  Yet  the dream seems like a night mare anymore.  I suppose when your country will let Chevrolet work you for 2 dollars a day though  America does seem like a dream.  That was a guess on the two dollars don't take that literal.

And your point is?

Your point doesn't hold because you're comparing apples to parsnips.

[FlyingNarwhal]

The administration isn't changing the qualifications for those seeking asylum.  I'm just gonna lay this here from the wiki page on US asylum:

There's not even really a dip in the amount of asylum seekers we let into the country each year.  It's stayed pretty steady even throughout Trump's administration.

You are right that a wall is not much of an obstacle, but that's not it's only purpose.  The lock on the outside of most peoples houses is not much of an obstacle either.  It can be easily picked, removed, destroyed, or the door can even be kicked in.  It works along the principle that criminals look for easy targets.  That's why burglars look for unlocked houses, it's why scammers target old people, and it's why muggers target tourists.  The wall won't be a complete 100% deterrent, but in all reality how many people do you think would even be fit enough to climb it.  And those that are fit enough, how many would risk it?  It purpose is meant to funnel people towards point of entry or at the very least areas with increased border security where anyone entering the country illegally can be picked up with relative ease.  And ultimately, if you the walls are not easily scalable, and all other entry points are heavily scrutinized, a lot of people may not bother trying to enter the country illegally.  Instead they'll have to enter through legal channels which is what we want.

I went searching for a very good article that I read a few months ago which detailed one of the changes that Jeff Sessions was attempting to make to the definition of 'credible fear'. He wanted to change it so that the fear specifically had to be fear of the government in a prospective immigrants home country. I have not been able to locate that article. I apologize for that, and hope to come up with it in the near future.

The wall really will be a very, very small obstacle.  We are talking about people who are willing to risk their lives following 'coyotes' on life threatening treks through the desert. Quite a few of them die doing this. Compared to that, the wall is just a little hill that they have to get over, under, through, or around. They are going to do it.  Seriously, the cost to benefit analysis of the wall is really horrible. The benefit is close to zero. The cost isn't really known aside from being many billions to build and billions more to maintain. We have bridges that are falling down. I would rather spend the money on bridges. The cost to benefit analysis on most of them is fantastic.

If you can find the article I'd definitely be interested in reading it, but everything I've seen from this administration doesn't show that they are trying to actually hamper the amount of actual asylum seekers into the country.  If you are truly seeking asylum, you can do so at points of entry or embassies.  Most of the people trying to illegally cross are not doing so to actually seek asylum, they are economic immigrants.  And there's nothing wrong with that, but there is a line that they need to get in to enter the country.

As far as the wall being a small obstacle, not necessarily.  I know that there hasn't been a clear design for the wall, but I've heard that Trump wants it to be 30 ft tall.  Which is very large, think about a 3 story building in your city and trying to climb it without equipment.  Crossing a desert is definitely difficult, but a lot of them cross without enough water or food.  Crossing a desert also does not give people an inhuman ability to climb walls.  Not everyone is young and in shape, there are older people, full families with young kids, etc.  They are not all going to be able to scale up a 30 ft wall.  Even if they brought climbing equipment with them (which I would doubt because walking through a desert with heavy climbing equipment is impractical), the prototypes of the walls that were already tested could likely still prevent them from scaling.  I haven't seen any numbers on what it would cost to maintain, but depending on the material used it might not be terribly expensive.  It might even provide a net benefit if you taken into account all the other various costs of hosting illegal immigrants in a country.

[Yonadav]

I went searching for a very good article that I read a few months ago which detailed one of the changes that Jeff Sessions was attempting to make to the definition of 'credible fear'. He wanted to change it so that the fear specifically had to be fear of the government in a prospective immigrants home country. I have not been able to locate that article. I apologize for that, and hope to come up with it in the near future.

The wall really will be a very, very small obstacle.  We are talking about people who are willing to risk their lives following 'coyotes' on life threatening treks through the desert. Quite a few of them die doing this. Compared to that, the wall is just a little hill that they have to get over, under, through, or around. They are going to do it.  Seriously, the cost to benefit analysis of the wall is really horrible. The benefit is close to zero. The cost isn't really known aside from being many billions to build and billions more to maintain. We have bridges that are falling down. I would rather spend the money on bridges. The cost to benefit analysis on most of them is fantastic.

If you can find the article I'd definitely be interested in reading it, but everything I've seen from this administration doesn't show that they are trying to actually hamper the amount of actual asylum seekers into the country.  If you are truly seeking asylum, you can do so at points of entry or embassies.  Most of the people trying to illegally cross are not doing so to actually seek asylum, they are economic immigrants.  And there's nothing wrong with that, but there is a line that they need to get in to enter the country.

As far as the wall being a small obstacle, not necessarily.  I know that there hasn't been a clear design for the wall, but I've heard that Trump wants it to be 30 ft tall.  Which is very large, think about a 3 story building in your city and trying to climb it without equipment.  Crossing a desert is definitely difficult, but a lot of them cross without enough water or food.  Crossing a desert also does not give people an inhuman ability to climb walls.  Not everyone is young and in shape, there are older people, full families with young kids, etc.  They are not all going to be able to scale up a 30 ft wall.  Even if they brought climbing equipment with them (which I would doubt because walking through a desert with heavy climbing equipment is impractical), the prototypes of the [url=Height of Trump's Mexico border wall make it near-impossible to scale ... https://metro.co.uk/.../height-trumps-me...-...]walls that have already been built and tested[/url] could likely still prevent them from scaling.  I haven't seen any numbers on what it would cost to maintain, but depending on the material used it might not be terribly expensive.  It might even provide a net benefit if you taken into account all the other various costs of hosting illegal immigrants in a country.

I became a bit lazy about searching for the article. I'll try to keep trying.

I think that you are stuck in a false belief that the wall will be an effective obstacle, and the reason that I think that is that you keep comparing it to something unrealistic.  If there is a three story building that I want to get into in my city, the obstacles that will stop me don't have much to to with the height of the building. Three stories just isn't very high.  Put the building in a remote area where no one will see me. Have the building me unoccupied with no guards and no motion detectors, no cameras, and no thermal imaging drone surveillance. Then I have very, very little to stop me from breaking into the third story of that building. My chances of success are pretty much one hundred percent.

Now add guards, motion detectors, cameras, and drones. My chances of success drop enormously. Is it the third story climb that stopped me? No, absolutely not. I get detected for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the building. Remove the building entirely, and I can't even enter the area where the building was without being detected. I can't walk across the area where the building would have been without being detected. The building was never an obstacle.

If we would have built a wall 50 years ago, it would not have been very successful without a lot of manpower doing surveillance on it. Rudimentary counter surveillance would have pretty easily located weak spots with insufficient manpower to watch the wall, where people would have a high chance of crossing successfully. The wall is a small obstacle. The surveillance is the big obstacle. So even then, I wall would have been an expensive proposition with little benefit.

Today we can do really good surveillance with far less manpower. We can seal up our border as tightly as we want to. We can make it almost impossible to cross without being detected.  Tunnels are a little bit of a problem but the technology to detect them is coming along nicely, and a wall doesn't stop tunnels anyway. The wall is one hundred percent a political symbol. It is a distraction from reality.

[FlyingNarwhal]

If you can find the article I'd definitely be interested in reading it, but everything I've seen from this administration doesn't show that they are trying to actually hamper the amount of actual asylum seekers into the country.  If you are truly seeking asylum, you can do so at points of entry or embassies.  Most of the people trying to illegally cross are not doing so to actually seek asylum, they are economic immigrants.  And there's nothing wrong with that, but there is a line that they need to get in to enter the country.

As far as the wall being a small obstacle, not necessarily.  I know that there hasn't been a clear design for the wall, but I've heard that Trump wants it to be 30 ft tall.  Which is very large, think about a 3 story building in your city and trying to climb it without equipment.  Crossing a desert is definitely difficult, but a lot of them cross without enough water or food.  Crossing a desert also does not give people an inhuman ability to climb walls.  Not everyone is young and in shape, there are older people, full families with young kids, etc.  They are not all going to be able to scale up a 30 ft wall.  Even if they brought climbing equipment with them (which I would doubt because walking through a desert with heavy climbing equipment is impractical), the prototypes of the [url=Height of Trump's Mexico border wall make it near-impossible to scale ... https://metro.co.uk/.../height-trumps-me...-...]walls that have already been built and tested[/url] could likely still prevent them from scaling.  I haven't seen any numbers on what it would cost to maintain, but depending on the material used it might not be terribly expensive.  It might even provide a net benefit if you taken into account all the other various costs of hosting illegal immigrants in a country.

I became a bit lazy about searching for the article. I'll try to keep trying.

I think that you are stuck in a false belief that the wall will be an effective obstacle, and the reason that I think that is that you keep comparing it to something unrealistic.  If there is a three story building that I want to get into in my city, the obstacles that will stop me don't have much to to with the height of the building. Three stories just isn't very high.  Put the building in a remote area where no one will see me. Have the building me unoccupied with no guards and no motion detectors, no cameras, and no thermal imaging drone surveillance. Then I have very, very little to stop me from breaking into the third story of that building. My chances of success are pretty much one hundred percent.

Now add guards, motion detectors, cameras, and drones. My chances of success drop enormously. Is it the third story climb that stopped me? No, absolutely not. I get detected for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the building. Remove the building entirely, and I can't even enter the area where the building was without being detected. I can't walk across the area where the building would have been without being detected. The building was never an obstacle.

If we would have built a wall 50 years ago, it would not have been very successful without a lot of manpower doing surveillance on it. Rudimentary counter surveillance would have pretty easily located weak spots with insufficient manpower to watch the wall, where people would have a high chance of crossing successfully. The wall is a small obstacle. The surveillance is the big obstacle. So even then, I wall would have been an expensive proposition with little benefit.

Today we can do really good surveillance with far less manpower. We can seal up our border as tightly as we want to. We can make it almost impossible to cross without being detected.  Tunnels are a little bit of a problem but the technology to detect them is coming along nicely, and a wall doesn't stop tunnels anyway. The wall is one hundred percent a political symbol. It is a distraction from reality.

I'm sorry man but I think you're the one with the false belief about a wall being an easy obstacle.  I meant to link this in my previous post but it looks like I screwed it up somehow.  I fixed the link in the previous post too.  They've had prototypes built and they have all been very effective at preventing people from scaling, or even using tools to cut into the wall.  Also, most border partitions already in use are installed 6 feet deep as it is.  Yes, people can still tunnel under them but few and far between are going to do so.  Climbing is not easy and it's risky.  Think of just one of those rock climbing walls with the rubber grips and imagine it 30 ft high.  Would you climb that with no scaling equipment or safety equipment with little to no climbing experience?  Then imagine that it is just smooth concrete instead, nothing to grip onto.  You likely didn't bring a grappling hook and safety harness with you because a) most of these people are coming from poor countries with barely enough money to eat let alone buy recreational climbing equipment and b) climbing equipment is heavy so you decided not to trek through the desert with it.  Speaking of trekking through a desert, you're tired, thirsty, and overheated.  And if you have your family with you, you run the risk of being separated if some people can't make it over the wall.  It not a matter of someone having enough time to make the climb, it will literally be almost impossible to scale a wall of that height.

With the wall keeping most people out, you can then use surveillance more wisely in the areas without a wall and points of entry.  You are correct that surveillance can be done with less manpower, but the problem is surveillance doesn't actively prevent someone from entering the country illegally.  Manpower is required to detain illegal immigrants, we can't just use the video of someone illegally crossing and write them a ticket.  That's why having a wall that is near impossible to scale (which prototypes have shown is very possible), can be used in conjunction with surveillance at segments of the border without a wall to more effectively utilize the manpower we have.  This would make border security a lot tighter.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's throw caution to the wind and imagine that Trump gets a better Wall than he ever imagined, even in his wettest of dreams.  Fifty feet high, twenty feet thick, machine gun emplacements along the top, and fronted by a 100 foot wide moat, chock-a-block with perpetually pissed off crocodiles. A Wall that is unclimbable, uncuttable, and un-dig-underable.  Such a barrier would have zero effect on illegal immigration into the US.  Why? Because you've got tens of thousands of miles of border that AREN'T walled off.

Clearly, people are willing to form caravans and travel 1500 miles or more in order to get into the US.  Some of these poor sods even go to the extent of paying coyotes to sneak them across the border - I've read that $2000 per head is the going rate, more for kids.  For that kind of money, you can obtain a set of false identity papers and boat passage into the US (there's some evidence that drug cartels are already providing this service).  For a little more, you can get the papers and a flight to Canada, then enter the US.

So, unless you plan to wall off your whole damned civilization, this is an idea that goes nowhere.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='1876421' dateline='1547226146']

We are a vast country with a low average population density. With its aging population and reproduction below replacement, the USA absolutely needs more people to sustain its long-term tax base and labor needs. The Hispanic immigrants we allow in now will produce the generation that we need to be in place when all the Baby Boomers are over 70.
[quote="arewethereyet" pid='1876908' dateline='1547393461']
Bolded - I still struggle with quotes and replies here...

What you say sounds as though you think there should be immigration regardless of the intention to work toward citizenship because the US needs breeding stock.

I think our immigration laws are badly in need of reform and that the quota for our close neighbor Mexico should be higher than for Kazakhstan or Cameroon. And whether we let people cross our border is a separate issue from immigration. Most of the people crossing our borders illegally just need work visas. Our refusal to allow them is a big cause of the situation we're in: We demand labor, but we don't allow the people we need legal entry.

Understand, under current immigration law, there is no possible way for the vast majority of people south of our border who would want to can ever become US citizens. And if there's no way they can do it legally, the more desperate among them will do it illegally. Our immigration laws are badly broken and the root cause of most of the problems attributed to the destitute people who have to deal with them.

[Brian37]

Let's throw caution to the wind and imagine that Trump gets a better Wall than he ever imagined, even in his wettest of dreams.  Fifty feet high, twenty feet thick, machine gun emplacements along the top, and fronted by a 100 foot wide moat, chock-a-block with perpetually pissed off crocodiles. A Wall that is unclimbable, uncuttable, and un-dig-underable.  Such a barrier would have zero effect on illegal immigration into the US.  Why? Because you've got tens of thousands of miles of border that AREN'T walled off.

Clearly, people are willing to form caravans and travel 1500 miles or more in order to get into the US.  Some of these poor sods even go to the extent of paying coyotes to sneak them across the border - I've read that $2000 per head is the going rate, more for kids.  For that kind of money, you can obtain a set of false identity papers and boat passage into the US (there's some evidence that drug cartels are already providing this service).  For a little more, you can get the papers and a flight to Canada, then enter the US.

So, unless you plan to wall off your whole damned civilization, this is an idea that goes nowhere.

Boru

Replace "Hispanics" with "Jews" and to his supporters ask if WW2 German Scapegoating and vilification is any different than what the orange turd is doing now.

I know you are not saying that Boru, but there are too many on the right, that think history cannot repeat itself in America. Just adding to what you just posted. In that the "wall" is simply pandering to fear mongering bigots. 

But the parallels are glaring in tactics.

Blame anyone who says boo to you, vilify rivals, attack the media, and offer yourself up as the only cure. Scapegoat everyone else. 

"Make Germany Great Again".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's throw caution to the wind and imagine that Trump gets a better Wall than he ever imagined, even in his wettest of dreams.  Fifty feet high, twenty feet thick, machine gun emplacements along the top, and fronted by a 100 foot wide moat, chock-a-block with perpetually pissed off crocodiles. A Wall that is unclimbable, uncuttable, and un-dig-underable.  Such a barrier would have zero effect on illegal immigration into the US.  Why? Because you've got tens of thousands of miles of border that AREN'T walled off.

Clearly, people are willing to form caravans and travel 1500 miles or more in order to get into the US.  Some of these poor sods even go to the extent of paying coyotes to sneak them across the border - I've read that $2000 per head is the going rate, more for kids.  For that kind of money, you can obtain a set of false identity papers and boat passage into the US (there's some evidence that drug cartels are already providing this service).  For a little more, you can get the papers and a flight to Canada, then enter the US.

So, unless you plan to wall off your whole damned civilization, this is an idea that goes nowhere.

Boru

Replace "Hispanics" with "Jews" and to his supporters ask if WW2 German Scapegoating and vilification is any different than what the orange turd is doing now.

I know you are not saying that Boru, but there are too many on the right, that think history cannot repeat itself in America. Just adding to what you just posted. In that the "wall" is simply pandering to fear mongering bigots. 

But the parallels are glaring in tactics.

Blame anyone who says boo to you, vilify rivals, attack the media, and offer yourself up as the only cure. Scapegoat everyone else. 

"Make Germany Great Again".

Christ on a bike, but I wish people would stop comparing Trump to Hitler.  Trump isn't Hitler.  Trump isn't like Hitler.  You know who's like Hitler? Hitler, that's who.

Boru

[Brian37]

Replace "Hispanics" with "Jews" and to his supporters ask if WW2 German Scapegoating and vilification is any different than what the orange turd is doing now.

I know you are not saying that Boru, but there are too many on the right, that think history cannot repeat itself in America. Just adding to what you just posted. In that the "wall" is simply pandering to fear mongering bigots. 

But the parallels are glaring in tactics.

Blame anyone who says boo to you, vilify rivals, attack the media, and offer yourself up as the only cure. Scapegoat everyone else. 

"Make Germany Great Again".

Christ on a bike, but I wish people would stop comparing Trump to Hitler.  Trump isn't Hitler.  Trump isn't like Hitler.  You know who's like Hitler? Hitler, that's who.

Boru

Why? 

He talks the same. He attacks rivals, he scapegoats multiple minority groups, he attacks the free press. 

I wish more people WOULD equate him to Hitler. 

Now is it harder for him to do the same thing with the system we have set up? That is a better argument. But the fucker is trying everything he can to destroy our institutions and that cannot nor should be ignored. 

The only way he does not do what Hitler does is participation. 

I have no doubt that if our Constitution were not there, he'd make a great dictator. 

He is attacking our FBI constantly, even those Republicans in the FBI. The guy is a despot wannabe. PERIOD.

Just because he has not completely destroyed our checks and balances so far does not mean long term, our institutions cannot be destroyed. 

I make no apologies nor do I have the slightest bit of hesitation in saying he'd become a dictator if he has the chance.

[LadyForCamus]

I became a bit lazy about searching for the article. I'll try to keep trying.

I think that you are stuck in a false belief that the wall will be an effective obstacle, and the reason that I think that is that you keep comparing it to something unrealistic.  If there is a three story building that I want to get into in my city, the obstacles that will stop me don't have much to to with the height of the building. Three stories just isn't very high.  Put the building in a remote area where no one will see me. Have the building me unoccupied with no guards and no motion detectors, no cameras, and no thermal imaging drone surveillance. Then I have very, very little to stop me from breaking into the third story of that building. My chances of success are pretty much one hundred percent.

Now add guards, motion detectors, cameras, and drones. My chances of success drop enormously. Is it the third story climb that stopped me? No, absolutely not. I get detected for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the building. Remove the building entirely, and I can't even enter the area where the building was without being detected. I can't walk across the area where the building would have been without being detected. The building was never an obstacle.

If we would have built a wall 50 years ago, it would not have been very successful without a lot of manpower doing surveillance on it. Rudimentary counter surveillance would have pretty easily located weak spots with insufficient manpower to watch the wall, where people would have a high chance of crossing successfully. The wall is a small obstacle. The surveillance is the big obstacle. So even then, I wall would have been an expensive proposition with little benefit.

Today we can do really good surveillance with far less manpower. We can seal up our border as tightly as we want to. We can make it almost impossible to cross without being detected.  Tunnels are a little bit of a problem but the technology to detect them is coming along nicely, and a wall doesn't stop tunnels anyway. The wall is one hundred percent a political symbol. It is a distraction from reality.

I'm sorry man but I think you're the one with the false belief about a wall being an easy obstacle.  I meant to link this in my previous post but it looks like I screwed it up somehow.  I fixed the link in the previous post too.  They've had prototypes built and they have all been very effective at preventing people from scaling, or even using tools to cut into the wall.  Also, most border partitions already in use are installed 6 feet deep as it is.  Yes, people can still tunnel under them but few and far between are going to do so.  Climbing is not easy and it's risky.  Think of just one of those rock climbing walls with the rubber grips and imagine it 30 ft high.  Would you climb that with no scaling equipment or safety equipment with little to no climbing experience?  Then imagine that it is just smooth concrete instead, nothing to grip onto.  You likely didn't bring a grappling hook and safety harness with you because a) most of these people are coming from poor countries with barely enough money to eat let alone buy recreational climbing equipment and b) climbing equipment is heavy so you decided not to trek through the desert with it.  Speaking of trekking through a desert, you're tired, thirsty, and overheated.  And if you have your family with you, you run the risk of being separated if some people can't make it over the wall.  It not a matter of someone having enough time to make the climb, it will literally be almost impossible to scale a wall of that height.

With the wall keeping most people out, you can then use surveillance more wisely in the areas without a wall and points of entry.  You are correct that surveillance can be done with less manpower, but the problem is surveillance doesn't actively prevent someone from entering the country illegally.  Manpower is required to detain illegal immigrants, we can't just use the video of someone illegally crossing and write them a ticket.  That's why having a wall that is near impossible to scale (which prototypes have shown is very possible), can be used in conjunction with surveillance at segments of the border without a wall to more effectively utilize the manpower we have.  This would make border security a lot tighter.