Wall

[Mortenson]

Yep. And that's the reason they're against the wall. If the wall gets built, it'll help Trump get re-elected. Period.

 

[BuckSutherland]

Dipshit Jim Acosta of CNN demonstrated this morning just how well the wall is working. Thanks scumbag.

 

[H20fwler]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He keeps saying there is no imminent danger or immigrants trying to get through no national security threats that he can see.....well no shit Acosta it proves the wall is working! Thanks!

The comments people are making on this vid about Acosta are hilarious!

 

[BuckSutherland]

I hope trump puts this video on his twitter page with a thank you message to Acosta for proving the wall is working and then personally thanks him at the press conference when he declares a national emergency.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

USA Today article tells of 3rd tunnel discovered in less than a month along Arizona border. That's just the latest, and only Arizona. How deep under the surface should the wall go ??

We have electronics that can tell what size underwear you have on and if you pick your nose. I'd rather see - for better border security - more electronic surveillance, more manpower, tracking dogs, Jeeps, quads, dirt bikes, helicopters, etc. than a wall that is easily tunneled under. Better use of funds, I believe.

I'm NOT for illegal immigration. Just smarter use of technology & manpower.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

When over 80% of illegals cross the border where there isnt a fence, you have to make it harder for them to cross where it is the easiest. If you can block off 80%, that makes those 80% haveing to look for a different route. If you have all of them going through tunnels, the tunnels will have a lot of traffic, and make it easier to find. Most of those tunnels are for drug smuggling, and are guarded fairly well, and the ones that are letting people through, are charging big dollars to allow people to go through.

Funneling them into other areas will help a lot, because then you can watch a much smaller area.

 

[Baker]

Anyone looked to see how many cities are along the Mexican border? How are we going to build a fence there ?

I see ranchers in Texas are already organizing to sue to stop fence on their property.

I would love to see the discussion shift to the most cost effective way to guard the border vs. building a wall

 

[Mortenson]

Of the ranchers who are organizing, I imagine a percentage of them would also not allow government patrolling on their land as well.

 

[Tap]

Then there are the ranchers whose land is being thoroughly trashed and destroyed. Torn fence, garbage, destruction of plant life, even dead bodies.
I gotta think some ranchers would love to have a border structure.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Baker]

Of the ranchers who are organizing, I imagine a percentage of them would also not allow government patrolling on their land as well.

Lots of emotion and points of view by the ranchers. One of the elements is that anyone crossing property along the river has to be picked up by transportation along a road. They would argue that is the point at which apprehension is easiest without taking their property. They would also argue that could be accomplished today simply with manpower and will. The knowledge is already in place.

 

[Baker]

Then there are the ranchers whose land is being thoroughly trashed and destroyed. Torn fence, garbage, destruction of plant life, even dead bodies.
I gotta think some ranchers would love to have a border structure.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Yes all those are a problem. many ranchers already provide ladders to cross their fence as many ranches along the border are high fenced. To adapt the ranchers essentially create corridors to public roads for the migration. Garbage isn't an especially big problem as you can only carry so much on your back crossing by foot. Many folks in Tx. have learned to leave food and water in strategic places for the migration to avoid having break in to keep folks from starving. Dead bodies do happen and is just a part of life along the river. With or without a wall significant increase in human resources is required to control the border.

And as I have argued all along, create heavy fines to employers hiring undocumented worker with jail for multiple offenders. Cheap, effective, and can be done now.

 

[Mortenson]

You're definitely on the front lines, Baker. But geez, sounds like a bunch of these ranchers need to be included in the "heavily fined" group. They sound like they're a big part of the problem.

 

[Baker]

You're definitely on the front lines, Baker. But geez, sounds like a bunch of these ranchers need to be included in the "heavily fined" group. They sound like they're a big part of the problem.

Help me understand what you mean by " a big part of the problem" ? For sure many of the ranches in Tx. employ undocumented workers from Mexico. I believe they should be held accountable just as any employer hiring undocumented workers if we are to solve the problem. At the same time I think it should be made much easier to get work visas to employ this labor. Then they are in the country legally, held accountable for taxes, and can fairly use the system.

If you are suggesting these ranchers are a part of the problem by learning to live with the flow of migrants across the border and across their land I propose they have just adapted to the reality of the situation. I do not think the ranchers are a big part of the problem. I think the govt. is the biggest part of the problem playing politics about leverage and beating the other guy rather than dealing effectively with the problem.

As stated above, we have everything in place now to know who, how many, when and where illegals cross the border and what they do once across. Yet politicians argue over activity [ a wall ] vs, accomplishment [ putting resources on the border now using information we already have to stop the flow, then holding employers accountable if the don't follow the law. ]

Just my .02.

 

[Mortenson]

We just see things differently. In ten pages of this thread, no one has changed their mind. I don't see a solution in making a bunch of new laws that few will abide by, and new punishments that few will enforce. However, going that approach, coupled with a wall, and our technology, I think is a good place to be. That is the compromise. If we make it much easier to become a legal citizen, or grant super friendly visas, then how much of Mexico and the 3rd world are we prepared to welcome? It gets back to how many of SD51555's gumballs can we take. Again, the majority of these people are low-skilled workers. And that's the good ones, but they're still in need of our (limited) resources. To be a citizen now, it says that you need to read, write and speak basic English. Are we supposed to enforce that or soften it? My young children get less time from their teachers because the 100% Spanish speaking students demand so much time. Many issues at hand.

Baker, you said "They would argue that is the point at which apprehension is easiest without taking their property." Wouldn't the 60' easement established in 1907 by Roosevelt be the logical place for the wall? It's already under federal control. If more footage is required, it'll be paid for. High fences will be reimbursed.

How can you hold an employer accountable if they have BS documents? Don't they have to trust what they've been given?

 

[Baker]

What most of us do agree on is the need for a new approach on our border with better controls on illegal immigration and the problems therein. Without a doubt it is an emotionally charged situation. And maybe we agree that if politicians won't enforce existing law then irrespective of what is done next results will likely be compromised.

I have tax accountants prepare our business tax returns for the IRS. I can assure you the IRS holds me accountable for there accuracy not the accountants. Maybe we put the IRS in charge of verifying foreign worker documentation:)

Now for the important stuff...WHO DAT!!!

 

[SD51555]

If there isn't a setback along the border of the country, I'd consider that quite an oversight. The feds will need to get the checkbook out and do some eminent domain work. If I had the prospect of the feds wanting to gobble up a stretch across my property, I'd raise hell, but not to stop it, just to make sure I got a big payoff.

For anyone really upset about a wall crossing the edge of their property, do they also expect to grow corn up to the yellow line in the middle of their county road? Should they be able to graze up to the edge of the asphalt?

 

[Bill]

For me it's symbolic as much as I do believe it will help.

All politicians crapped the bed on illegal immigration for years. I want a big wall to stick it in thier face that Americans do have a voice and most of us want this crap fixed.

The tunnel argument doesn't sway me. I can break into most houses built over the last 30 years with a razor knife. Cut the siding, vapor barrier, Styrofoam and sheet rock and you're in. Or just put a brick through the back window...

Those houses still have locked doors to deter breaking in. And the cost of a wall to the US government is probably proportional the cost of the front door on most houses. Actually it's probably far far less.

 

[Baker]

Business man in me struggles to spend billions for symbolism when there are far more effective solutions that could be implemented now. It will take a long long time before we see a wall cover enough geography to mean anything

 

[Catscratch]

Cheapest way? My way of thinking is to use the military. Privates need training in how to become MP's, how to surveillance, how to apprehend, how to stand post, how to use equipment, how to train dogs, etc. These people are already hired... the tools already bought... and the training is going to happen somewhere anyway, why not on the boarder. Use all the branches, become formidable, do what you were going to do anyway but do it with purpose. Of course this approach has it's dangers; the liberals will hate any military discipline that's new, there will be deaths (the environment will become violent at times), and the accountants will claim it's added cost to government. If they don't stop the government shutdown soon Trump might just go ahead and use the military to build the wall as he see's fit anyway.

 

[Bill]

Business man in me struggles to spend billions for symbolism when there are far more effective solutions that could be implemented now. It will take a long long time before we see a wall cover enough geography to mean anything

I get that. But unless the business is moving trillions of dollars around it's not the same. For what the government spends it would be like a typical business expense on a trade show for public relations. Peanuts....