American flags not allowed [Archive] - hailRedskins.com Fan Board

tuckahoeskin

05-06-2010, 07:38 PM

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. I don't think these kids were being patriotic at all. My gut tells me this act was born out of a desire to ruffle the feathers of a few classmates.

They should be allowed to do so, but it is douchey.

I can see your position, but i think it's worse than douchy to come to this country illegally, put your kids in public schools on the American taxpayers dime, resist learning the English language, and cap it all off by showing more allegiance to your home country rather than the country where you currently reside and earn a living. Just sayin'.

There are many who want to point to immigrants from the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries as some parallel to today. The HUGE difference is that those immigrants wanted to assimilate. They wanted to learn the language. While they were proud of their "home countries", they fought to be accepted within our melting pot. Too many Mexican immigrants today want to live off of our economy, yet show no respect for our country or attempt to assimilate. That is a problem.

Fathead

05-06-2010, 07:40 PM

lol Apparently all the students who didn't wear American Flag shirts are illegal immigrants. lol

RedskinsDave

05-06-2010, 11:17 PM

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. I don't think these kids were being patriotic at all. My gut tells me this act was born out of a desire to ruffle the feathers of a few classmates.

They should be allowed to do so, but it is douchey.

Still missing the point. The problem is the students whose feathers would be ruffled seeing someone in an American flag t-shirt. They are the problem.

Keino

05-07-2010, 08:01 AM

Still missing the point. The problem is the students whose feathers would be ruffled seeing someone in an American flag t-shirt. They are the problem.

I largely agree, unless the objections are based in the strict rules concerning proper flag etiquete. Technically, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel.

Having said that, I can see Cal's point as well if this were some US vs. Mexican Student type of deal and the flag was being worn not as a symbol of patriotism, but rather as "gang color" for lack of a better term. Context and intent matter.

BurgundyNGold

05-07-2010, 08:43 AM

I largely agree, unless the objections are based in the strict rules concerning proper flag etiquete. Technically, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel.
This was my first thought too. An initial argument can be made for that until you introduce that olympic athletes have been wearing some form of the flag for decades.

http://kellene23.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mary-lou-getty.jpg

Having said that, I can see Cal's point as well if this were some US vs. Mexican Student type of deal and the flag was being worn not as a symbol of patriotism, but rather as "gang color" for lack of a better term. Context and intent matter.
Gang culture... ugh. Maybe they'll start wearing Capitals gear since it's red, white and blue and the "W" on it represents an upside down "M", disrespecting Mexico. :rolleyes:

Ibleedburgundy

05-07-2010, 09:00 AM

There are many who want to point to immigrants from the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries as some parallel to today. The HUGE difference is that those immigrants wanted to assimilate. They wanted to learn the language. While they were proud of their "home countries", they fought to be accepted within our melting pot. Too many Mexican immigrants today want to live off of our economy, yet show no respect for our country or attempt to assimilate. That is a problem.

There are/were entire sections of cities where people didn't assimilate in the 19th and 20th centuries. This latest immigration wave is not unique.

Keino

05-07-2010, 09:12 AM

Thousands of examples and you pull Mary Lou? You are one sick puppy BNG.

Honestly, the rules of flag etiquette have been getting violated for decades. Only military personnel should be wearing a flag patch, but all of our sports teams do it in the name of "patriotism". Technically, they are disrespecting the country and flag, but as a practical matter, it has been viewed as a statement of support.

cal_junior

05-07-2010, 09:21 AM

Still missing the point. The problem is the students whose feathers would be ruffled seeing someone in an American flag t-shirt. They are the problem.

I'm sticking to my point, which is that these American flag-wearing kids are D-Bags.

BurgundyNGold

05-07-2010, 09:57 AM

I'm sticking to my point, which is that these American flag-wearing kids are D-Bags.
There's an open viewpoint.

RedskinsDave

05-07-2010, 10:03 AM

I'm sticking to my point, which is that these American flag-wearing kids are D-Bags.

Irony.

Keino

05-07-2010, 11:42 AM

Irony.

So wait, you don't think he has even a small point? They chose Cinco De mayo, the day of Mexican Independence as the day to show their "patriotism". Why that day in particular?

I am not saying the school was right at all except for the bandana (if they are not allowed, as most schoool disctricts do not allow them), but it sounds to me that these guys for all intents and purposes were displaying their brand of "patriotism" in an effort to be inflammatory and provoke a reaction from the students of mexican decent.

I did appreciate that one of the mexican-american students wearing the American Flag refused to turn it inside out citing that "It would be disrespectful to his country".

I don't think irony applies, because Cal is not being a d-bag citing what seems to be rather obvious.

RedskinsDave

05-07-2010, 03:26 PM

Showing patriotism on any day in America is never grounds for someone else to be upset. Ever.

cal_junior

05-07-2010, 03:29 PM

So wait, you don't think he has even a small point? They chose Cinco De mayo, the day of Mexican Independence as the day to show their "patriotism". Why that day in particular?

This is exactly my point. My guess (just a guess) is that these kid wouldn't wear American gear on an American holiday. So they are doing it to irritate Hispanic students, the majority of whom are fellow Americans.

Trying to puff out your American chest with over-the-top gear to irritate Mexican-Americans on one of their biggest holidays doesn't paint these kids in a very positive light.

cal_junior

05-07-2010, 03:30 PM

Showing patriotism on any day in America is never grounds for someone else to be upset. Ever.

Let me know when you're ready to come live in the real world.

RedskinsDave

05-07-2010, 04:17 PM

Let me know when you're ready to come live in the real world.

I live in it, surrounded by illegals and I'd like to see them get bothered by my patriotism regardless of the day.

You completely fail to see how a Mexican holiday should mean nothing. Your real world is part of the problem.

cal_junior

05-07-2010, 06:15 PM

I live in it, surrounded by illegals and I'd like to see them get bothered by my patriotism regardless of the day.

You completely fail to see how a Mexican holiday should mean nothing. Your real world is part of the problem.

I think your assumptions that illegals would be the ones bothered by it is a huge part of the problem.

And you are "surrounded" by illegals? Where do you live, El Paso?

Keino

05-07-2010, 06:21 PM

Showing patriotism on any day in America is never grounds for someone else to be upset. Ever.

Even if it isn't true patriotism?

Patriotism is pride in your country. Not Displaying your country's flag because you intend to cause a confrontation on a widely regarded and celebrated in America Mexican holiday.

People in America do celebrate Cinco de Mayo, maybe not in the same manner we celebrate say, the 4th of July, but we do.

As I keep saying, intent and context matters. You think the intent here was patriotism? I have a bridge to sell you too, if you are interested. It leads from Brooklyn to Manhattan and I own it. LOL

Biggie

05-07-2010, 06:33 PM

I'm sticking to my point, which is that these American flag-wearing kids are D-Bags.
Having gone to high school, I'm well aware that a good number of kids in any school are going to be gigantic doucheholes. As far as we know, these kids may or may not be part of that group. That doesn't make displaying the colors wrong.

RedskinsDave

05-08-2010, 07:59 AM

I think your assumptions that illegals would be the ones bothered by it is a huge part of the problem.

And you are "surrounded" by illegals? Where do you live, El Paso?

Northern Virginia. They're everywhere. Not quite the problem Arizona has but we do at least deport the ones who break the law. You should make an avatar protesting that.

Fathead

05-08-2010, 05:33 PM

Even if it isn't true patriotism?

Patriotism is pride in your country. Not Displaying your country's flag because you intend to cause a confrontation on a widely regarded and celebrated in America Mexican holiday.

People in America do celebrate Cinco de Mayo, maybe not in the same manner we celebrate say, the 4th of July, but we do.

As I keep saying, intent and context matters. You think the intent here was patriotism? I have a bridge to sell you too, if you are interested. It leads from Brooklyn to Manhattan and I own it. LOL

So wait, I can't wear my MMMMM Bacon shirt during passover?

tuckahoeskin

05-08-2010, 10:24 PM

So wait, I can't wear my MMMMM Bacon shirt during passover?

Sure you can, but don't dare bring it out during Ramadan.

Biggie

05-09-2010, 04:33 PM

Sure you can, but don't dare bring it out during Ramadan.
Right, because Muslims everyone are freaking out over you eating bacon. :awesomewo

I thought Cinco de Mayo wasn't even that big of a holiday in Mexico anyway? Mexican Independence Day is in September.

justinskins

05-09-2010, 05:19 PM

You completely fail to see how a Mexican holiday should mean nothing. Your real world is part of the problem.

I for one refuse to give up my right to find another excuse for margeritas, loud music played with accordions and tubas, and big papier-mâché animals filled with candy. Plenty of Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo too you know.

tuckahoeskin

05-09-2010, 08:01 PM

Right, because Muslims everyone are freaking out over you eating bacon. :awesomewo

I thought Cinco de Mayo wasn't even that big of a holiday in Mexico anyway? Mexican Independence Day is in September.

Noooooo, but if you draw a cartoon of Mohamed plan on going into hiding. Not because of the crazed jihadists, but from the P.C. lefties looking for a righteous cause celbre.

RedskinsDave

05-09-2010, 08:25 PM

Enough of that. Stay on topic.

wide_awake

05-16-2010, 10:45 AM

We don't know why these kids selected Cinco De Mayo to wear their American flag shirts but i'm guessin' it's because they were trolling for a response.

If they wore these shirts out of spite and contempt in my opinion that's wrong. They should have every right to do that though, and that's what makes this country great, but if they were just trying instigate a confrontation that they knew they wouldn't "lose" that's petty.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 09:38 AM

I can see your position, but i think it's worse than douchy to come to this country illegally, put your kids in public schools on the American taxpayers dime, resist learning the English language, and cap it all off by showing more allegiance to your home country rather than the country where you currently reside and earn a living. Just sayin'.

There are many who want to point to immigrants from the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries as some parallel to today. The HUGE difference is that those immigrants wanted to assimilate. They wanted to learn the language. While they were proud of their "home countries", they fought to be accepted within our melting pot. Too many Mexican immigrants today want to live off of our economy, yet show no respect for our country or attempt to assimilate. That is a problem.

I agree with what you say except for the language part.
The US makes it easy for Spanish speakers to not learn English...for a reason.
You can take the driving test in Spanish, you can use ATMs, call utilities and other corporations in Spanish, watch Spanish TV, etc.
But...can you get an education in Spanish? Take college entry exams in Spanish?
Imagine what would happen if a majority of Hispanic Americans were to learn the language and get educated at the percentages that White Americans do?

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 10:56 AM

I agree with what you say except for the language part.
The US makes it easy for Spanish speakers to not learn English...for a reason.
You can take the driving test in Spanish, you can use ATMs, call utilities and other corporations in Spanish, watch Spanish TV, etc.
But...can you get an education in Spanish? Take college entry exams in Spanish?
Imagine what would happen if a majority of Hispanic Americans were to learn the language and get educated at the percentages that White Americans do?
If I can learn to speak a new language in less than a year without living in the country, people who live here can learn to speak the language they are bombarded with. It's a matter of effort and commitment. People who put the effort in and have the commitment to follow through tend to do well, regardless of the endeavor. Given the number of free language, literacy and any number of other classes offered in every community in the US, if you don't speak the language, it's a testament to your own skewed priorities.

RedskinsDave

06-29-2010, 11:23 AM

If I can learn to speak a new language in less than a year without living in the country, people who live here can learn to speak the language they are bombarded with. It's a matter of effort and commitment. People who put the effort in and have the commitment to follow through tend to do well, regardless of the endeavor. Given the number of free language, literacy and any number of other classes offered in every community in the US, if you don't speak the language, it's a testament to your own skewed priorities.

Exactly. My ancestors learned English and didn't lose their identity and they were Polish! Clearly everyone else can do the same if they want.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 11:28 AM

Exactly. My ancestors learned English and didn't lose their identity and they were Polish! Clearly everyone else can do the same if they want.

Must....resist....joke....make it up to...satan....later...

If you're going to come here to escape whatever going wrong in your home country(economy in peril, gang/tribal violence, oppressive regime, asian hookers), you owe us the favor to learn enough english to survive here.

RedskinsDave

06-29-2010, 11:33 AM

And bring the hookers.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 12:07 PM

Must....resist....joke....make it up to...satan....later...

If you're going to come here to escape whatever going wrong in your home country(economy in peril, gang/tribal violence, oppressive regime, asian hookers), you owe us the favor to learn enough english to survive here.

Disagree...they owe THEMSELVES the favor to learn English. The only ones they are hurting are themselves. That's why it blows my mind when White Americans complain about Spanish speaking immigrants not learning English.

When I immigrated to the US, I had to learn English - there was no alternative. I couldnt call the cable company and press 3 for Hebrew.

The fact is that the easy way is provided to them and they take it.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 12:17 PM

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 12:28 PM

Newsflash: It's aint just white Americans who are complaining.

Newsflash: I know.

But it would be White Americans who have the most to lose if a decent percentage of Spanish speaking immigrants actually educated themselves.

CNYSkinFan

06-29-2010, 12:34 PM

Newsflash: It's aint just white Americans who are complaining.
it's also white non americans! :)

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 12:43 PM

Disagree...they owe THEMSELVES the favor to learn English. The only ones they are hurting are themselves. That's why it blows my mind when White Americans complain about Spanish speaking immigrants not learning English.

When I immigrated to the US, I had to learn English - there was no alternative. I couldnt call the cable company and press 3 for Hebrew.

The fact is that the easy way is provided to them and they take it.

Thats a chicken/egg argument. The reason that companies offer spanish language services is because there's a lot of potential customers who only speak that fluently....or vice versa lol.

No matter what, everyone should know enough english to survive if they want to live here.

Keino

06-29-2010, 12:51 PM

Exactly. My ancestors learned English and didn't lose their identity and they were Polish! Clearly everyone else can do the same if they want.

You are fluent in Polish then?

Not trying to be a smartass here, but I think part of retaining cultural identity is retaining the language. That shouldn't make one resist learning the native language (in our case English), but I can see how someone who doesn't know your grandparents saying "Well they didn't retain their identities if 2 generations later their heirs don't speak their language".

dj_stouty

06-29-2010, 12:59 PM

You are fluent in Polish then?

Pochodzić na Keino. Oczywiście Dave wie, polsku!

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:20 PM

Newsflash: I know.
Then try to hold off on the blanket statements.

But it would be White Americans who have the most to lose if a decent percentage of Spanish speaking immigrants actually educated themselves.
I don't think that many people, white or otherwise, are concerned about what they stand to lose by immigrants speaking or not speaking English. At least not anymore than there has been at any other point in America's long history of being the world's port for immigrants. Currently, however, people are losing a lot more in tax dollars and societal cohesion than they feel they should be because a segment of an immigrant group has a large illegal population and an even larger segment that doesn't feel the need to learn the language and join the party.

It's just with this latest wave you have two new facets that are causing nationalistic heartburn. First, a large percentage on them are illegal and not even high school educated, which also kind of blows up your whole college education thing. Second, a larger percentage (as compared to earlier immigration waves in American history) aren't bothering to learn the language or to otherwise assimilate.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:25 PM

You are fluent in Polish then?

Not trying to be a smartass here, but I think part of retaining cultural identity is retaining the language. That shouldn't make one resist learning the native language (in our case English), but I can see how someone who doesn't know your grandparents saying "Well they didn't retain their identities if 2 generations later their heirs don't speak their language".
This is a good point. There is nothing that says that you should trade in one identity for another. Culturally, we should celebrate and retain as much of our heritage as possible. And we should be proud of that heritage. However, this pride shouldn't hamper our assimlation into the customs, traditions and language of one's new country.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 01:27 PM

It's just with this latest wave you have two new facets that are causing nationalistic heartburn. First, a large percentage on them are illegal and not even high school educated, which also kind of blows up your whole college education thing. Second, a larger percentage (as compared to earlier immigration waves in American history) aren't bothering to learn the language or to otherwise assimilate.

You forgot: Third, most of them aren't staying here, but working to make money to send home or to save up so that they can live better back in their home country.

Keino

06-29-2010, 01:29 PM

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:30 PM

You forgot: Third, most of them aren't staying here, but working to make money to send home or to save up so that they can live better back in their home country.
You like to say this but that's not happening where I'm living and it's certainly not hapening enough in Arizona for them to not institute immigration enforcement directives.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:31 PM

I just wish my ancestors had the option (Half of em anyways). It would be nice to know from whence we came and what language we spoke.
You can probably do some DNA tracking to get an idea of the region of the world your family originated from.

Keino

06-29-2010, 01:34 PM

You can probably do some DNA tracking to get an idea of the region of the world your family originated from.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have been designated as the DNA provider so as to keep the costs down of doing it on both sides of my family. My mother approached me with it last month.

The problem is that our family goes BAAACK so chances are there are going to be multiple geographical regions represented. Didn't mean to derail the thread with my personal crapola....

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 01:36 PM

You like to say this but that's not happening where I'm living and it's certainly not hapening enough in Arizona for them to not institute immigration enforcement directives.

Considering that the Arizona gov declared that most illegals are "drug mules," I don't think she's really dealing with much reality on this topic. As for Central Monty Burns county, its hard to say unless you're tagging them with RFID chips lol. From what I understand, the big farms in SC who hire most of the illegals down there rarely have the same illegals for more than 8-14 months before they go home(I grant that they might come back or eventually go elsewhere in the US).

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:44 PM

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have been designated as the DNA provider so as to keep the costs down of doing it on both sides of my family. My mother approached me with it last month.

The problem is that our family goes BAAACK so chances are there are going to be multiple geographical regions represented. Didn't mean to derail the thread with my personal crapola....
I would bypass the mitochondrial DNA (which goes through your mother's side) and, instead, focus on your Y-DNA (your father). If you're lucky, you won't have any European males on your dad's side and you'll get a clean line back.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 01:47 PM

Considering that the Arizona gov declared that most illegals are "drug mules," I don't think she's really dealing with much reality on this topic. As for Central Monty Burns county, its hard to say unless you're tagging them with RFID chips lol. From what I understand, the big farms in SC who hire most of the illegals down there rarely have the same illegals for more than 8-14 months before they go home(I grant that they might come back or eventually go elsewhere in the US).
I have read reports that have stated that *some* illegals were purportedly returning in 2008 and the first half of 2009 but it is completely counterintuituve that an illegal would risk their life savings (and in some cases debt service) and their very lives to bring themselves and their families across the desert in hopes of a better life only to turn around and go back across the border because the US was having what is, by US terms, a recession. Recession in the US is still way more opportunity than boom time in Mexico.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 01:51 PM

I have read reports that have stated that *some* illegals were purportedly returning in 2008 and the first half of 2009 but it is completely counterintuituve that an illegal would risk their life savings (and in some cases debt service) and their very lives to bring themselves and their families across the desert in hopes of a better life only to turn around and go back across the border because the US was having what is, by US terms, a recession. Recession in the US is still way more opportunity than boom time in Mexico.

But a lot of them aren't bringing their families over. They're bringing themselves and sending cash home. That's the whole reason for the various "guest worker programs" that federal policymakers from Bush to Obama have been pushing. If you set up a program where Mexicans(and others) can come over here to work for a predetermined amount of time, you fix a lot of the "problem" imo.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 01:54 PM

Then try to hold off on the blanket statements.

I really wasnt trying to make a blanket statement so I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I didnt say only White Americans complain about it, I said it confuses me only when White Americans complain about it.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:07 PM

But a lot of them aren't bringing their families over. They're bringing themselves and sending cash home. That's the whole reason for the various "guest worker programs" that federal policymakers from Bush to Obama have been pushing. If you set up a program where Mexicans(and others) can come over here to work for a predetermined amount of time, you fix a lot of the "problem" imo.
If that were the case then the school systems wouldn't be so burdened with undocumented children. The problem is that people like Bush and Obama are not basing their plans on actual metrics but are rather looking to placate a voting block and the business that need the cheap labor.

For the record, I'm not against a guest visa program at all. I just think it's folly to think that people who aren't following the rules now are going to start following the rules when they get denied those visas or when the quota has been filled. It's better than nothing but not much better on its own.

I really wasnt trying to make a blanket statement so I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I didnt say only White Americans complain about it, I said it confuses me only when White Americans complain about it.
If you're confused about it, you should be confused about it regardless what hue of American complains about it.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 02:07 PM

I don't think that many people, white or otherwise, are concerned about what they stand to lose by immigrants speaking or not speaking English. At least not anymore than there has been at any other point in America's long history of being the world's port for immigrants. Currently, however, people are losing a lot more in tax dollars and societal cohesion than they feel they should be because a segment of an immigrant group has a large illegal population and an even larger segment that doesn't feel the need to learn the language and join the party.

It's just with this latest wave you have two new facets that are causing nationalistic heartburn. First, a large percentage on them are illegal and not even high school educated, which also kind of blows up your whole college education thing. Second, a larger percentage (as compared to earlier immigration waves in American history) aren't bothering to learn the language or to otherwise assimilate.

I'm not talking about illegals, thats a whole other issue.

It's not about speaking language or not. It's about being educated. It's about the labor force.

As Akh said, it's a chicken/egg argument. Personally, I believe the US needs them to stay ignorant - to provide a labor force and a large population that can be easily manipulated and whose majority wont in the near future be in the upper economic class. They are almost 20% of the US population. It goes to reason that if they became educated and wealthy, this would take a slice from the current wealthy.

Be careful what you wish for...that's all I'm trying to say

dj_stouty

06-29-2010, 02:09 PM

This is a good point. There is nothing that says that you should trade in one identity for another. Culturally, we should celebrate and retain as much of our heritage as possible. And we should be proud of that heritage. However, this pride shouldn't hamper our assimlation into the customs, traditions and language of one's new country.

But what if you are an Anglo-mutt? lol

I'm Swiss, English, Irish, German...and probably a few bits and pieces of a few other European cultures I'm not even aware of. I try to identify with the Swiss more-so than any of the others since my Grandfather (mother's side) was born and raised there and we still have family there. But Switzerland is as much of a melting pot as America is. Regardless, I think I can still appreciate their unique culture without having to learn German. (which my family predominantly speaks...but the country also speaks French and Italian)

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:15 PM

I'm not talking about illegals, thats a whole other issue.

It's not about speaking language or not. It's about being educated. It's about the labor force.
Ah, but educated immigrants already have some grasp of the language before they come here. English is taught as a second language in most middle and high schools throughout the world and in many elementary schools, as well. Good enough for fluency? Probabl not, but a pretty good jumping off point.

The problem with the folks who don't speak English is that they are often a) from a country where this is not the case (which is decreasingly rare), b) older (like in their 50s or 60s or older) so they don't really affect the workforce, or c) illegal, which is often an uneducated block and the one most likely to affect the workforce.

So, I think illegals is a hugely relevant part of the discussion because they're almost all universally unable to speak the language and are most likely to persist that condition.

As Akh said, it's a chicken/egg argument. Personally, I believe the US needs them to stay ignorant - to provide a labor force and a large population that can be easily manipulated and whose majority wont in the near future be in the upper economic class. It goes to reason that if they became educated and wealthy, this would take a slice from the current wealthy.

Be careful what you wish for...that's all I'm trying to say
A rising tide lifts all boats. That's the best policy.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 02:17 PM

If that were the case then the school systems wouldn't be so burdened with undocumented children. The problem is that people like Bush and Obama are not basing their plans on actual metrics but are rather looking to placate a voting block and the business that need the cheap labor.

I'm saying that there aren't a lot of illegals who plan to stay, but I would be surprised(and I don't have any hard numbers on this) if that cohort is anything more than 30-35% of all illegals.

For the record, I'm not against a guest visa program at all. I just think it's folly to think that people who aren't following the rules now are going to start following the rules when they get denied those visas or when the quota has been filled. It's better than nothing but not much better on its own.

There really aren't any good ideas on this other than invading Mexico and fixing its problems. Thats the only way you could slow down any illegal immigration.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:18 PM

But what if you are an Anglo-mutt? lol

I'm Swiss, English, Irish, German...and probably a few bits and pieces of a few other European cultures I'm not even aware of. I try to identify with the Swiss more-so than any of the others since my Grandfather (mother's side) was born and raised there and we still have family there. But Switzerland is as much of a melting pot as America is. Regardless, I think I can still appreciate their unique culture without having to learn German. (which my family predominantly speaks...but the country also speaks French and Italian)
That's up to you. You could learn to speak German to help drive that connection for yourself. Or you could learn to speak Swiss German, which is an amalgam of German, French and Italian. Pimsleur has starter CDs for Swiss German. ;)

dj_stouty

06-29-2010, 02:21 PM

That's up to you. You could learn to speak German to help drive that connection for yourself. Or you could learn to speak Swiss German, which is an amalgam of German, French and Italian. Pimsleur has starter CDs for Swiss German. ;)

Or I can continue to speak to them in English, which they all know. lol

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:24 PM

I'm saying that there aren't a lot of illegals who plan to stay, but I would be surprised(and I don't have any hard numbers on this) if that cohort is anything more than 30-35% of all illegals.
I wouldn't argue if it was proven to be that much. In the Southwest, I could accet that. But not up North.

There really aren't any good ideas on this other than invading Mexico and fixing its problems. Thats the only way you could slow down any illegal immigration.
We've had discussions on this ad nausem. Personally, I believe that you have to look at a comprehensive strategy that includes short, medium and long term goals. Part of that is guest visas and cracking down on employers who hire illegals. Part of that is a building and maintaining a wall that makes it more difficult to get in. Part of it is expaning the legal immigration dockets by 300, 400 or more percent as an offset to the wall. Once the tide of illegals has been stemmed (say to 10 or 20% of current levels) you can talk about a path to citizenship for the illegals who are already here. All the while (and for 20-30 years) the US has to work with Mexcico, Guatemala et al to increase their base standard of living and economic development so that their citizens want to stay in their homeland and do not have an economic reason to leave.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 02:26 PM

Ah, but educated immigrants already have some grasp of the language before they come here. English is taught as a second language in most middle and high schools throughout the world and in many elementary schools, as well. Good enough for fluency? Probabl not, but a pretty good jumping off point.

The problem with the folks who don't speak English is that they are often a) from a country where this is not the case (which is decreasingly rare), b) older (like in their 50s or 60s or older) so they don't really affect the workforce, or c) illegal, which is often an uneducated block and the one most likely to affect the workforce.

I have known many people who grew up in the US and could not speak English at a high school level. My personal experiences run contrary to your statement...but who knows

A rising tide lifts all boats. That's the best policy.

I agree with you personally but unfortunately, I dont think most people share our view...especially the folks who stand to lose their majority or position of power or whatever. Hispanics are expected to be 30% of the US in 20 years.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:27 PM

Or I can continue to speak to them in English, which they all know. lol
Sure, that's always an option lol. But if you're talking about rediscovering a cultural identity, that might not cut it. And before you come back with this, NASCAR is not a cultural identity lol.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:31 PM

I have known many people who grew up in the US and could not speak English at a high school level. My personal experiences run contrary to your statement...but who knows
I would like to know the definition of "grown up in the US". Kids who cannot speak English are put into highly intensive ESOL classes. Usually, they are only there for about 2 or 3 years before joining the regular classes with only maintenance ESOL.

I agree with you personally but unfortunately, I dont think most people share our view...especially the folks who stand to lose their majority or position of power or whatever. Hispanics are expected to be 30% of the US in 20 years.
It depends on how that goes. Just being Hispanic doesn't mean that you can't assimilate with American culture. There are Hsipanics all over the American southwest who are community and civic leaders without regard for ethnicity first and foremost. Texas probably couldn't run without it TexMex population and I'm fairly certain south Florida couldn't run without its Cuban American contingency -- every one of whom I have met speaks English as well as I do.

dj_stouty

06-29-2010, 02:34 PM

Sure, that's always an option lol. But if you're talking about rediscovering a cultural identity, that might not cut it. And before you come back with this, NASCAR is not a cultural identity lol.

Well...the first step in rediscovering my Swiss culture is paying them a visit. After that, I'll consider learning German. Baby steps. :)

I've been to enough NASCAR races to know I'd rather not identify with the bulk of that "culture".

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 02:34 PM

I wouldn't argue if it was proven to be that much. In the Southwest, I could accet that. But not up North.

I would bet there's more illegals in the agriculture areas(Cali, south, arizona, Texas, Midwest) than in the north. But you're right, we need reliable metrics on it.

We've had discussions on this ad nausem. Personally, I believe that you have to look at a comprehensive strategy that includes short, medium and long term goals. Part of that is guest visas and cracking down on employers who hire illegals. Part of that is a building and maintaining a wall that makes it more difficult to get in. Part of it is expaning the legal immigration dockets by 300, 400 or more percent as an offset to the wall. Once the tide of illegals has been stemmed (say to 10 or 20% of current levels) you can talk about a path to citizenship for the illegals who are already here. All the while (and for 20-30 years) the US has to work with Mexcico, Guatemala et al to increase their base standard of living and economic development so that their citizens want to stay in their homeland and do not have an economic reason to leave.

A wall is useless. First off, it would cost so much as to render it pointless. Secondly, any wall can be overcome unless you're planning to staff it so much as to render it pointless due to costs. The only way to stem any tide is a federal law fining businesses heavily for using illegals who aren't a part of a guest worker program.

RedskinsReaper21

06-29-2010, 02:44 PM

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 02:45 PM

I would bet there's more illegals in the agriculture areas(Cali, south, arizona, Texas, Midwest) than in the north. But you're right, we need reliable metrics on it.
I would argue that the proximity to the border makes the return trip more likely -- especially if that was the plan all along.

A wall is useless. First off, it would cost so much as to render it pointless. Secondly, any wall can be overcome unless you're planning to staff it so much as to render it pointless due to costs. The only way to stem any tide is a federal law fining businesses heavily for using illegals who aren't a part of a guest worker program.
Your thinking is why immigration reform will never work. There is no magic bullet, no "one way" to do it. There has to be a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy that involves addressig the issue all along the life cycle with improving the economic conditions and upping the number of visas at the front of that life cycle, cracking down on employers in the middle and the wall and amnesty at the end.

And before you dismiss the wall, know that everywhere the wall has gone up it has reduced illegal immigration in those areas (most notabley San Diego) and we know what conditions without a wall does: nothing.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 02:51 PM

I would argue that the proximity to the border makes the return trip more likely -- especially if that was the plan all along.

South/North Carolina are pretty damn far from the border.

Your thinking is why immigration reform will never work. There is no magic bullet, no "one way" to do it. There has to be a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy that involves addressig the issue all along the life cycle with improving the economic conditions and upping the number of visas at the front of that life cycle, cracking down on employers in the middle and the wall and amnesty at the end.

I agree that its a multi-plan solution, but spending 150-200 billion on a wall that won't stop anyone isn't one of them. They have wall in arizona/New Mexico and the Coyotes just dig tunnels to go under them. Ask the Israelis how well the walling off of Gaza has stopped them.

And before you dismiss the wall, know that everywhere the wall has gone up it has reduced illegal immigration in those areas (most notabley San Diego) and we know what conditions without a wall does: nothing.

See above about Arizona/New Mexico. And I haven't seen that the wall in San Diego has slowed down anything.

Fathead

06-29-2010, 03:56 PM

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 04:19 PM

South/North Carolina are pretty damn far from the border.
I was talking about how your 30-35% figure of returns is more likely where illegals set up close to the border.

I agree that its a multi-plan solution, but spending 150-200 billion on a wall that won't stop anyone isn't one of them. They have wall in arizona/New Mexico and the Coyotes just dig tunnels to go under them. Ask the Israelis how well the walling off of Gaza has stopped them.
That number is way high. WAY high. The most extreme numbers I've seen were for $49B and even those were misrepresentations. And I have shown in other threads how reducing the burden on federal, state and local jurisdicational services, education and health care could recover those costs inside of 10 years. Especially when you're looking at the costs of illegal immigration of $10B annually in California alone.

As for tunnels, I don't see how even 10% of the current torrent could make it through the most elaborate tunnel system that that's assuming that they all go undiscovered. But even at 10%, to me that's a victory. With only 10% of the current stream, crackdowns on employers are that much more effective. In-house enforcement is that much more effective. So are guest work visas and expansion of legal immigration channels. With only 10% of the current stream, you could genuinely discuss a path to citizenship in a way that just isn't possible with an average of 600,000-800,000 illegals coming in annually.

See above about Arizona/New Mexico. And I haven't seen that the wall in San Diego has slowed down anything.
It has. Here's a story I read not long ago in the LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/02/local/la-me-border-rancher-20100602

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 04:48 PM

I was talking about how your 30-35% figure of returns is more likely where illegals set up close to the border.

I can just speak to what I've heard from SC who have constant overturn.

That number is way high. WAY high. The most extreme numbers I've seen were for $49B and even those were misrepresentations. And I have shown in other threads how reducing the burden on federal, state and local jurisdicational services, education and health care could recover those costs inside of 10 years. Especially when you're looking at the costs of illegal immigration of $10B annually in California alone.

For a simple 10 foot tall razorwire topped chain link fence without any staff it would cost nearly a billion dollars(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm)). Any realistic fence for the US/Mexico border would have to be about 20 feet tall, have multiple walls(including a chain link fence behind the taller walls, some sort of monitoring system that could run day and night AND personnel who can react quickly when they see a breach(Figure about 1700-2500 stations with enough agents to staff the station and react to multiple breaches). You're talking 100 billion at least before operating costs. And thats assuming you find contractors who don't bleed the overcosts.

The San Diego fence costs almost 4 million dollars a mile(see previous link) when the budget plan was for 1 million a mile. To expand that across the entire border(and the rough terrain would almost certain increase costs dramatically) would cost over 8 billion just for a simple wall without any staff.

As for tunnels, I don't see how even 10% of the current torrent could make it through the most elaborate tunnel system that that's assuming that they all go undiscovered. But even at 10%, to me that's a victory. With only 10% of the current stream, crackdowns on employers are that much more effective. In-house enforcement is that much more effective. So are guest work visas and expansion of legal immigration channels. With only 10% of the current stream, you could genuinely discuss a path to citizenship in a way that just isn't possible with an average of 600,000-800,000 illegals coming in annually.

They've found 40 significant tunnels since 9-11(see previous link), some of them big enough to have their own warehouses and with amazing sophistication. If there's a market for illegal labor in the US, the coyotes will ramp up the tunnel complexes. And I seriously doubt that you're going to drop illegals by 90% thanks to a wall, especially with tunnels, boats and corrupt custom workers who let drugs/people come across the border.

It has. Here's a story I read not long ago in the LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/02/local/la-me-border-rancher-20100602

Well, thats not quite the same thing. That's speaking to number of apprehensions.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 05:09 PM

I can just speak to what I've heard from SC who have constant overturn.

For a simple 10 foot tall razorwire topped chain link fence without any staff it would cost nearly a billion dollars(link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm)). Any realistic fence for the US/Mexico border would have to be about 20 feet tall, have multiple walls(including a chain link fence behind the taller walls, some sort of monitoring system that could run day and night AND personnel who can react quickly when they see a breach(Figure about 1700-2500 stations with enough agents to staff the station and react to multiple breaches). You're talking 100 billion at least before operating costs. And thats assuming you find contractors who don't bleed the overcosts.

The San Diego fence costs almost 4 million dollars a mile(see previous link) when the budget plan was for 1 million a mile. To expand that across the entire border(and the rough terrain would almost certain increase costs dramatically) would cost over 8 billion just for a simple wall without any staff.
I'm not conceding to your numbers, but they'll do for the sake of debate. We can alsways come back and get more accurate figures later. For now, assuming you're talking about $100B (which is more than the $50B estimated but less than the $150B-200B number), you're still looking at a doable project. California is bleeding an estimated $10B annually in illegal immigration costs. I'm sure the rest of the country adds in anothern $30B conservatively. If you were able to reduce those numbers by even 75% (and there are any number of ways to do this but the best way would be to stop the flow and get the current illegals on the tax roles) you'd be saving $30B/year. Within 4 years, you'd have paid for the fence. All future savings wouldn't exactly be revenue, but they'd be capital savings that start ant $30B/year and go up on a projected path consistent with illegal immigration.Compare that with a cost of $1.05T for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with little hope of recovering anything on those fronts.

They've found 40 significant tunnels since 9-11(see previous link), some of them big enough to have their own warehouses and with amazing sophistication. If there's a market for illegal labor in the US, the coyotes will ramp up the tunnel complexes. And I seriously doubt that you're going to drop illegals by 90% thanks to a wall, especially with tunnels, boats and corrupt custom workers who let drugs/people come across the border.
The thing about a tunnel is that it takes time to make and you can't just move it. They'll dig them, we'll find them and shut them down. In any event, right now, the vast majority of illegals from Mexico (I would estimate well over 95%) do not come through tunnels or boats. They walk right across the border.

Well, thats not quite the same thing. That's speaking to number of apprehensions.
That's speaking to the fact that the wall, along with the support border patrol agents, have pushed illegal immigration to places where there are no fences. Coincidence? Perhaps but probably not. And it's certainly relevant if someone it to say that the wall in San Diego hasn't affected illegal immigration. Clearly, as the cornerstone of a border patrol strategy, it has.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 05:22 PM

I'm not conceding to your numbers, but they'll do for the sake of debate. We can alsways come back and get more accurate figures later. For now, assuming you're talking about $100B (which is more than the $50B estimated but less than the $150B-200B number), you're still looking at a doable project. California is bleeding an estimated $10B annually in illegal immigration costs. I'm sure the rest of the country adds in anothern $30B conservatively. If you were able to reduce those numbers by even 75% (and there are any number of ways to do this but the best way would be to stop the flow and get the current illegals on the tax roles) you'd be saving $30B/year. Within 4 years, you'd have paid for the fence. All future savings wouldn't exactly be revenue, but they'd be capital savings that start ant $30B/year and go up on a projected path consistent with illegal immigration.Compare that with a cost of $1.05T for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with little hope of recovering anything on those fronts.

I really dispute those costs numbers. 30 bil a year from illegals just seems like triangulation from estimates about how much a small group of illegals use gov resources.

Just for staffing, if there was 1800 ICE stations along the border with, say, 20 agents at an average of 50k a year+5 support workers at 30k a year, you're looking at 2.1 billion a year just in staffing. Thats before equipment, repairs to the wall and the bureaucracy in DC and in the major cities along the border to run it.

The thing about a tunnel is that it takes time to make and you can't just move it. They'll dig them, we'll find them and shut them down. In any event, right now, the vast majority of illegals from Mexico (I would estimate well over 95%) do not come through tunnels or boats. They walk right across the border.

We struggle to find and shut down tunnels on the North/South Korean border, which isn't that big. How the hell are you going to patrol 1900+ miles of border just for tunnels?

That's speaking to the fact that the wall, along with the support border patrol agents, have pushed illegal immigration to places where there are no fences. Coincidence? Perhaps but probably not. And it's certainly relevant if someone it to say that the wall in San Diego hasn't affected illegal immigration. Clearly, as the cornerstone of a border patrol strategy, it has.

So, if you built a giant wall, they'll just find another way around it lol.

justinskins

06-29-2010, 05:38 PM

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 07:15 PM

These discussions about how much to spend on border control don't make much sense to me without a concurrent discussion of how many visas to grant to Mexicans and other Latin Americans. That's because the two are linked--the fewer people want to cross the border illegally, the cheaper it is to enforce border security. That's especially true given the capital-intensive illegal border crossings described above (using elaborate tunnels, boats, etc.). Those projects can be disrupted through police action, but it may be more cost-effective to reduce the demand for such crossings. Since large projects depend on economies of scale, a smaller demand for illegal crossings could result in less elaborate means of crossing, which in turn are cheaper for border enforcement officers to disrupt.

If we really want to reduce illegal immigration, we should allow more Mexicans into the country on visas AND spend on border security.
Great point but it is both true and not true for multiple reasons.

First, visas are given out after a background check is done. Weight is given to applicants with sponsoring family members. Most of the folks with legal resident family in the US go the legal route because eventually they can be sponsored.

Also weighted is education, as in a masters degree holder or a person with a specialized skill will have more chance of getting an H1B than would a bachelor's holder who would get more weight than a high school graduate. Those with criminal backgrounds are almost always dismissed from consideration early on.

The fact is that nearly 2/3 of all illegal immigrants do not have a high school education. A far less number, but a fact that should not be ignored, is how many of them have at least some criminal history. These people would likely not be granted resident visas and probably wouldn't be in line to take an H1B position either. They probably won't be able to access F visas for school or A visas for embassy and consulate work. So, no matter how many visas we issue, these folks will still be stuck in Mexico.

This is where guest and day worker visas come in. Save for criminals, these visas can be used legally bring in documented worked strictly for the sake of cheap labor. It's a win-win from that side.

However, the first thing you have to do is to get a handle on the 100s of 1000s of illegals that are crossing over the Mexican border every day. Do that and the tenor of the debate will change significantly.

Keino

06-29-2010, 07:21 PM

Great point but it is both true and not true for multiple reasons.

First, visas are given out after a background check is done. Weight is given to applicants with sponsoring family members. Most of the folks with legal resident family in the US go the legal route because eventually they can be sponsored.

Also weighted is education, as in a masters degree holder or a person with a specialized skill will have more chance of getting an H1B than would a bachelor's holder who would get more weight than a high school graduate. Those with criminal backgrounds are almost always dismissed from consideration early on.

The fact is that nearly 2/3 of all illegal immigrants do not have a high school education. A far less number, but a fact that should not be ignored, is how many of them have at least some criminal history. These people would likely not be granted resident visas and probably wouldn't be in line to take an H1B position either. They probably won't be able to access F visas for school or A visas for embassy and consulate work. So, no matter how many visas we issue, these folks will still be stuck in Mexico.

This is where guest and day worker visas come in. Save for criminals, these visas can be used legally bring in documented worked strictly for the sake of cheap labor. It's a win-win from that side.

However, the first thing you have to do is to get a handle on the 100s of 1000s of illegals that are crossing over the Mexican border every day. Do that and the tenor of the debate will change significantly.

The answer is to Nuke Mexico....and South Carolina.

justinskins

06-29-2010, 07:22 PM

So, no matter how many visas we issue, these folks will still be stuck in Mexico.
Or you could just rewrite the law to let in larger numbers of immigrants. There's no reason to hamstring the response by adhering to existing immigration rules; that's what got us to this situation in the first place.
However, the first thing you have to do is to get a handle on the 100s of 1000s of illegals that are crossing over the Mexican border every day. Do that and the tenor of the debate will change significantly.
And what I'm arguing is that the "push" factor, i.e. the raw demand for access to the US labor market, will make it prohibitively expensive to do so--unless you allow more immigrants in legally, and reduce that demand.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 07:32 PM

The answer is to Nuke Mexico....and South Carolina.

Keep picking that scab....see where it gets you son.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 07:45 PM

I really dispute those costs numbers. 30 bil a year from illegals just seems like triangulation from estimates about how much a small group of illegals use gov resources.
California alone estimated those costs at $10.5B in 2004.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

There are no public official federal numbers on this because it would be inflammatory; however, it's easy enough to see how the CDC says that smoking death cost the US $92B every year (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicalnews/a/smokingcosts.htm) (2005) or how the DOE says that power outages cost the UD $80B annually (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/poweroutcosts.htm) (2005). To assume that there are not huge costs associated with illegal immigration is to live in a fantasy land, even if it is not politically expedient for either side to actually say so.

However, if one state that is 1/6 of the US economy says that the cost was $10.5B as of 6 years ago, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the other 5/6 of the US economy can cost another $30B -- especially when you add in Federal costs that weren't included in the California report.

Are these hard numbers? No, but if you want to split hairs we can go back and pick apart the fence numbers. The numbers you extrapolated seemed reasonable enough for the sake of the discussion, so I accepted them for that purpose. I don't think my assumptions are unreasonable. In fact, they are quite possibly low. I suggest that we just take these numbers for the sake of discussion like I did the fence numbers and move on with the discussion.

Just for staffing, if there was 1800 ICE stations along the border with, say, 20 agents at an average of 50k a year+5 support workers at 30k a year, you're looking at 2.1 billion a year just in staffing. Thats before equipment, repairs to the wall and the bureaucracy in DC and in the major cities along the border to run it.
Again, I'm not going to fault you plan or even discuss the actually resource levels needed because I like that you're entertaining the idea. So let's look at this. Even if we take your plan at face value, that's an additionally $21B over 10 years. Of that, conservatively 25% will go back into the Federal coffers. That leaves about $16B in actual costs. $15B plus $100B in initial costs ist $115B. $115B against $400B in projected cost savings (which should be higher as the population of illegals would have grown over 10 years without the wall, but whatever) yields $284B that was not spent on services for illegal immigrant services, education and health care. Cost savings can be a compelling reason to spend money. Spending $3 to save $10 is worth it.

Here's an additional, especially novel way to look at this from the revenue generation angle. Assume the estimated 12M illegals that are here already have become legal because the border is sufficiently plugged to make this a reality. They're paying taxes and working. Let's say they have a median income of $26,000. Filing married or single, that Federal tax rate is 15%. This, of course, says nothing of state and local taxes that will go from red ink to black on these new immigrants. Anyway, 15% of the estimated $312B that those immigrants would pay in Federal taxes comes out to about $46.8B. So, in essence, the recently legal immigrants who were once illegal immigrants before the wall could pay for the maintenance of the wall many, many times over. Maybe a good chunk of that money could be spent for providing economic development to Mexico? Work both ends to solve the problem in the middle.

We struggle to find and shut down tunnels on the North/South Korean border, which isn't that big. How the hell are you going to patrol 1900+ miles of border just for tunnels?
The same way you patrol the entire Pacific rim for tectonic activity, earthquakes and volcanism: seismology. Or, perhaps, GPR.

So, if you built a giant wall, they'll just find another way around it lol.
They might, but then you plug that hole. And the next one and the next one. It's far cheaper than the alternative which is a parabolic sh*t curve of costs lol. All the while, you spend time, money and expertise to help Mexico develop it's economic infrastructure to develop and keep its own people working in Mexico, for Mexico. It will take time, but that's what th government has to do. Give tax and trade incentives for US companies who are manufacturing overseas to go to Mexico, Guatemala, et al instead of China.

Like I said, the wall by itself isn't much of a solution. But it a vital part of a larger, more comprehensive plan. We must secure the border. That is non-negotiable.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 07:52 PM

The answer is to Nuke Mexico....and South Carolina.
LMAO. The list keeps growing lol.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 07:59 PM

Or you could just rewrite the law to let in larger numbers of immigrants. There's no reason to hamstring the response by adhering to existing immigration rules; that's what got us to this situation in the first place.
You'd still stuck letting in more of the same educated people and family of relatives who would get approved (and who do not have a real problem immigrating here) and the same uneducated, unskilled workers and the ones with criminal records would still be coming in, undocumented across the desert. Unless you want to change the law to allow uneducated, unskilled workers and criminals into the country just one general principle. And if that's the case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that such a bill would never see the Senate floor lol.

And what I'm arguing is that the "push" factor, i.e. the raw demand for access to the US labor market, will make it prohibitively expensive to do so--unless you allow more immigrants in legally, and reduce that demand.
How does that reduce the demand? You just made it legal for pretty much anyone to come into the country. Except, those folks now have to be paid legal wages on the tax record, so the under-the-table, tax free day laborer wage market still exists, except now the original Americans, the recently imported legal immigrants and the new round of illegal immigrants filling the niche all have to compete for that low wage job.

Fathead

06-29-2010, 08:00 PM

The same way you patrol the entire Pacific rim for tectonic activity, earthquakes and volcanism: seismology. Or, perhaps, GPR.

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? And how much equipment you would need?

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 08:03 PM

California alone estimated those costs at $10.5B in 2004.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

There are no public official federal numbers on this because it would be inflammatory; however, it's easy enough to see how the CDC says that smoking death cost the US $92B every year (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicalnews/a/smokingcosts.htm) (2005) or how the DOE says that power outages cost the UD $80B annually (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/poweroutcosts.htm) (2005). To assume that there are not huge costs associated with illegal immigration is to live in a fantasy land, even if it is not politically expedient for either side to actually say so.

However, if one state that is 1/6 of the US economy says that the cost was $10.5B as of 6 years ago, it's not too much of a stretch to say that the other 5/6 of the US economy can cost another $30B -- especially when you add in Federal costs that weren't included in the California report.

Are these hard numbers? No, but if you want to split hairs we can go back and pick apart the fence numbers. The numbers you extrapolated seemed reasonable enough for the sake of the discussion, so I accepted them for that purpose. I don't think my assumptions are unreasonable. In fact, they are quite possibly low. I suggest that we just take these numbers for the sake of discussion like I did the fence numbers and move on with the discussion.

I think we can both agree that this issue is short of hard metrics across the board lol.

Again, I'm not going to fault you plan or even discuss the actually resource levels needed because I like that you're entertaining the idea. So let's look at this. Even if we take your plan at face value, that's an additionally $21B over 10 years. Of that, conservatively 25% will go back into the Federal coffers. That leaves about $16B in actual costs. $15B plus $100B in initial costs ist $115B. $115B against $400B in projected cost savings (which should be higher as the population of illegals would have grown over 10 years without the wall, but whatever) yields $284B that was not spent on services for illegal immigrant services, education and health care. Cost savings can be a compelling reason to spend money. Spending $3 to save $10 is worth it.

But it can be done much cheaper for equal(if not more) effectiveness. The drones(which are being deployed) with quick reaction ICE/National guard forces. For 3.5 billion dollars, we could deploy 100 RQ-4 Global hawk drones to watch the border, and they have an operational endurance of 36 hours each(15,000 mile effective range).

Here's an additional, especially novel way to look at this from the revenue generation angle. Assume the estimated 12M illegals that are here already have become legal because the border is sufficiently plugged to make this a reality. They're paying taxes and working. Let's say they have a median income of $26,000. Filing married or single, that Federal tax rate is 15%. This, of course, says nothing of state and local taxes that will go from red ink to black on these new immigrants. Anyway, 15% of the estimated $312B that those immigrants would pay in Federal taxes comes out to about $46.8B. So, in essence, the recently legal immigrants who were once illegal immigrants before the wall could pay for the maintenance of the wall many, many times over. Maybe a good chunk of that money could be spent for providing economic development to Mexico? Work both ends to solve the problem in the middle.

Mexico needs more than a few billion dollars lol.

The same way you patrol the entire Pacific rim for tectonic activity, earthquakes and volcanism: seismology. Or, perhaps, GPR.

Yeah, thats been tried by the Israelis and the Koreans. No luck. Unless you're using construction equipment, it won't register(unless you're literally on top of the tunnel).

They might, but then you plug that hole. And the next one and the next one. It's far cheaper than the alternative which is a parabolic sh*t curve of costs lol.

Except that unless you're putting out massive outlays to literally guard the wall with BP agents, they'll find a way around the wall.

All the while, you spend time, money and expertise to help Mexico develop it's economic infrastructure to develop and keep its own people working in Mexico, for Mexico. It will take time, but that's what th government has to do. Give tax and trade incentives for US companies who are manufacturing overseas to go to Mexico, Guatemala, et al instead of China.

No one is going to invest heavily into Mexico while its effectively an anarchy.

Like I said, the wall by itself isn't much of a solution. But it a vital part of a larger, more comprehensive plan. We must secure the border. That is non-negotiable.

I agree with that, but history has shown that walls are useless to curb unwanted migrations, even on smaller borders.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 08:04 PM

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? And how much equipment you would need?
I'm thinking we could hook up a Lite Brite and a Mr. Coffee to do it lol. Hey, you should be in favor of my plan. If the Federal government starts placing orders for a lot of GPR, it should create an artificial market and reduce prices significantly for you. ;)

Seriously, though, that's just an off-the-cuff idea. Frankly, I'm not too worried about the tunnels. Digging them is so slow and labor intensive that it beats the hall out of just walking across the border. We'd find them now and again just like we currently do. I suspect that dogs could help. And cats. Possibly even specially trained parrots and groundhogs.

Fathead

06-29-2010, 08:06 PM

I'm thinking we could hook up a Lite Brite and a Mr. Coffee to do it lol. Hey, you should be in favor of my plan. If the Federal government starts placing orders for a lot of GPR, it should create an artificial market and reduce prices significantly for you. ;)

Seriously, though, that's just an off-the-cuff idea. Frankly, I'm not too worried about the tunnels. Digging them is so slow and labor intensive that it beats the hall out of just walking across the border. We'd find them now and again just like we currently do. I suspect that dogs could help. And cats. Possibly even specially trained parrots and groundhogs.

We can't even get a decent tsunami warning system, let alone find Paco digging a tunnel in New Mexico. Or Pierre, who has realized how lame Quebec is, digging a tunnel to New Hampshire.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 08:14 PM

But it can be done much cheaper for equal(if not more) effectiveness. The drones(which are being deployed) with quick reaction ICE/National guard forces. For 3.5 billion dollars, we could deploy 100 RQ-4 Global hawk drones to watch the border, and they have an operational endurance of 36 hours each(15,000 mile effective range).
This is a promising idea but so was that Boeing charlie fox a few years back. We'll have to see how it pans out. Franky, I don't care how they do it. Build the wall in some places while prototyping drone surveillance in others. Compare notes. It doesn't matter as long as the spigot gets turned way, way down.

Also, the drones will still have the tunnel problem to content with.

Mexico needs more than a few billion dollars lol.
Still, $30B is 2% of Mexico's GNP. That's also more than the Department of the Treasury ($13.3B), Environmental Protection Agency ($10.5B) and the Corps of Engineers ($5.1B) combined. And I wouldn't give it to them directly. I'd run it through USAID through a joint US-Canada-Mexico group under the auspices of infrastructure development in support of NAFTA. Hell, let the Canadians kick in a few loonies to make it a community effort.

Yeah, thats been tried by the Israelis and the Koreans. No luck. Unless you're using construction equipment, it won't register(unless you're literally on top of the tunnel).
The GPR can detect tunnels. And we have satellites with GPR around Mars. I'm sure we have even better at home.

Except that unless you're putting out massive outlays to literally guard the wall with BP agents, they'll find a way around the wall.
Again, doing nothing is not an option. Until a better plan comes up, this is the best plan. Is it perfect? No, but it will work well enough to stem the tide and start the amnesty process top get these folks legal and paying taxes as Americans. That's the mission.

No one is going to invest heavily into Mexico while its effectively an anarchy.
I said it will take a long time. And I'm guessing tech companies will because they won't have to give up their patents like they do in China.

I agree with that, but history has shown that walls are useless to curb unwanted migrations, even on smaller borders.
It cannot contain all people, but it can contain enough that it will solve the problem until we can come up with other, better methods.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 08:21 PM

We can't even get a decent tsunami warning system, let alone find Paco digging a tunnel in New Mexico. Or Pierre, who has realized how lame Quebec is, digging a tunnel to New Hampshire.
I would think that the technical hurdles for a really effective tsunami warning system would be greater than trying to determine if there is a hole in the earth beneath one's feet. We're effectively talking about a fish finder but for the ground. Granted, they're klugey (using something akin to shotgun shells to create a concussive readout) so I'm guessing that there would have to be something better.

But like I said, I'll worry about tunnels when it looks like it might be a problem. Until then, only R&D dollars.

Fathead

06-29-2010, 08:26 PM

I will say that its certainly not my expertise, but having done field work, I can't think of any equipment that would give you the resolution you'd want to find a tunnel and still be cost effective in deployment (Spread far enough apart to not be too costly).

I agree with you, we need to do something. Anything. Allow private citizens to patrol the border and throw pictures of Dan Snyder at illegals. I'm just pointing out that tunnels are a tough thing to combat, at least without major expense.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 08:31 PM

This is a promising idea but so was that Boeing charlie fox a few years back. We'll have to see how it pans out. Franky, I don't care how they do it. Build the wall in some places while prototyping drone surveillance in others. Compare notes. It doesn't matter as long as the spigot gets turned way, way down.

Also, the drones will still have the tunnel problem to content with.

The hunt is for the hunters. Tunnels are only needed if there's walls. Drones in the rural parts of the border and aggressive patrolling in the urban parts of the border sounds much better than some folly of man lol.

Still, $30B is 2% of Mexico's GNP. That's also more than the Department of the Treasury ($13.3B), Environmental Protection Agency ($10.5B) and the Corps of Engineers ($5.1B) combined. And I wouldn't give it to them directly. I'd run it through USAID through a joint US-Canada-Mexico group under the auspices of infrastructure development in support of NAFTA. Hell, let the Canadians kick in a few loonies to make it a community effort.

That doesn't fix anything. Their problems aren't that they're some 3rd world nation bankrupt and unable to do anything but sell off their resources. The state has been partially taken over by Nacro syndicates.

The GPR can detect tunnels. And we have satellites with GPR around Mars. I'm sure we have even better at home.

There is a big difference between taking single GPR shots of Mars and continuous monitoring with it. You'd have to localize it to certain areas hoping to randomly catch a glimpse of tunnels. And I think the Israelis tried this for Gaza with no results(and the Gazan/Egyptian border is only about 20 miles). They're building a moat apparently. I'm not joking lol.

Again, doing nothing is not an option. Until a better plan comes up, this is the best plan. Is it perfect? No, but it will work well enough to stem the tide and start the amnesty process top get these folks legal and paying taxes as Americans. That's the mission.

Except that its not the best plan and couldn't be completed for years(maybe even a decade). The US-Mexico border is over 1900 miles long!

I said it will take a long time. And I'm guessing tech companies will because they won't have to give up their patents like they do in China.

It only takes getting control of their country, but that won't be helped by investment.

It cannot contain all people, but it can contain enough that it will solve the problem until we can come up with other, better methods.

If we could put it up in 6 months, maybe. But there's no way that such a time table would be feasible.

BurgundyNGold

06-29-2010, 08:46 PM

The hunt is for the hunters. Tunnels are only needed if there's walls. Drones in the rural parts of the border and aggressive patrolling in the urban parts of the border sounds much better than some folly of man lol.
If you catch enough of them (and I'm assuming, of course that the drones are as successful as a deterrent as the 2 walled model with a DMZ you spec'd at $100B) then they'll have the same choice: Go underground.

That doesn't fix anything. Their problems aren't that they're some 3rd world nation bankrupt and unable to do anything but sell off their resources. The state has been partially taken over by Nacro syndicates.
We're talking about two separate problems. Getting rid of the drug gangs in politics does not bring Mexico more in line with its richer neighbors to the north. Infrastructure and investment do.

There is a big difference between taking single GPR shots of Mars and continuous monitoring with it. You'd have to localize it to certain areas hoping to randomly catch a glimpse of tunnels. And I think the Israelis tried this for Gaza with no results(and the Gazan/Egyptian border is only about 20 miles). They're building a moat apparently. I'm not joking lol.
You don't need continuous monitoring. Once a month is plenty fine. This isn't Tremors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwhaLQy13o) lol.

Except that its not the best plan and couldn't be completed for years(maybe even a decade). The US-Mexico border is over 1900 miles long!
Then we should better get cracking lol. And in the meantime, put the drones up to see if the wall is actually necessary or if a cheaper, equally effective option if better. I'm not married to the wall, but economically, it's an accelerating form of slow death to do nothing.

It only takes getting control of their country, but that won't be helped by investment.
Investment and federal law enforcement partnership. Make no mistake, we're down there helping them now. Imagine what $30B could do if some of it could go to cleaning up those narco towns.

If we could put it up in 6 months, maybe. But there's no way that such a time table would be feasible.
I don't see that it has to be done in 6 months. If they can do most of it 4 or 5 years with drone support, Obama would still have time to get the amnesty/path to citizenship legislation passed. If not, then the next president gets to.

akhhorus

06-29-2010, 08:58 PM

If you catch enough of them (and I'm assuming, of course that the drones are as successful as a deterrent as the 2 walled model with a DMZ you spec'd at $100B) then they'll have the same choice: Go underground.

They would be limited to urban areas for the tunnel(they would stand out for the drones if the tunnels popped out in the middle of a field).

We're talking about two separate problems. Getting rid of the drug gangs in politics does not bring Mexico more in line with its richer neighbors to the north. Infrastructure and investment do.

Yes, but the infrastructure and investment is pointless unless they have security. Its 2006 Iraq with more fajitas(and less sombreros).

You don't need continuous monitoring. Once a month is plenty fine. This isn't Tremors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwhaLQy13o) lol.

lol. Then you don't need a wall per se. You just need some SUVs rigged up to scan with GPR. Or hook one up to a drone to fly low enough to scan the entire border at once.

Then we should better get cracking lol. And in the meantime, put the drones up to see if the wall is actually necessary or if a cheaper, equally effective option if better. I'm not married to the wall, but economically, it's an accelerating form of slow death to do nothing.

So, we set up drones to buy us time for a wall(which is a long term project) to buy us time for the more permanent solution? Umm.....

Investment and federal law enforcement partnership. Make no mistake, we're down there helping them now. Imagine what $30B could do if some of it could go to cleaning up those narco towns.

Unless the 30 billion is for a merc army to sweep out and take over northern mexico, that money will end up in the pockets of the Narco lords who run those areas.

I don't see that it has to be done in 6 months. If they can do most of it 4 or 5 years with drone support, Obama would still have time to get the amnesty/path to citizenship legislation passed. If not, then the next president gets to.

You're better off not wasting the cash. Do the drones, penalize companies for hiring illegals aggressively(which is working in some states) and figure out something for the tunnels.

SkinsKY

06-29-2010, 09:03 PM

You forgot: Third, most of them aren't staying here, but working to make money to send home or to save up so that they can live better back in their home country.

Very true. Agricultural areas are full of migrant workers who fit this bill.

I just wish my ancestors had the option (Half of em anyways). It would be nice to know from whence we came and what language we spoke.
I'd like the same. I know nothing about my father's side past his grandfather.

You like to say this but that's not happening where I'm living and it's certainly not hapening enough in Arizona for them to not institute immigration enforcement directives.

It's definitely the case here in Kentucky. The majority aren't moving here for the American Dream (as I imagine Dave's parents and millions others did). They moved to get stuff they couldn't in Mexico and send it back. It's as if Dave's parents (I'm only using him because he volunteered them) sent all their money back to Poland.

Most other immigrants come here to be Americans. The illegals and many others don't, so learning the language isn't important as they have no desire to affiliate them with our culture. Most of the illegals I have known want to get as much money as they can so they can live comfortably in Mexico. That's their dream. This just happens to be the easiest place for them to get the money.

SkinsKY

06-29-2010, 09:40 PM

Rereading my posts, it seems like I came off a bit harsh. I have nothing against Hispanics. The majority I have met are very hard working and warm people. Their lack of focus on education saddens me - I believe this is due to how easy it is made for them to stay stagnant.

I don't believe that. In most of my reading on Latin American Cultures, Education just isn't valued as highly. It's not like a huge number of the Mexicans in Mexico are college grads, or maybe even high school grads. I have worked with many Mexicans over the years and, save for a couple, investing (whether time or money) isn't really that valued. Education is both. Now, my experience is almost exclusively with migrant workers and "semi-permanent" workers (they go back to Mexico every couple of years), so it might be different in other parts of the country.

It's also been similar when I went to Guatemala, and Peru, to an extent.

SkinsKY

06-29-2010, 10:00 PM

Yes, but the infrastructure and investment is pointless unless they have security. Its 2006 Iraq with more fajitas(and less sombreros).
Yep. Putting money into Mexico, or any unstable country, is money thrown away. The corruption is too deep. And I want my sombrero.

RedskinsReaper21

06-30-2010, 06:55 AM

There is a big difference between taking single GPR shots of Mars and continuous monitoring with it. You'd have to localize it to certain areas hoping to randomly catch a glimpse of tunnels. And I think the Israelis tried this for Gaza with no results(and the Gazan/Egyptian border is only about 20 miles). They're building a moat apparently. I'm not joking lol.

Not quite. The Gaza-Israel border is very secure using the combination of GPR (on trucks) and buried fiber optic cables that detect movement in the soil. It's the Gaza-Egypt border that's the issue and the Israelis dont have control there. The moat thing was planned for the Gaza-Egypt border before Israel 'disengaged' from Gaza in 2005 but was never started.
As far as Egypt, they basically have the same problem with corruption and unmotivated soldiers operating the GPR.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 07:01 AM

It's definitely the case here in Kentucky. The majority aren't moving here for the American Dream (as I imagine Dave's parents and millions others did). They moved to get stuff they couldn't in Mexico and send it back. It's as if Dave's parents (I'm only using him because he volunteered them) sent all their money back to Poland.
Oh, I don't doubt that. The other poster asserted that 30-35% of these illegal immigrants come here only to go back. I said that I haven't seen that where I live. They come, they stay and, no doubt, send money back to Mexico or wherever. But they don't leave. At least not for decades and, if that's the case, what's the difference?

Most other immigrants come here to be Americans. The illegals and many others don't, so learning the language isn't important as they have no desire to affiliate them with our culture. Most of the illegals I have known want to get as much money as they can so they can live comfortably in Mexico. That's their dream. This just happens to be the easiest place for them to get the money.
It's a good idea and a good dream but it doesn't make their presence in the US any less illegal or any less debilitating for local government services when they enroll their kids in public schools or they skip out on hospital bills while they're making money here in pursuit of their dream of the good life somewhere else.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 07:06 AM

They would be limited to urban areas for the tunnel(they would stand out for the drones if the tunnels popped out in the middle of a field).

Yes, but the infrastructure and investment is pointless unless they have security. Its 2006 Iraq with more fajitas(and less sombreros).

lol. Then you don't need a wall per se. You just need some SUVs rigged up to scan with GPR. Or hook one up to a drone to fly low enough to scan the entire border at once.

So, we set up drones to buy us time for a wall(which is a long term project) to buy us time for the more permanent solution? Umm.....

Unless the 30 billion is for a merc army to sweep out and take over northern mexico, that money will end up in the pockets of the Narco lords who run those areas.

You're better off not wasting the cash. Do the drones, penalize companies for hiring illegals aggressively(which is working in some states) and figure out something for the tunnels.
The drones are a good idea, I've admitted that. We'll see if they actually work. If it works as well as the wall does in parallel studies, I'm all for the cheaper option.

In the meantime, however, I think I've shown that a wall, though politically distasteful, would not be cost prohibitive when you look at the bigger picture. In fact, it could even turn into a revenue boon, assuming that amnesty/path to citizenship is followed up on.

Working on Mexico is going to take decades. We should have started decades ago. We didn't, and now we're paying the price with a narco state next door. It's better to start those efforts now before we're busy fighting Mexico with NG troops.

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 07:15 AM

Not quite. The Gaza-Israel border is very secure using the combination of GPR (on trucks) and buried fiber optic cables that detect movement in the soil. It's the Gaza-Egypt border that's the issue and the Israelis dont have control there. The moat thing was planned for the Gaza-Egypt border before Israel 'disengaged' from Gaza in 2005 but was never started.
As far as Egypt, they basically have the same problem with corruption and unmotivated soldiers operating the GPR.

The Israelis patrol/guard the border between Gaza/Egypt.

In the meantime, however, I think I've shown that a wall, though politically distasteful, would not be cost prohibitive when you look at the bigger picture. In fact, it could even turn into a revenue boon, assuming that amnesty/path to citizenship is followed up on.

And if Illegal immigrants find another way to get into the US, then any wall is a massive boondoggle. No wall has ever stopped illegal entry into a country. Not even the Berlin wall(which only had to block off a few miles). Expecting a wall to be able to seal a 1900+ mile long border is unrealistic, especially when you can't wall up the many rivers that cross the border.

RedskinsReaper21

06-30-2010, 07:49 AM

The Israelis patrol/guard the border between Gaza/Egypt.

Nope. The send drones for surveillance, but no boots on the ground. That's Egypt's responsibility.

dj_stouty

06-30-2010, 08:13 AM

Sure the "wall" may cost a few billion if you use legal workers...but just think about the cost savings if you hired illegals to do it!

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 09:02 AM

And if Illegal immigrants find another way to get into the US, then any wall is a massive boondoggle. No wall has ever stopped illegal entry into a country. Not even the Berlin wall(which only had to block off a few miles). Expecting a wall to be able to seal a 1900+ mile long border is unrealistic, especially when you can't wall up the many rivers that cross the border.
Stop trying to turn this into an absolute. No solution will be an absolute. Drones, a wall, a 10 mile wide flaming pit, Keino's plans -- none of them are absolute. Any solution will have to be applied regressively. That is to say that maybe you'll stop 80 or 90% of the traffic. So then you move on to another solution for the remaining balance. That solution will likely ony stop a certain percentage of what's left. So you weigh the cost/benefits and decide if it's worth it to apply another solution. At some point you reach an acceptable (or at least manageable) number of crossings. That's what the wal did in Berlin, it's what the DMZ does in Korea and what the Israelis are attempting to do in Gaza.

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 09:31 AM

Nope. The send drones for surveillance, but no boots on the ground. That's Egypt's responsibility.

As of 2005, yes, but in the years prior to that, Israel was unable to stop the flow from Egypt to Gaza.

Stop trying to turn this into an absolute. No solution will be an absolute. Drones, a wall, a 10 mile wide flaming pit, Keino's plans -- none of them are absolute. Any solution will have to be applied regressively. That is to say that maybe you'll stop 80 or 90% of the traffic. So then you move on to another solution for the remaining balance. That solution will likely ony stop a certain percentage of what's left. So you weigh the cost/benefits and decide if it's worth it to apply another solution. At some point you reach an acceptable (or at least manageable) number of crossings. That's what the wal did in Berlin, it's what the DMZ does in Korea and what the Israelis are attempting to do in Gaza.

The only way to justify the cost/effort of a 1900+ mile long wall is to guarantee that illegal immigration will effectively be stopped. If the wall can't guarantee that, then its pointless and will just end up being a momument to how politics can force policy into dumb decisions. And your examples(which I brought up earlier), are of very small walls that still can't block the flow across borders. How the hell are we going to keep a border as long as US/Mexico secure without an expenditure that costs more than the problem its meant to solve?

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 09:41 AM

The only way to justify the cost/effort of a 1900+ mile long wall is to guarantee that illegal immigration will effectively be stopped. If the wall can't guarantee that, then its pointless and will just end up being a momument to how politics can force policy into dumb decisions. And your examples(which I brought up earlier), are of very small walls that still can't block the flow across borders. How the hell are we going to keep a border as long as US/Mexico secure without an expenditure that costs more than the problem its meant to solve?
You're just restating your absolute position a different way. All of the walls that I stated significantly curtailed border crossings. That's the goal. You do not need 100% stoppage in the first pass, you need a significant reduction. That can be anywhere from 70-80% or more, IMO. Whether it's a wall that does this or drones or Asian hookers with superpowers of terminal herpes that shoot from their fingertips is irrelevant. As part of a larger immigration and naturalization strategy, cost of a wall/drones/mutant hookers is not an issue if you end up saving money in the long run. If you're looking at 100% success as the only condition for success, then nearly everything ever tried throughout the course of human history is a failure.

Fathead

06-30-2010, 09:45 AM

Every time I see you guys posting about drones, I think:

http://afteramerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/borg.jpg

You want these guys patrolling the border.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 09:55 AM

Every time I see you guys posting about drones, I think:

http://afteramerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/borg.jpg

You want these guys patrolling the border.
They already are lol.

http://www.accountabilityutah.org/IssuesAlerts/News/2005/mmpmtg.jpg

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 09:57 AM

You're just restating your absolute position a different way. All of the walls that I stated significantly curtailed border crossings. That's the goal. You do not need 100% stoppage in the first pass, you need a significant reduction. That can be anywhere from 70-80% or more, IMO.

Yes, thats the goal, but there's nothing to suggest that a wall would achieve that(or even 50% reduction). And the states would still be spending "billions" a year on illegals already here. If you want to reduce costs on illegals here, focus on that.

Whether it's a wall that does this or drones or Asian hookers with superpowers of terminal herpes that shoot from their fingertips is irrelevant. As part of a larger immigration and naturalization strategy, cost of a wall/drones/mutant hookers is not an issue if you end up saving money in the long run. If you're looking at 100% success as the only condition for success, then nearly everything ever tried throughout the course of human history is a failure.

Except that the success rate for man made walls curbing unwanted migration is about 0% from even as early as Hadrian's wall and the Great Wall of China. Hell, even the Dutch's flood strategy to keep the Spanish at bay only worked until the winter lol.

I just think its total folly to commit to build some wall+staffing it(without staffing it, its pointless because the illegals will just find a way through it) when there are as effective methods to physically block the border. Considering the time frame to put up a wall, there's just zero point to try the other methods(drones, etc) while you wait the 8-10 years for the wall to be completed. Thats like building an offense by or temporarily signing/drafting a quality Qb/WR/Rb/etc while you only get 1 quality offensive lineman every other season.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 10:09 AM

Yes, thats the goal, but there's nothing to suggest that a wall would achieve that(or even 50% reduction). And the states would still be spending "billions" a year on illegals already here. If you want to reduce costs on illegals here, focus on that.
That's not true. The places that have put up significant border walls have seen more than a 50% drop off in illegal crossings. That LA Times article cited this.

Except that the success rate for man made walls curbing unwanted migration is about 0% from even as early as Hadrian's wall and the Great Wall of China. Hell, even the Dutch's flood strategy to keep the Spanish at bay only worked until the winter lol.
Harkening back to the the successes of antedeluvian walls engineered for a different purpose isn't really something we can rely on lol. What we can do is to put up wall, fly drones and do whatever else and then see where the chips fall. So far, the walls are working to stem the flow -- or at least redirect the traffic to sites where there are no walls. That's pretty telling in and of itself. Where there is a wall, people avoid it to go to where there is no wall.

I just think its total folly to commit to build some wall+staffing it(without staffing it, its pointless because the illegals will just find a way through it) when there are as effective methods to physically block the border. Considering the time frame to put up a wall, there's just zero point to try the other methods(drones, etc) while you wait the 8-10 years for the wall to be completed. Thats like building an offense by or temporarily signing/drafting a quality Qb/WR/Rb/etc while you only get 1 quality offensive lineman every other season.
If you feel that way, I can't convince you otherwise. There isn't an economic reason not to do it. In fact, there might actually *be* economic reasons to do it. Drones haven't shown that they can stop anybody yet. In fact, I don't know of any border security methods that have worked as well as a deterrent as walls have. That Boeing pilot program in Tuscon crashed, burned and got defunded recently. If there are other methods that have proven to be successful, I wouldn't be opposed to them. I just haven't heard of them.

The only real folly is to continue to do nothing.

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 10:31 AM

That's not true. The places that have put up significant border walls have seen more than a 50% drop off in illegal crossings. That LA Times article cited this.

No, the LA times article was talking about apprehensions. There's a big difference between the two.

Harkening back to the the successes of antedeluvian walls engineered for a different purpose isn't really something we can rely on lol.

Actually, no, both Hadrian and the Great Wall were designed to do two things:
1-Stop raiders
2-Stop migration.

They failed in both. Its hubris to think that we can wall up a bigger border and get better results. Especially when we're not trying to just wall off Rhode Island from Mass.

What we can do is to put up wall, fly drones and do whatever else and then see where the chips fall. So far, the walls are working to stem the flow -- or at least redirect the traffic to sites where there are no walls. That's pretty telling in and of itself. Where there is a wall, people avoid it to go to where there is no wall.

You're still acting like the wall can go up in a matter of months. If you want to support a wall, knock yourself out, but you can't show that it will accomplish what you think it will.

If you feel that way, I can't convince you otherwise. There isn't an economic reason not to do it. In fact, there might actually *be* economic reasons to do it. Drones haven't shown that they can stop anybody yet. In fact, I don't know of any border security methods that have worked as well as a deterrent as walls have. That Boeing pilot program in Tuscon crashed, burned and got defunded recently. If there are other methods that have proven to be successful, I wouldn't be opposed to them. I just haven't heard of them.

And I can show that walls are useless to stem illegal immigration. Time for plan C lol.

The only real folly is to continue to do nothing.

Doing nothing isn't an option, but some decade long project that will cost billions to build, then staff without doing anything to save money supposedly being spent paying for illegals already in this country is about as foolish as doing nothing.

justinskins

06-30-2010, 11:43 AM

The only real folly is to continue to do nothing.

It may be folly, but that is what is most likely to happen. There's just not enough agreement among the various interests involved (pro-business conservatives; grassroots social conservatives; identity groups; unions).

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 03:12 PM

It may be folly, but that is what is most likely to happen. There's just not enough agreement among the various interests involved (pro-business conservatives; grassroots social conservatives; identity groups; unions).
If there is one constant in American history is that we are The Great Procrastinators. We need a full blown crisis before we do anything about anything. When we do actually mobilize, we're generally pretty damned good but until then we're a mess.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 03:35 PM

No, the LA times article was talking about apprehensions. There's a big difference between the two.
Apprehensions down while border patrol agents and patrols are stepped up? You don't need to be a genius to drawn the conclusion that less illegal crossings yield less opportunity for apprehension -- even is you have more agents.

Actually, no, both Hadrian and the Great Wall were designed to do two things:
1-Stop raiders
2-Stop migration.
Mostly the first one. Hadrians wall was a joke. It wasn't even as tall as a man and was easily scaled. The Romans were scared to death of the northern savages and Chinese were scared to death of the normadic hordes and others over the centuries. Not to mention that Chinese xenophobia is legendary, perhaps only less so than the Japanese and Koreans.

They failed in both. Its hubris to think that we can wall up a bigger border and get better results. Especially when we're not trying to just wall off Rhode Island from Mass.
In the case of the Chinese the wall worked to keep out invaders for the most part. It work so well that they maintained and expanded it for 1,000 years. To say that it didn't is to attempt to rewrite history in the face of a millennium of maintenance.

You're still acting like the wall can go up in a matter of months. If you want to support a wall, knock yourself out, but you can't show that it will accomplish what you think it will.
I have stated in this very thread that the wall could be largely up in 5 to 6 years with special focus given to urban and suburban areas and hot cross points. Properly constructed walls work more than they do not work. People didn't complain about the Berlin Wall because of its ineffectiveness. The fact that it was effective is what made it so egregious.

And I can show that walls are useless to stem illegal immigration. Time for plan C lol.
The number of apprehensions are down where walls are even though the number of border agents are up. That suggests that the illegal immigrants have chosen to cross elsewhere. If you can show me where a wall was put up and apprehensions are steady or have even increased with the same number of border patrol, I will take that under advisement. Until then, scant evidence is better than no evidence.

Doing nothing isn't an option, but some decade long project that will cost billions to build, then staff without doing anything to save money supposedly being spent paying for illegals already in this country is about as foolish as doing nothing.
So spending $105B in state-level costs in California alone for illegals over the next decade is better than spending $116B to curb costs that run much higher than that for the entire country over that same period?

I'm expressing the same logic behind why we just racked up $700B in costs for the new health care bill under the promise that back end costs would actually reduce to the point where we saved money in the long run while meeting a national obligation. Same logic, only the health care assumptions are more iffy. Why is one OK but the other foolish?

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 03:57 PM

Apprehensions down while border patrol agents and patrols are stepped up? You don't need to be a genius to drawn the conclusion that less illegal crossings yield less opportunity for apprehension -- even is you have more agents.

Or they're just going elsewhere. And you cannot possibly block off the entire border with walls.

Mostly the first one. Hadrians wall was a joke. It wasn't even as tall as a man and was easily scaled. The Romans were scared to death of the northern savages and Chinese were scared to death of the normadic hordes and others over the centuries. Not to mention that Chinese xenophobia is legendary, perhaps only less so than the Japanese and Koreans.

Hadrian's wall was primarily to stop the Picts from migrating down to northern england and to keep their raiders from being able to take much with them on their raids. It failed in both.

In the case of the Chinese the wall worked to keep out invaders for the most part. It work so well that they maintained and expanded it for 1,000 years. To say that it didn't is to attempt to rewrite history in the face of a millennium of maintenance.

Ask the various Mongolian tribes how much it stopped them(or if it did) lol. The biggest fallacy about the Great Wall is that it was a singular Wall. It was a series of walls build over hundreds of years that did little to fulfill their design. The Manchus thought it was little more than a speed bump lol.

I have stated in this very thread that the wall could be largely up in 5 to 6 years with special focus given to urban and suburban areas and hot cross points. Properly constructed walls work more than they do not work. People didn't complain about the Berlin Wall because of its ineffectiveness. The fact that it was effective is what made it so egregious.

The Berlin wall wasn't effective at all, it just forced defectors to find a different way into the west and the even the Soviets realized that they couldn't stop that flow.

The number of apprehensions are down where walls are even though the number of border agents are up. That suggests that the illegal immigrants have chosen to cross elsewhere. If you can show me where a wall was put up and apprehensions are steady or have even increased with the same number of border patrol, I will take that under advisement. Until then, scant evidence is better than no evidence.

Scant evidence of what? That a wall shuffles the problem elsewhere? So wall up the entire southern border(which is impossible) and the illegals will find another way in as long as there's a market for their labor here. Slow down/reduce the demand for illegal labor in the US and you don't need anything but smuggling intervention(which doesn't require a wall).

So spending $105B in state-level costs in California alone for illegals over the next decade is better than spending $121B to curb costs that run much higher than that for the entire country over that same period?

Except that you're still paying for all those illegals still in the US unless the wall nudges them south also? lol All you theoretically could be doing, economically speaking, is slowing down the growth rate of how much is spent by the states to deal with illegals' use of state resources. You're not really saving any money unless the number of illegals is reduced(and with transitory illegals who are just here to build up capital, they can just stay here and wire their money back).

I'm expressing the same logic behind why we just racked up $700B in costs for the new health care bill under the promise that back end costs would actually reduce to the point where we saved money in the long run while meeting a national obligation. Same logic, only the health care assumptions are more iffy. Why is one OK but the other foolish?

The health care bill was premised on reducing costs by affecting how a relatively static population cohort spends(and buys) health insurance(along with how the states do so). Spending money to slow down illegal immigration on the premise of reducing the flow of illegals with a wall, drones or asian hookers into this country does nothing to slow down or reduce the presumed spending already done by the states on illegals already. Not the same logical premise imo. A better comparison would be if the HCR laws were about just about setting up some co-op solely for uninsured people, but does nothing about rescissions, state exchanges, or anything else. I realize that you have said many times that a wall is just part of a comprehensive plan, but its almost the cart before the horse. You have to drain the market for illegal labor, then set up a legal guest worker program(at the same time imo), then start talking about the most cost effective way to patrol the hot crossing areas down the road. Not going after the market for illegal labor first is akin to damning up a swamp and thinking that its suddenly easier to drain it.

BurgundyNGold

06-30-2010, 04:17 PM

Or they're just going elsewhere. And you cannot possibly block off the entire border with walls.
Nobody says you have to block off the whole border, though I don't agree with your premise. If a partial border wall works, great. Supplement it with drones if those prove to be effective. But cover the high traffic areas and concentrate your border patrol forces in the gaps.

Hadrian's wall was primarily to stop the Picts from migrating down to northern england and to keep their raiders from being able to take much with them on their raids. It failed in both.
With a 5 foot wall built in the 2nd century, what do you expect?

Ask the various Mongolian tribes how much it stopped them(or if it did) lol. The biggest fallacy about the Great Wall is that it was a singular Wall. It was a series of walls build over hundreds of years that did little to fulfill their design. The Manchus thought it was little more than a speed bump lol.
But it did repel many an attack. We're not talking about repelling an attack as part of border security. We're talking about 2 separate walls with a neutralizing area in between that is meant to stop civilians from crossing over. Apples and bowling balls.

The Berlin wall wasn't effective at all, it just forced defectors to find a different way into the west and the even the Soviets realized that they couldn't stop that flow.
They largely stopped that flow. That's the point. Stop trying to make this a zero sum proposition.

Scant evidence of what? That a wall shuffles the problem elsewhere? So wall up the entire southern border(which is impossible) and the illegals will find another way in as long as there's a market for their labor here. Slow down/reduce the demand for illegal labor in the US and you don't need anything but smuggling intervention(which doesn't require a wall).
I am not saying that reducing the demand shouldn't be a large part of the strategy, but it's not the magic bullet. And the current path for illegals is to walk across the border. Sometimes there are vans on either side to drop them off and pick them up. Like the airport shuttle at the Marriott lol. How about putting a wall up and making that scenario impossible. If they want to dig a tunnel at that point, we'll deal with it then but it goes against all common sense to think that the same number of illegal immigrants will be coming in as they are now.

Except that you're still paying for all those illegals still in the US unless the wall nudges them south also? lol All you theoretically could be doing, economically speaking, is slowing down the growth rate of how much is spent by the states to deal with illegals' use of state resources. You're not really saving any money unless the number of illegals is reduced(and with transitory illegals who are just here to build up capital, they can just stay here and wire their money back).
That's where the path to citizenship comes in. The ones who are here can register to get a green card. As soon as they get a green card, they are on the tax roles. They're in the system. Illegals who choose not to get a green card will get deported. That's only fair.

The health care bill was premised on reducing costs by affecting how a relatively static population cohort spends(and buys) health insurance(along with how the states do so). Spending money to slow down illegal immigration on the premise of reducing the flow of illegals with a wall, drones or asian hookers into this country does nothing to slow down or reduce the presumed spending already done by the states on illegals already. Not the same logical premise imo.
Not by itself, but once these illegals become legal and have to pay taxes, yes it does. They go from being a $40B annual burden to a $400B annual revenue stream. Not to mention state and local taxes collected.

A better comparison would be if the HCR laws were about just about setting up some co-op solely for uninsured people, but does nothing about rescissions, state exchanges, or anything else. I realize that you have said many times that a wall is just part of a comprehensive plan, but its almost the cart before the horse. You have to drain the market for illegal labor, then set up a legal guest worker program(at the same time imo), the start talking about the most cost effective way to patrol the hot crossing areas down the road. Not going after the market for illegal labor first is akin to damning up a swamp and thinking that its suddenly easier to drain it.
Those components need not (and should not) be synchronous. You build a wall, drain the market for illegal labor and set up a guest worker program all at the same time. You don't wait on the wall or it renders the guest worker program meaningless.

akhhorus

06-30-2010, 04:28 PM

Nobody says you have to block off the whole border, though I don't agree with your premise. If a partial border wall works, great. Supplement it with drones if those prove to be effective. But cover the high traffic areas and concentrate your border patrol forces in the gaps.

I have no problems with some sort of physical barrier in urban areas, but I would much rather prefer a moat. That would prevent some of the tunneling work as well. But you can't just wall up the rural parts of that border.

With a 5 foot wall built in the 2nd century, what do you expect?

The problem was that the Roman didn't staff it properly since the Pro-Counsels of Britain had their eyes on Gaul and Rome. A wall without a soldier standing watch on it is effectively a speedbump.

But it did repel many an attack. We're not talking about repelling an attack as part of border security. We're talking about 2 separate walls with a neutralizing area in between that is meant to stop civilians from crossing over. Apples and bowling balls.

No, it slowed down advances/migrations until they found an undefended gate or section. Which rendered it pointless.

They largely stopped that flow. That's the point. Stop trying to make this a zero sum proposition.

Except that it is a zero sum proposition. If you can't stop the flow altogether, then there's no point is massive outlays since you're not getting back whatever the figure is for governmental spending on illegals. You're putting up an incentive that is just unrealistic. Your "savings" figure is based on expelling every single illegal immigrant in California(and other states). Thats not realistic. And if you made them all citizens(or legal immigrants), yes they would pay taxes(illegals, I believe, actually to contribute to Social security in their paychecks), but the costs for them would still basically be there.

I am not saying that reducing the demand shouldn't be a large part of the strategy, but it's not the magic bullet. And the current path for illegals is to walk across the border. Sometimes there are vans on either side to drop them off and pick them up. Like the airport shuttle at the Marriott lol. How about putting a wall up and making that scenario impossible. If they want to dig a tunnel at that point, we'll deal with it then but it goes against all common sense to think that the same number of illegal immigrants will be coming in as they are now.

You can stop your marriott scenario more easily with drones/quick reaction forces than some physical barrier.

That's where the path to citizenship comes in. The ones who are here can register to get a green card. As soon as they get a green card, they are on the tax roles. They're in the system. Illegals who choose not to get a green card will get deported. That's only fair.

Assuming you could find, ID and arrest a vast majority of illegals in this country, that could work, but its a much easier solution to just go after the businesses(especially since there's not a cohort of citizens/legal immigrants who are hard to separate from the illegals that you have to sort through).

Not by itself, but once these illegals become legal and have to pay taxes, yes it does. They go from being a $40B annual burden to a $400B annual revenue stream. Not to mention state and local taxes collected.

That is the ultimate goal, but its a hidden pathway. But you're not reducing any state costs if you make every illegal a citizen.

Those components need not (and should not) be synchronous. You build a wall, drain the market for illegal labor and set up a guest worker program all at the same time. You don't wait on the wall or it renders the guest worker program meaningless.

We're never going to agree on anything here. I almost hope that they try to build a wall so I can laugh when it fails miserably.

If you want to continue this, pm or email me. This is just getting too circular to keep it going into infinity.