Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 9/5/2006 4:10:23 AM EST
Ok, as some of you guys know, I am most certainly NOT a supporter of attempting to physicaly secure the US-Mexico border... Of course, most folks who don't bother to think it thru knee-jerk to this position when discussing illegal immigration...

Worse, they tend to see the Administration's refusal to build said wall as a 'failure' and a mark against the President...

Now, before we start, I am in NO WAY defending or advocating illegal immigration. I just see it as OBVIOUS that the 'solution' is supply-side enforcement, namely cracking down on the supply of jobs, to make the US a less attractive place to illegally reside in, and to make the illegals migrate elsewhere!!!

So, here's a look at why it just won't goddamn work!

First, on 'the wall' itself:

1) An effective barrier CANNOT be a wire fence of any kind, electrified or not. Any idiot can cut a hole in a fence, weather or not it is electrified - and they will.

2) Any idiot can dig a hole under said fence. Countering this will at least double the cost, and they will still be able to dig under that.

3) If you use a solid wall (steel or concrete), the cost goes up again... And you still have to double-size it to reduce digging....

4) And of course, you need the cost of eminent domain to sieze all that private land next to the border... Plus infastructure to support the fence (a road running the entire 2,000 mile distance, stations/bases for the patrol force, etc)...

Now, we've spent our $8 BN AT LEAST on our little fence...

But a fence alone is useless. We have to patrol it...

So now, let's look at manpower - THE GUARD FORCE:

Assuming we give each patrol a 1/2 mile stretch, and we have 2,000 miles of border, that means you need 4,000 2-man (minumum) teams...

That's 8,000 men... Now, we need to run shifts... 4 shifts per day = 32,000... So that's your bare-minimum force of actual 'boots on the ground'. This is not a 'men in guard towers' scenario - that would be in the millions... This is 2 guys in a squad car or HMMWV patrolling the damn wall...

Now, for every 40 men, let's say (using a military model of organization, since it's an easy one to understand) you need 5 low-to-mid level supervisors... And we'll say 2 more leadership for every 4 45-man units, plus a 10-man 'QRF' or 'SRT' in case there are 'issues' that one of the 2 guard patrol teams can't handle... 6400 more...

So now, 38400 'line' personell... Now add support (say, 4 to 1 ratio for clerks, 'brass', mechanics, supply, etc), and you get 153,600 personell...

All this adds billions more in cost... They need to be paid, and recieve benefits... If you can magically get 5 more divisions of troops to join the service, they will need bases, housing, food, etc... Otherwise, they're civillians, who need competitive salaries and benefits...

WHERE is the government going to get 153,600 people willing to do one of the world's crappiest LE jobs (guard a little bitty strip of land all day, in all manner of conditions, for shit pay and a huge potential for graft/corruption). Not from the Army or Marines - that's 5 divisions worth of personell, we only have 9 available if you assume 2ID stays in Korea 'till hell freezes over (3x1ST, 3RD, 4TH, 10TH, 25TH, 82ND, 101ST)... And of course, we have major international committments that we need these troops to attend to... The stuff they're trained for, and joined up to do - eg killing bad guys & winning wars... Not chasing tumbleweeds and getting bribed to let things go past (corruption is 100% ensured in any border patrol force - there is no way to stop it)... Most of the combat arms folks would probably volunteer to go back to Iraq before they'd do a boder rotation, if it ever came to that...

The above gives you MINIMUM security on the border.... It will stop random crossers, but the coyotes will still get people thru...

So once again, I say...

IT IS NOT REALISTICALLY FEASIBLE TO PHYSICALLY SECURE THE BORDER. NO WAY IN HELL

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:12:10 AM EST
The Great Wall of China seemed to work. I like that coupled with minefields and machinegun nests for our southern border.

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:13:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 4:14:11 AM EST by fight4yourrights]
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:15:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


No but shooting a would be thief sure makes a hell of a deterrent!

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:16:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 4:17:31 AM EST by MTUSA]

Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
The Great Wall of China seemed to work. I like that coupled with minefields and machinegun nests for our southern border.


Create a no mans land between a sub- fence and the real wall with gun towers
every 100 yards. if you get serious, you get results. If you dare venture into no mans land, see ya'

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:18:34 AM EST
Sure it is. You don't need a wall across the entire border; many parts are remote enough that you could get by with some camera-laden drones (lighter-than-air craft that can stay up for weeks at a time, not Predators) and depots with chase teams.

You only need the wall in areas that see heavy traffic. This, obviously, is not the entire length of the border. Building, patrolling, and maintaining this smaller section is most certainly feasible.

The true approach needs to be three-pronged, though. First, securing the border via limited walls, drones, and more agents. Second, attacking those who hire illegals in the courts, making them face fines and potential jail time for severe offenders. Third, removing the taxpayer-funded incentives such as free emergency-room care, free schooling, and all other assistance programs that don't require proof of citizenship, which the illegals abuse. With these actions, the problems would be fixed; all we need is to elect leaders who will implement such programs.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:19:26 AM EST
No insult intended but do you realize that our .gov spends more time, effort, and money to secure Iraq's borders than our own?

That fact tells us where their priorities are.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:20:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive


So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


I agree with what you said. Anything that we try is better than nothing at all.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:21:20 AM EST
Funny we have a great example in Korea.

If I recall, there are tons of anti personal and anti tank mines at the DMZ.

Put up a fence, post signs in Spanish and Arabic. Danger, Danger, Danger, live mines.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:23:17 AM EST
Dave_A.

You got a point. What we need to do is remove the demand from the supply and demand.

Stop hiring illegals. Once demand stops, the supply will look elsewhere.

Worth a thought, you know enforce the laws already on the books.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:24:18 AM EST
We want to build a wall because we want to prevent ourselves from being in a situation where immediate and deadly force is required to stop border crossings. At some point we will get over that and militarize the border entirely.

Your proposal assumes that we will patrol the border using 20th century techniques. A smaller rapid reaction force deploying from fast jeeps or helicopters, and vectored in by UAVs like the Predator can surveil a large swath of territory at once and adequately protect it without your "five divisions" of manpower.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:31:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?
Hell no we get are friends to help us patrol. We install machine gun nest and cameras. We also give hourly updates on Arfcom.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:33:24 AM EST
So it will cost $8 billion. The cost of medical and welfare for illegals could EASILY exceed that. Then you have to ask "How much would another terrorist attack cost us?" We have no choice logically but to secure our borders. NOT going to happen though.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:38:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
The Great Wall of China seemed to work. I like that coupled with minefields and machinegun nests for our southern border.


Create a no mans land between a sub- fence and the real wall with gun towers
every 100 yards. if you get serious, you get results. If you dare venture into no mans land, see ya'



100 yards is a waste max effective range of a M-240 is 1800 meters you could make it every 500 meters and the two machine guns could still have intersecting fields of fire that would cover the area and have one man with a scoped rifle and you'd be good. .50 cal has a feather range but is much slower so shoot. You could also just place two mini-guns about 1000 meters from each other and you'd have the area with a nice intersecting fields of fire.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:40:52 AM EST
"Impossible" to build a wall and secure the border?

Nonsense. If the chinese could do, then we can do it. As previously pointed out, Iraq has more secure borders than we do. Something is wrong with this picture. Funding and enforcing immigration laws is EXACTLY what needs to happen, even if it takes a wall, a fence, and 100,000 people. THAT is one of the few things that the federal gov't is actually tasked with doing.

A few other solutions will help, too:

1. Open season on illegal aliens crossing the border. If you own border land, and see illegals coming across, you're legal to shoot them. No questions asked.

2. Prosecuting them for SS fraud. I'm amazed at how huge of a problem this has become, and you see it constantly on "60 minutes" types of shows. Yet they don't mention that illegal aliens are the main problem.

3. Allowing local police to enforce immigration laws. When my illegal alien neighbors across the street attract the police, every other weekend, why aren't they being hauled away for committing a federal crime?

4. Punish those who promote/help/harbor illegal alien activites. This ranges from strict penalties for hiring illegal aliens, to groups like La Raza, ACLU, and churches that endorse criminal activity such as this.

The bottom line is, if we REALLY wanted to do something about it, we could. And we would.
This isn't rocket science.

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:43:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By tayous1:

Originally Posted By MTUSA:

Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
The Great Wall of China seemed to work. I like that coupled with minefields and machinegun nests for our southern border.


Create a no mans land between a sub- fence and the real wall with gun towers
every 100 yards. if you get serious, you get results. If you dare venture into no mans land, see ya'



100 yards is a waste max effective range of a M-240 is 1800 meters you could make it every 500 meters and the two machine guns could still have intersecting fields of fire that would cover the area and have one man with a scoped rifle and you'd be good. .50 cal has a feather range but is much slower so shoot. You could also just place two mini-guns about 1000 meters from each other and you'd have the area with a nice intersecting fields of fire.


Where do the gunners come from?

See numbers above...

5 divisions worth of personell to patrol WITHOUT towers...

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:44:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 4:50:35 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


Most folks just lock the door and trust that no one will come in...

No moats, mines, or special fences... No patrols... No gun towers...

And we haven't 'removed the front door' - that would be disbanding ICE entirely... Which is not on the menu...

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:48:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
No insult intended but do you realize that our .gov spends more time, effort, and money to secure Iraq's borders than our own?

That fact tells us where their priorities are.



Yeah, we could REALLY apply that paralell to the illegal immigration scenario...

What do you want us to do, 'secure' the border by invading Mexico?

There is a big difference between fighting a war in a country and border patrol duty...

And they aren't doing any of the things you guys are talking about here, in Iraq...



Iraq is a vital military mission critical to our long-term strategy for dealing with terrorisim...

The sort of border-wall proposals you guys are advocating is simply a huge waste of money that would accomplish very little for the cost invested....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:49:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


1 house is a hell of alot easier to secure than a nation with a 2,000 mile border...

Again... 5 divisions of personell...

From where?


Once again - your argument is a straw man. You need five divisions if you are going to use nothing more sophisticated than a jeep and a rifle. Do you have any idea how much border can be covered by one Predator or similar UAV? Have those patrol the border and you can have smaller rapid reaction forces (in helicopters, jeeps, as you wish) to intercept border crossers. This is feasible since the UAVs can look sideways and not just down - the illegals and coyotes can be seen coming miles away.

Let the reaction forces round up whoever makes it through the minefield.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:49:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 4:52:26 AM EST by Backstop]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
IT IS NOT REALISTICALLY FEASIBLE TO PHYSICALLY SECURE THE BORDER. NO WAY IN HELL


Not gonna read the whole thread now - will later. But your quote above says it all.

This nation can do anything its Govt sets its mind to.

Desire and effort are directly proportional.

Problem is, our Govt doesn't WANT to.



Link Posted: 9/5/2006 4:51:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By peasant:
So it will cost $8 billion. The cost of medical and welfare for illegals could EASILY exceed that. Then you have to ask "How much would another terrorist attack cost us?" We have no choice logically but to secure our borders. NOT going to happen though.


That's the wall...

Without guards...

Which will be demolished, and tunneled under within the first month...

Read the rest of the post...
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:02:40 AM EST
Illegals cost us over 5 billion a year here in California. Build a wall like Israel has on the Palestine side. Eminent domain? Those farmers and ranchers would LOVE to have a wall.

Eric
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:04:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
The true approach needs to be three-pronged, though. First, securing the border via limited walls, drones, and more agents. Second, attacking those who hire illegals in the courts, making them face fines and potential jail time for severe offenders. Third, removing the taxpayer-funded incentives such as free emergency-room care, free schooling, and all other assistance programs that don't require proof of citizenship, which the illegals abuse. With these actions, the problems would be fixed; all we need is to elect leaders who will implement such programs.


I would say it would be easier than that.

Remove the free healthcare, schools, and tax payer services. Arrest, fine, and deport any illegal caught for any small infraction.

If you make being in this country illegally a big pain in the ass then people will be less likely to do it. Currently what happens to an illegal caught driving without a license or car insurance? Nothing. Maybe their $500 car is impounded but nothing happens to them. They buy another $500 car and they are back on the roads. Put them in jail for awhile, fine them, and ship them back to Mexico. Now they lost their car, their job, their money, and they are back in Mexico with no easy way to get back to where they were in the US. If they know that every time they get caught for a little infraction in the US they lose everything, get uprooted, and sent back to Mexico then they will start to rethink about coming here in the first place.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:05:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 5:06:53 AM EST by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:06:07 AM EST
One solution is to dump all the nuclear waste on the border and let them cross. Solve the problem.

Another is to start shooting as they cross and the illegals trying to cross will drop dramatically.

Elect a president who cares and enfore all laws and the illegal criminals will go home.

A fence and guards stops criminals from escaping so your comments a wall and guards will not stop them is idiotic.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:07:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 5:09:44 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


1 house is a hell of alot easier to secure than a nation with a 2,000 mile border...

Again... 5 divisions of personell...

From where?


Once again - your argument is a straw man. You need five divisions if you are going to use nothing more sophisticated than a jeep and a rifle Or if you are going to post men in guard towers with MGs, or any of the other proposals people put up here (read your fellow posters in this thread)..... Do you have any idea how much border can be covered by one Predator or similar UAV? More, but not that much more, and it varies with weather, temperature (FLIR) and such. Each aircraft could probably cover a 5mi stretch if we're talking constant surveillance Have those patrol the border and you can have smaller rapid reaction forces (in helicopters, jeeps, as you wish) to intercept border crossers. This is feasible since the UAVs can look sideways and not just down - the illegals and coyotes can be seen coming miles away. But the UAVs still need operators - they are not robots, they are 'flown' from the ground. And maintanance crews, and bases (or space on Air Force installations).... Cost goes up (aircraft, crews, maintanance, and a higher caliber of airmobile guard vs joe blow with a 9mm in a hummer), personell numbers come down (but still prohibitive, in the 30,000+ range)...

Let the reaction forces round up whoever makes it through the minefield.We'd never get away with that, and you know it. Mines are out - they're close to being illegal even for military deployment (LLW). Our new AP mine systems all have 'expiration' timers that go 'boom' after a set time



Your plan is a bit better thought out than most...

But it's still too many personell, and EXTERMELY expensive...

And no one (not even you) has bothered to come up with a solution for how to get people to do the above job, since the military can't spare 'em (and it would kill our combat readiness if they did), and there's no other occupation where people are contractually obligated to do whatever they are told for 3+ years, no out... The only solution is to pay huge salaries, and even then you have to deal with the corruption issue (less so with the UAV system than the old-style one...)
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:09:39 AM EST
I bet you would have THOUSANDS of volunteers willing to patrol it...FOR FREE.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:10:13 AM EST
Just curious Dave_A: Are you Active Duty military?
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:14:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By alaman:
One solution is to dump all the nuclear waste on the border and let them cross. Solve the problem.

Another is to start shooting as they cross and the illegals trying to cross will drop dramatically.

Elect a president who cares and enfore all laws and the illegal criminals will go home.

A fence and guards stops criminals from escaping so your comments a wall and guards will not stop them is idiotic.


Oh yeah, you're a real winner here, eh??

NUCLEAR WASTE? You do realize that would contaminate the ground water of US and Mexican citizens alike? Great idea - let's give our own people cancer just to create an obstacle to illegal immigrants... And when we get sued by the Mexican government for the pollution (yes, they can do that under treaties in place - they allready have WRT diversion of the Colorado river), what then?

Start shooting them? Ignoring the legal ramifications here (shooting another countries citizens on sight just for being on your land is a MAJOR no-no, as far as human rights issues), we don't have the people available (see above)....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:14:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


1 house is a hell of alot easier to secure than a nation with a 2,000 mile border...

Again... 5 divisions of personell...

From where?


Once again - your argument is a straw man. You need five divisions if you are going to use nothing more sophisticated than a jeep and a rifle Or if you are going to post men in guard towers with MGs, or any of the other proposals people put up here (read your fellow posters in this thread)..... Do you have any idea how much border can be covered by one Predator or similar UAV? More, but not that much more, and it varies with weather, temperature (FLIR) and such. Each aircraft could probably cover a 5mi stretch if we're talking constant surveillance Have those patrol the border and you can have smaller rapid reaction forces (in helicopters, jeeps, as you wish) to intercept border crossers. This is feasible since the UAVs can look sideways and not just down - the illegals and coyotes can be seen coming miles away. But the UAVs still need operators - they are not robots, they are 'flown' from the ground. And maintanance crews, and bases (or space on Air Force installations).... Cost goes up (aircraft, crews, maintanance, and a higher caliber of airmobile guard vs joe blow with a 9mm in a hummer), personell numbers come down (but still prohibitive, in the 30,000+ range)...

Let the reaction forces round up whoever makes it through the minefield.We'd never get away with that, and you know it. Mines are out - they're close to being illegal even for military deployment (LLW). Our new AP mine systems all have 'expiration' timers that go 'boom' after a set time



Your plan is a bit better thought out than most...

But it's still too many personell, and EXTERMELY expensive...

And no one (not even you) has bothered to come up with a solution for how to get people to do the above job, since the military can't spare 'em (and it would kill our combat readiness if they did), and there's no other occupation where people are contractually obligated to do whatever they are told for 3+ years, no out... The only solution is to pay huge salaries, and even then you have to deal with the corruption issue (less so with the UAV system than the old-style one...)


Well, my idea is a start. If some idiot sitting on his couch can think of something simple like that in 60 seconds I figure that the entire country could figure out something even better.

Note that I think cutting off the illegals' jobs is the single best strategy but there needs to be a physical containment dimension to the policy as well.

I also think that we are never going to have the will to fix this problem until we have the will to not worry about "getting away" with putting down land mines to physically defend our own country!
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:15:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
The true approach needs to be three-pronged, though. First, securing the border via limited walls, drones, and more agents. Second, attacking those who hire illegals in the courts, making them face fines and potential jail time for severe offenders. Third, removing the taxpayer-funded incentives such as free emergency-room care, free schooling, and all other assistance programs that don't require proof of citizenship, which the illegals abuse. With these actions, the problems would be fixed; all we need is to elect leaders who will implement such programs.


I would say it would be easier than that.

Remove the free healthcare, schools, and tax payer services. Arrest, fine, and deport any illegal caught for any small infraction.

If you make being in this country illegally a big pain in the ass then people will be less likely to do it. Currently what happens to an illegal caught driving without a license or car insurance? Nothing. Maybe their $500 car is impounded but nothing happens to them. They buy another $500 car and they are back on the roads. Put them in jail for awhile, fine them, and ship them back to Mexico. Now they lost their car, their job, their money, and they are back in Mexico with no easy way to get back to where they were in the US. If they know that every time they get caught for a little infraction in the US they lose everything, get uprooted, and sent back to Mexico then they will start to rethink about coming here in the first place.


EXACTLY MY POINT!

That is the solution, not some El-Paso Line (ala the Maginot Line, which did such a GREAT job keeping the Germans out of France)....

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:17:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 5:20:57 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By sterling18:
Funny we have a great example in Korea.

If I recall, there are tons of anti personal and anti tank mines at the DMZ.

Put up a fence, post signs in Spanish and Arabic. Danger, Danger, Danger, live mines.


Trust me, if the DPRK's people wanted to come south, the DMZ wouldn't stop 'em...

The only thing keeping them in NK is a tyrannical government that will kill them and punish their families if they try to leave...

Further, the DMZ is a very SMALL border... Under 100mi...

Keeping that one splotch of land as 'The world's most militarized border' has 8th US Army (2ID plus supporing units) tied up pretty good, PLUS most of ROKA (the S. Korean Army)....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:18:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Backstop:
Just curious Dave_A: Are you Active Duty military?


Yes, I am...

2ID, Camp Humphreys, Korea....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:19:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
No insult intended but do you realize that our .gov spends more time, effort, and money to secure Iraq's borders than our own?

That fact tells us where their priorities are.



Yeah, we could REALLY apply that paralell to the illegal immigration scenario...

What do you want us to do, 'secure' the border by invading Mexico?

There is a big difference between fighting a war in a country and border patrol duty...

And they aren't doing any of the things you guys are talking about here, in Iraq...



Iraq is a vital military mission critical to our long-term strategy for dealing with terrorisim...

The sort of border-wall proposals you guys are advocating is simply a huge waste of money that would accomplish very little for the cost invested....


We aren't securing their border by invading their neighbors.

Our country is the most critical thing we have to protect.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:20:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Worse, they tend to see the Administration's refusal to build said wall as a 'failure' and a mark against the President...

Now, before we start, I am in NO WAY defending or advocating illegal immigration. I just see it as OBVIOUS that the 'solution' is supply-side enforcement, namely cracking down on the supply of jobs, to make the US a less attractive place to illegally reside in, and to make the illegals migrate elsewhere!!!


This Administration, along with the last several, HAVE FAILED to secure the border and protect this country. These Administrations have also FAILED to enforce the immigration laws. It's painfully obvious the powers that be don't give a shit about the average American. The globalists want open borders. It's good for business.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:21:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?


Worth saying again.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:22:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?



Well said.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:23:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By rugerp345:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Worse, they tend to see the Administration's refusal to build said wall as a 'failure' and a mark against the President...

Now, before we start, I am in NO WAY defending or advocating illegal immigration. I just see it as OBVIOUS that the 'solution' is supply-side enforcement, namely cracking down on the supply of jobs, to make the US a less attractive place to illegally reside in, and to make the illegals migrate elsewhere!!!


This Administration, along with the last several, HAVE FAILED to secure the border and protect this country. These Administrations have also FAILED to enforce the immigration laws. It's painfully obvious the powers that be don't give a shit about the average American. The globalists want open borders. It's good for business.


Since you can't possibly physically secure the border (in a military sense), how can they be wrong for failing to do the impossible...

Not one poster has come up with a feasible solution... The best so far has been a less-impossible one (UAVs and airmobile QRF, requiring, say, 1 division worth of (much more highly trained and expensive) personell (30,000 or so) plus expensive equipment and parts)....

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:25:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By pyro6988:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?



Well said.


"But they only come here to receive the welfare benefits that proud & gainfully employed Americans refuse to receive."
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:27:23 AM EST
A wall in and of itself is not the solution. It is part of the solution. Walls and other security measures suggested here (like some UAVs) at high-traffic areas of the border along with stricter penalties for those supporting illegal immigration and enforcement of laws already in place combined with removing incentives for illegally immigrating to the US will see the best results.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:27:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 5:28:06 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
No insult intended but do you realize that our .gov spends more time, effort, and money to secure Iraq's borders than our own?

That fact tells us where their priorities are.



Yeah, we could REALLY apply that paralell to the illegal immigration scenario...

What do you want us to do, 'secure' the border by invading Mexico?

There is a big difference between fighting a war in a country and border patrol duty...

And they aren't doing any of the things you guys are talking about here, in Iraq...



Iraq is a vital military mission critical to our long-term strategy for dealing with terrorisim...

The sort of border-wall proposals you guys are advocating is simply a huge waste of money that would accomplish very little for the cost invested....


We aren't securing their border by invading their neighbors.

Our country is the most critical thing we have to protect.


The thing is, we're not 'securing the borders' of Iraq - we invaded Iraq and are attempting to secure the entire country.... Mostly by concentrating on key urban areas....

We are certainly NOT implementing any of the 'border security' proposals featured here (except a little of the UAV/QRF approach, or the well-known 'POO hunt' air patrols (POO = Point Of Origin - using FLIR on tactical strike aircraft to track insurgents to a bomb-able target)...)
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:30:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By rugerp345:

Originally Posted By pyro6988:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
It is impossible to secure your home against robbery.


Any lock can be defeated

Any door can be breached

Any window can be opened

The manpower to patrol your home 24/7 would be prohibitive

So, do we give up, remove our front door, and put out lemonade for home intruders?



Well said.


"But they only come here to receive the welfare benefits that proud & gainfully employed Americans refuse to receive."


That has nothing to do with the strategic/tactical issues inherant to a 'physical security' based plan...

IT'S AMAZING HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT A WALL, YOU'RE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The fact is, the wall approach is just a waste of time and money...

The only one that will work is CUTTING OFF THE SUPPLY OF EMPLOYMENT, thus making them 'migrate' elsewhere....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:34:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:

I also think that we are never going to have the will to fix this problem until we have the will to not worry about "getting away" with putting down land mines to physically defend our own country!


The days when a 1st world power (let alone the USA) can get away with deploying military weapons against civillian targets are over...

If there was a legitmate threat of military invasion from the south, perminant mines would be a hard sell, but possible...

But mines aimed ENTIRELY at foreign CIVILLIANS? The shit directed at Israel for bombing Lebanon would be minor in comparison...

Think about it....
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:34:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By rugerp345:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Worse, they tend to see the Administration's refusal to build said wall as a 'failure' and a mark against the President...

Now, before we start, I am in NO WAY defending or advocating illegal immigration. I just see it as OBVIOUS that the 'solution' is supply-side enforcement, namely cracking down on the supply of jobs, to make the US a less attractive place to illegally reside in, and to make the illegals migrate elsewhere!!!


This Administration, along with the last several, HAVE FAILED to secure the border and protect this country. These Administrations have also FAILED to enforce the immigration laws. It's painfully obvious the powers that be don't give a shit about the average American. The globalists want open borders. It's good for business.


Since you can't possibly physically secure the border (in a military sense), how can they be wrong for failing to do the impossible...

Not one poster has come up with a feasible solution... The best so far has been a less-impossible one (UAVs and airmobile QRF, requiring, say, 1 division worth of (much more highly trained and expensive) personell (30,000 or so) plus expensive equipment and parts)....



Dave, did I say "PHYSICALLY" secure the border ? No, I did not. This debate is pointless. Is the White House secure ? Yes, because the .GOV wants it secured. Is our Nation secured ? No, because the .GOV wants it unsecured. The American people want the border and this nation secured. But the people have no power. And the INVASION continues. I would call that a FAILURE !!!
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:46:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:

I also think that we are never going to have the will to fix this problem until we have the will to not worry about "getting away" with putting down land mines to physically defend our own country!


The days when a 1st world power (let alone the USA) can get away with deploying military weapons against civillian targets are over...

If there was a legitmate threat of military invasion from the south, perminant mines would be a hard sell, but possible...

But mines aimed ENTIRELY at foreign CIVILLIANS? The shit directed at Israel for bombing Lebanon would be minor in comparison...

Think about it....


i think you may have missed the point. until we stop trying to be PC and stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about how we run our country, we will never solve this problem.
and
in the past 10 years the mexican military has made more than 200 incursions into US territory. so its not ENTIRELY civilian targets.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:49:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
The Great Wall of China seemed to work. I like that coupled with minefields and machinegun nests for our southern border.


Minefields against civilians is overkill and will never have the support of the American public-at-large.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:52:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2006 5:52:52 AM EST by fight4yourrights]
When a nation fails to secure its borders it ceases to be a sovereign nation
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:52:38 AM EST
For those that believe the border cannot be secured...

Google "Gatekeeper"

Illegal entries dropped by 80% in the San Diego area when, walls. lights and extra agents made illegal entry through San Diego Co very difficult.

The entire section did not need to be fenced as much is desert.
Of course, liberals cried when the illegals started dying in the desert,
or in the mountain show.

The fencing used is old metal runways.
I've yet to have seen it cut through, or dug under.

Once again it the defeatist attitude "Oh, we can't stop illegals or close the borders"
that keeps anything from being accomplished.

It's also the ignorant idiots in Washington DC that refuse to make any sort of
worthwhile effort to stop or even control the problem.

Sure, you can try and impose sanction on employers.
But every time that's been tried, it's been a dismal failure.
How do you prove that an employer knew the green card he was shown by an illegal was fake?
The same goes for Driver's Licenses and Social Security Cards.

Nope, I disagree.
Walls and fences have/do work and could be a big part of a reasonable deterrent to illegal entries.
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 5:57:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By s1rGr1nG0:
I bet you would have THOUSANDS of volunteers willing to patrol it...FOR FREE.


i would go "varminting" on the border every other weekend at least
Link Posted: 9/5/2006 6:02:06 AM EST
Obstacles must be covered by observation and by fire.

This was true in Sun Tzu's day, it is true today.

Link Posted: 9/5/2006 6:03:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
When a nation fails to secure its borders it ceases to be a sovereign nation


+1 I think this nation is f^cked. The Illegals will get to stay when the .GOV grants amnesty. The question is "How much more $$$$ the .GOV wants from the American taxpayer?" Personally, I'm all tapped out- if I want to maintain my current modest lifestyle. I don't ask anything from the .GOV and they shouldn't ask anything from me. And I don't buy into that whole "the US military is protecting my freedom" bullshit. I protect MY OWN FREEDOM. If the ChiComs, Russians, or Islamofacists invaded the CONUS, the only thing I have to lose is my life. However, the Fortune 500 companies have infinitely more to lose to a hostile invasion. And this "peaceful" Mexican invasion benefits them. That's why it continues.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top