Quoted: Quoted: Maybe you missed the fact that they did cost estimates and had budgets for all those things before they started. They may have run over budget on some, but they still had some foggy clue where they were going when they started? Have you gotten to the "foggy clue" point yet? Maybe somethings are just too important to not do.

You have assumed it can be done. First mistake.  You haven't figured out if there are any better alternatives, because you don't know what the first one would cost. Second mistake.

Just a hint -- this is not a sensible way to construct public policy.

I doubt anyone will ever know the true cost in dollars of our war on terror. But most seem to thing it's important. Or are you against that also, since there wan't a projected cost analysis completed to your approval beforehand?

Not quite the same as building a fence and staffing it, OK? You can make reasonable estimates for building fences.

Quoted: Quoted: Who, besides you, said that? I just asked for some figures on what the plan would cost. I guess you have automatically assumed that providing figures for the plan would immediately show that the plan is rather foolish. If that's the case, you are right. And I really don't care. This comes up from time to time. Someone expresses his/ her outrage at our governments inability to do anything and their seeming approval of illegal aliens. There are so many good American lives being destroyed each and every day by illegal aliens. Isreal builds a wall to keep terrorists out. It works and the world comdemns them. We build walls here and there. There is one in CA that was finally built over the objections of some environmental weenies and guess what, it worked!!! Walls work. I know the costs would be worth an America without illegals. My arguement isn't with you in particular, just with any pro-illegal alien do-gooder who would destroy America by telling the emporer his clothes are the finest in all the land.

Whom did you think was a pro-illegal alien do-gooder?  

It is the people who promote policies when they don't have a clue what they cost and haven't taken even five minutes to analyze it who are people destroying America. You got anything against actually analyzing what things would work, and what they cost, before we run off blindly on the first hysterical crusade that comes to mind?

Or is planning and analysis just totally useless in your view?

Quoted: Quoted: Razor wire, not chain link fence.  Since I have no idea the cost of razor wire, I can't give you that number. From what I can find, the cost of razor wire is roughly $1.50 a foot. It has to go on top of a minimum 8-foot fence, which will run you at least $12 per foot. Of course, that isn't the end of it, because that will just give you a fence that any illegal alien could easily burrow under. To solve that problem, you will have to have a concrete base along the entire thing. From rough info on the net, figure that cost at an extra dollar a foot -- for the most minimal concrete base. You can find the length of the border in most any atlas. Yeah, you can, and I have. The point being that you have to have this number before you even start blue-skying about what you might like to do. To help you out, the border with Mexico is about 2500 miles long. The total border is about 20,000 miles long. For the sake of this discussion, let's just stick with the smaller number to give your ideas the best chance possible. Hell, there is no possibility that terrorists would think to come across the Canadian border, anyway. The cost of the fence for the Mexican border alone would be (roughly) $15 per foot, times 5,280 feet, times 2,500 miles == roughly 200 million dollars. For the entire border, at least 1.6 billion for a fence that probably wouldn't stop a determined jackrabbit.

So Cali can build that fence, every year, and have 9.4 Billion more in the state treasury than they have now.

Quoted: Quoted: a functioning international border, fenced and regulated, monitored by non-corrupt police could be a viable solution and yet again the only idea that appeals is to restrict rights of law abiding citizens That has been discussed before here. None of the people in favor of it could explain how many people it would take Less than we have deployed to Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Saudi Arbia and Iraq. how much it would cost Less than the 11 billion a year Cali spends on illegals. or how it could be reasonably accomplished. Volunteers, US Military, National Guard. for example. Right now training for the michigan national Guard consist of going to camp grayling or Fort custer for 2 weeks, drinking a lot of beer and basically screwing around. Better training would be ship them to the border for two weeks a year, give then claymores and live ammo and let them practicse ambushes on the invaders. All NG and reserve training should be done on the border.  It should also be used for all air asset training and they should do it with live ammo. Why waste ammo dropping bombs in the so cal desert when you could be dropping them on coyotes instead?

Nice generalities. I ask of you (once again) if you have any real clue as to the actual numbers.  Can you give us anything besides your half-assed assumptions about the numbers?

If memory serves correctly, this is where you usually drop out of the conversation.

When I went to Walmart, they were out of the armor piercing machine guns; must have had a bayonet...
I think they are just pointing the finger back  to us because we haven't been happy with all their illegals and drugs that they smuggle into USA.  

Quoted: So Cali can build that fence, every year, and have 9.4 Billion more in the state treasury than they have now.

Well, we weren't at the end of costs there, in case you missed that point. That was only the beginning -- for a fence that jackrabbits could penetrate. That was just the beginning -- and not even a fair beginning, at that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: a functioning international border, fenced and regulated, monitored by non-corrupt police could be a viable solution and yet again the only idea that appeals is to restrict rights of law abiding citizens That has been discussed before here. None of the people in favor of it could explain how many people it would take Less than we have deployed to Germany, Okinawa, Korea, Saudi Arbia and Iraq. how much it would cost Less than the 11 billion a year Cali spends on illegals. or how it could be reasonably accomplished. Volunteers, US Military, National Guard. for example. Right now training for the michigan national Guard consist of going to camp grayling or Fort custer for 2 weeks, drinking a lot of beer and basically screwing around. Better training would be ship them to the border for two weeks a year, give then claymores and live ammo and let them practicse ambushes on the invaders. All NG and reserve training should be done on the border.  It should also be used for all air asset training and they should do it with live ammo. Why waste ammo dropping bombs in the so cal desert when you could be dropping them on coyotes instead? Nice generalities. I ask of you (once again) if you have any real clue as to the actual numbers.

The exact numbers dont matter if they are obviously less than the numbers currently being wasted in other areas.
I'm not suggesting spending any more than we currently do.  Just spending it smarter.

So Mexico blames us for the guns that come to it.  We decide to spend the  money to build a huge wall across the boarder to prent illegal activety and they start throwing a fit.  I guess Mexico thinks they have the right to tell us what to do.....fuck'em

Wolfman97 - Just look at the fence that was put up along the border at San Diego.  By all accounts, this fence is a success.  Property values on the U.S. side have actually increased for the first time in, well, forever.  Crime on the Mexico side has decreased dramatically.  People on both sides of the fence are happy that it is there.  The only people actively trying to stop expansion of the fence are environmental extremist that put a gully ahead of national security.  It is a good extimate that this streatch of fence has decreased illeagals entering into San Diego County by about 80%.  

How do we fund a national fence?  Easy, have the Federal Gov't stop doing things that are not in it's charter, and start doing the things that are.

This is what the project might cost:

The southern border is 1,951 miles longThe 14-mile San Diego fence cost $25 million, or $1.7 million per mile [Source: James Goldsborough, San Diego Union-Tribune, February 19, 2004].

The security fence Israel is building on the West Bank also costs about $1.7 million per mile. [Source: ParaPundit.]

Conclusion: At $1.7 million per mile, the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off for $3.3 billion dollars

Juxtaposed to other infrastructure projects, this border fence seems downright puny. The Federal interstate highway system, for example, is about 46,000 miles long. A 1,951-mile border fence would certainly not be more difficult to build than the equivalent length of eight-lane highway. All told there are about 4 million miles of public streets and highways in the U.S. [Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2003, March 2004. Table 1-5.]

And we could easily afford a fence. For perspective, remember that 3.3 billion dollars represents just:

3.2 percent of the $104 billion spent on highway construction annually [Source: National Transportation Statistics 2003, Table 3-29a.]
0.7 percent of the defense budget for FY2004 ($452 billion)
0.14 percent of the entire U.S. Federal budget for FY2004 ($2.3 trillion) [Source: OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government FY2005, Historical Tables, Table 8-4.]
Federal funding may not even be necessary. The state of California has only 140 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. Securing that state’s border with Mexico would thus cost about $238 million. Theoretically, California voters could pass an initiative ordering the fence.

California taxpayers would save millions in social service costs currently incurred on behalf of illegal immigrants—I estimated in 2003 that nearly one quarter of the state’s annual budget deficit, i.e. over $9 billion a year, stemmed directly from immigration.

At the same time, a dwindling supply of illegal workers would raise incomes for native Californians—and boost tax revenues.

The fence would quickly pay for itself.

What are we waiting for?

The above is quoted from:

http://www.usbc.org/profiles/2004profiles/1004fence.htm

We get their illegals they get our guns

Quoted: This is what the project might cost: The southern border is 1,951 miles longThe 14-mile San Diego fence cost $25 million, or $1.7 million per mile [Source: James Goldsborough, San Diego Union-Tribune, February 19, 2004]. The security fence Israel is building on the West Bank also costs about $1.7 million per mile. [Source: ParaPundit.] Conclusion: At $1.7 million per mile, the entire U.S.-Mexican border could be sealed off for $3.3 billion dollars At the same time, a dwindling supply of illegal workers would raise incomes for native Californians—and boost tax revenues. The fence would quickly pay for itself. What are we waiting for? The above is quoted from: http://www.usbc.org/profiles/2004profiles/1004fence.htm

So what you are saying is the entire fence, built entirely out of concrete ~12ft high, would cost less than 1/3 to 1/4 of what California ALONE spends on illegals every year?

Man, if I could just get that rate of return just ONCE in my life, I would invest everything thing I had in it!

And a concrete fence wouldn't need to be staffed with towers every 1/4 mile either. The ongoing operational expenses would be, on a Gov't-budget scale, next to nothing.


Oh, and Wolfie, you don't need the same level of support that you need for military operations in foreign lands. In America, we have things called "grocery stores", "restuarants", "houses" and "apartments".

Its funny in a place that has such strict gun laws that ive been offered to buy a firearm at every market ive ever been into down there.

Quoted: Quoted: Razor wire, not chain link fence.  Since I have no idea the cost of razor wire, I can't give you that number. From what I can find, the cost of razor wire is roughly $1.50 a foot. It has to go on top of a minimum 8-foot fence, which will run you at least $12 per foot. Of course, that isn't the end of it, because that will just give you a fence that any illegal alien could easily burrow under. To solve that problem, you will have to have a concrete base along the entire thing. From rough info on the net, figure that cost at an extra dollar a foot -- for the most minimal concrete base. You can find the length of the border in most any atlas. Yeah, you can, and I have. The point being that you have to have this number before you even start blue-skying about what you might like to do. To help you out, the border with Mexico is about 2500 miles long. The total border is about 20,000 miles long. For the sake of this discussion, let's just stick with the smaller number to give your ideas the best chance possible. Hell, there is no possibility that terrorists would think to come across the Canadian border, anyway. The cost of the fence for the Mexican border alone would be (roughly) $15 per foot, times 5,280 feet, times 2,500 miles == roughly 200 million dollars. For the entire border, at least 1.6 billion for a fence that probably wouldn't stop a determined jackrabbit. If you really want to see what kind of fence they need, take a visit to the border at San Ysidro. I don't know what that one would cost but certainly many times what we are considering here. If you want something really effective, then you ought to be looking at the kind of barrier that was laid down for the Berlin Wall. But, of course, that would be hugely more expensive than anything we are considering here, and it didn't entirely stop people, either. I figure a gun tower every quarter mile (keep in mind, I have no military experience - you may be easily able to spread them out more). OK, then for the Mexican border that would be about 10,000 gun towers, or about 80,000 gun towers if we wanted to really secure the borders.  We already have a bunch of the people required - they're stationed in unappreciative countries around the world, starting with Germany. Figure several guys in each tower, with M2's or miniguns. If I can assume a 1000 mile stretch of border, that comes out to 8000 guys more or less, per shift. When you said "several guys" you really meant two?  I go with your idea that "several guys" per post would be reasonable, but I don't interpret that as "two". But, never mind, let's go with your 8,000 guy per shift estimate. That's 24,000 guys per day, per 1,000 mile stretch of border. Now, that assumes that these guys work 365 days a year. They don't. They get weekends, sick days, and vacations just like everyone else. Therefore, you have to bump that 8,000 figure up at least 25 percent to account for time off. So that leaves us with a nice round number of 10,000 guys per 1,000 miles of border, or ten guys per mile (minimum).   Then, if you study military logistics, you will find that there are usually two or three people in support roles for every person actually standing on the line. You know, truck drivers, cooks, bottle washers, radio operators, managers, mechanics, etc. That brings us up to thirty or forty thousand people per 1,000 miles of border -- thirty or forty people per mile. Military guys would know better how far to space them and how to arm them. That's less than our current deployment in Germany IIRC. The land mines don't eat or take time off. Don't forget to electrify the fence too, and there will be some cost for survalence gear and what not. I still don't see it as cost prohibitive, especially considering the alternative.  I see only politics in the way. Well, let's forget the land mines and electrification for minute and just go with the information from above. (You could expect serious political flack from around the world for land mines, BTW.) If you want to seal the entire border, that would require (minimum) 30 to 40 people per mile -- about 600,000 to 800,000 troops -- most of whom would have the most excruciatingly boring jobs in the world. I looked up the number of US Army troops and found there were about 500,000, with another 700,000 NG troops. So such a deployment would take all of our Army and perhaps half of the NG -- which could then not be used for any other purpose. If you just want to seal the Mexican border (and figure that Mexicans are too stupid to figure out a way around your Maginot line) then that would take about 100,000 troops -- something close to our current deployment in Iraq.  IIRC, I have heard many military experts talking about how we really aren't equipped to do two Iraqs at once and, if we did one of those deployments in our own country then we would be seriously weakened for any other potential deployments overseas. And, of course, we haven't really started adding up the costs, as you have said yourself. Even if we deploy 100,000 troops that wouldn't begin to seal the border. We would still have to have all the electrification, gear that goes with the troops, etc., etc.

Well, considering your estimates, as well as estimates put forth by another poster based on the cost of the Kali fence, if we spent $20 billion or more just to secure the Mexican border (and I mean SECURE), that would be fine with me. There's still the Canadian border to consider too, which would likely be at least another $40 billion.  Fine. Problem solved.  We can easily afford that and more, considering the importance of the matter.


So what is your proposal to deal with the illegal immigration issue?  This makes twice I've asked.

I don't give a fuck what it costs it is money well spent

Quoted: You have assumed it can be done. First mistake.  You haven't figured out if there are any better alternatives, because you don't know what the first one would cost. Second mistake. Just a hint -- this is not a sensible way to construct public policy. Not quite the same as building a fence and staffing it, OK? You can make reasonable estimates for building fences.

Yes. It can be done. China built a little old wall using just people and animals.

Many alternatives. None that say it so well.

It's not about an objective cost alanysis. It's about doing what is right. We didn't do a cost analysis before we decided to stop Germany or Japan in WWII. We commited ourselves to the task. We could stop illegals. We just lack the will.

We will seal the borders in Afganistan and Iraq to protect their people and way of life, but we won't even put up harsh words to mexico to stop a government sanctioned invasion.

You do know that in as little as 40 years the Hispanic population will be the majority ethnic group in America. Mostly due to illegal aliens.

I don't know about you but I don't want to be getting the wrong prescription from my local pharmist because he only speaks spanish.

Where's American inguinity? The cost of building a fence could be cut by hiring the Mexicans to do it. The towers could house infrared actuated machine guns like the ones in Splinter Cell..

Quoted: Whom did you think was a pro-illegal alien do-gooder?   It is the people who promote policies when they don't have a clue what they cost and haven't taken even five minutes to analyze it who are people destroying America. You got anything against actually analyzing what things would work, and what they cost, before we run off blindly on the first hysterical crusade that comes to mind? Or is planning and analysis just totally useless in your view?

Aaa. Well since you've only actually condemned plans to actually do anything as immpossible, I figured your next move was to either call me a dumb-ass or a racist.

Not sure what kind of policy I'm promoting by saying we need to build a wall. I guarantee I've spent more time obsessing over illegals than you have.

I'm sure there are nice ilegals that I wouldn't mind having as a neighbor or relative and I'm equally convinced there are illegals who need killin'. I'm sure there are American's who can't get enough of the illegal for whatever need he or she might have and I'm equally convinced there are American's who would volunteer to do the killin'.

This isn't a blind spur of the moment hysterical crusade that just came to mind. It's been talked about for years.

Planning and analysis have their place, but the people who would build such a wall won't be asking you or I our opinions, so our discussion is only for our own amusement. I've also found out during my time here on earth that politicians never actually care about the cost. They care about votes and power. If one of those congress critters got their mind to it, there would be a wall. We would come up with a way to do it.

Mr vincente foxbrain, you put your foot down and make your country quit exporting crappy weed, other drugs, and dumb as a brick cheap labor, and we will secure our side of THE WALL to keep our constitutionaly protected firearms out of your corrupt violence ridden hell hole that you call home.  The bottom line here is, the gun control in mexico is GOOD for the politikers and cartels who have the most official government ties, as then they are the only ones with a decent armory.  It blows my mind that they can get pissy about US citizens selling them guns to kill each other with all the shit(welfare leeches, criminals) they pour into our nation.  And yes mr fox, go ahead and call me a meanie

Hmmm, did the article writer ever stop to think maybe a bigger problem is that Mexico is filled with scumbags, dirtballs, thugs and douchebags, and has an incredibly corrupt and useless police force, who are generally worse than the criminals, and is led by a big mouthed asshole?

Really, other than good chow and beer (hey I love Corona)....Mexico is one of those countries that if nuked...might be better off.

Fuck Mexico....

Quoted: Actually, I have done it rough estimates at times, as have other people who are far more knowledgeable of the subject than I am. The answer always comes out the same -- you can't afford it. No way, no how.

Can't afford it? We can't afford not to do it. Besides the fact that it would SAVE us money, money shouldn't even be an issue when it comes to sealing the damn border, it is that important to our national security, and hell, even our way of life.

The funniest thing about the article is the unacknowledged fact that gun control in mexico isn't working. That the people who ignore laws are 'big suprise' ignoring the laws to acquire gun to do their evil.

I think it unwise for our national neighbors and some of our own states, cities, counties to blame others for their own misfortune.

I also think it's funny in a tragic way that illegals wake up each and every day breaking the law before they even draw their first breathe of the day while we (I mean the people on this board) piss all over ourselves;

counting the number of us made parts of built guns,
the number of shells in a gun used for hunting,
measure the length of a barrel hoping the measure from here and not there,
is this lead or steel shot for ducks this year,
is this a duty to retreat state,
does my ccw mean my gun is conceled in a vehicle or do the rules change,
hoping to get all the cosmo out of the sks bolt to prevent slamfires or dity-gun-auto-fire,
is this range steel-core/ no steel-core/ no reloads/ pick up brass or no,
is this mag legal in my state,
is this caliber legal in my state,
if I see a gun at a store can I buy it and take it home that day,
can I buy all that I have money for or must I ration my purchases,
is it ammo in back and gun up front or gun in back and ammo up here or both together seperate from driver or both in seperate locations,
will my range get shut down this year,
if my kid talks about my guns at school will we get a visit,
is my CR license bound book up to date,
can I sell just one C&R gun this year,
can I buy a gun for my kid for christmas without it looking like a straw man purchase,
will the atf discover that I have an inert grenade paperweight this year and come knocking,
will I have to draw down today.

I think you get the idea. Gun owners (at least the good ones) tend to be anal retentive about firearm laws with good reason considering the consequences.

Why is it that a bunch of good people who do everything in their power to obey the law have more to worry about from the law enforcement agencies than illegals aliens who break the law each and every day just by being here????

Why do we get our collective panties in a wad over minute details of gun laws while illegals get health care, education, housing, and job centers at our expense???

edited to add:

That's why I don't care how much it costs. I want a wall built. If I can't have a wall I want mexico nuked from orbit, the groung salted, and autonomous HK hunter-killer units deployed to ensure that what used to be the unamed country will never support life ever again. Hell, The military shoud just put a bunch of web cams on those remote atvs and turned them loose on the border armed with machine guns and charge you a fee for so many minutes of controlling them. I'd spend every penny I had playing that game and our borders would be secure.

Quoted: The cost of the fence for the Mexican border alone would be (roughly) $15 per foot, times 5,280 feet, times 2,500 miles == roughly 200 million dollars. For the entire border, at least 1.6 billion for a fence that probably wouldn't stop a determined jackrabbit.

I think you're missing the point about the difficulty of getting through whatever kind of barrier we would errect. It's the same as stopping someone from breaking into your house - you can never make it impossible, but you can make it hard.

No barrier of any sort that we put on the border could stop everyone. But I think that if we make it hard and stop 90% of the illegals, then we've done pretty damm well.

IMHO, machinegun towers is the wrong approach too. It would use up a ton of troops, spread so thin that it would be hard for them to do anything. I'd create rapid reaction forces. Say, 30-40 guys or so in a little base  every 10-20 miles or so. The idea is that the barrier slows people down, and they are detected by technological means. Once they are detected, the troops can roll out to grab them. The numbers would be subject to change by people with actual millitary experience, and based on the local conditions. Then you'd have a more effective force, more prepared to deal with anything thrown at it, and easier to support too. We don't have to make it impossible - just making it hard would probably all but eliminate the problem.

Quoted: Quoted: Actually, I have done it rough estimates at times, as have other people who are far more knowledgeable of the subject than I am. The answer always comes out the same -- you can't afford it. No way, no how. Can't afford it? We can't afford not to do it. Besides the fact that it would SAVE us money, money shouldn't even be an issue when it comes to sealing the damn border, it is that important to our national security, and hell, even our way of life.

IMO

Cost of Not building the wall > Cost of building the wall

Quoted: Quoted: What they found was a large stash of coke and a case of Isreali Uzis, the wooden crate still in the carboard box that said, "Hecho de en Mexico" on its side.   Doesn't it blow that this dirtball gets to have UZIs and we fucking can't.

without paying about 5k and getting fingerprinted photo's taken and a very long wait.
yes it does piss me off.

Quoted: yeah, uh, shut down the border. hey mexico, you should build a wall.

No thanks, it would fall over.

Building a wall would be about as effective at keeping illegals out of the country as banning guns is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Walls have always failed.  The Great Wall was a failure, the Maginot Line was a failure, and the Berlin Wall was a failure.  Pool all your forces along the wall, and they'll come around the ends in boats.  Or they'll fly to Canada and come in from the north.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  

I'm amused, too, at the blithe disregard for such a project's costs.  It's easy to pay for things when it's not your own money, huh?  

New York (Europe in America) is blaming the South and the West for their gun crime, now Mexico is doing the same thing. They are working together, via the UN and WTO, to build a case for banning guns in the US. Another big step closer to eradicating our God-given rights.

Damn, now I sound like a whacko too, but there it is.

With more Mexicans coming into our Country, we eventually will listen and do whatever Mexico wants us to do.  Our president will be Senor Fox for life.  We Americans are turning into Mexicans.
Our guns are useless against political correctness and ACLU.

why build a fence? Dig a mole, put gators in them, then put motion sensors underground with camera poles.  

Building a wall would be about as effective at keeping illegals out of the country as banning guns is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Walls have always failed. The Great Wall was a failure, the Maginot Line was a failure, and the Berlin Wall was a failure. Pool all your forces along the wall, and they'll come around the ends in boats

Well let's take a look at some walls. Hadrian's wall kept the riff raff out of England just fine, The Berlin wall, stopped 99.99% of the east from leaving.  The Maginot line was not breached in the original section that was properly constructed, they surrendered only after exhausting or expending all their supplies.  The cheap, improperly designed section along the Belgian border failed.  The Great Wall of China worked in properly supported and maintained areas and forced armies to re-route or delay, which means it worked.

If they fly to Canada, they got re-routed, delayed and expended money they had not intended so it deterred a large percentage of them. Boats are a delay, cost money, lives and are easier to stop.  A wall is a defensive structure, it is intended to delay and deter the less than determined.  It makes catching them easier, so anything is better than what we have now.

Throwing your hands up and doing nothing is not working worth a shit.  Taking the correct steps and creating a functional system for temp workers to travel here and work then go the hell home is not going to happen with the lazy bastards we elected in office.

As it sits today, damn near anyone or anything can simply wander into the US.  that is a real problem.  

Quoted: Building a wall would be about as effective at keeping illegals out of the country as banning guns is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Walls have always failed.  The Great Wall was a failure, the Maginot Line was a failure, and the Berlin Wall was a failure.  Pool all your forces along the wall, and they'll come around the ends in boats.  Or they'll fly to Canada and come in from the north.  Where there's a will, there's a way.   I'm amused, too, at the blithe disregard for such a project's costs.  It's easy to pay for things when it's not your own money, huh?

it causes friction you increase distance, time  and trouble to get there  it becomes more expensive and there is much  more of a chance of being caught
They are not going to fly to  Canada  and a few boats loads ending around the coast will not have nearly the effect that millons just running arcoss the border does

Quoted: With more Mexicans coming into our Country, we eventually will listen and do whatever Mexico wants us to do.

The point of no return is when the majority of voters are the adult children or grandchildren of illegal immigrants.

Quoted: Building a wall would be about as effective at keeping illegals out of the country as banning guns is at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Walls have always failed.  The Great Wall was a failure, the Maginot Line was a failure, and the Berlin Wall was a failure.  Pool all your forces along the wall, and they'll come around the ends in boats.  Or they'll fly to Canada and come in from the north.  Where there's a will, there's a way.   I'm amused, too, at the blithe disregard for such a project's costs.  It's easy to pay for things when it's not your own money, huh?

The blithe disregard is for the HUGE cost of illegal aliens invading the US with the full support of the US Government

Could have changed the title to read, "Illegals Flow Easily Into U.S. From the Mexico - Robbery, torture, and homicide follow in their wake.

The only thing to really effectively stop illegals is to STOP GIVING THEM JOBS!!!!! Prosecute the employers. Jobs are the only reason 99% of them are here!!!!!
Oh, we won;t do that. You know why? Follow the money folks.

IMHO the Goverment wants the illegal aliens to come here and work. Follow the money. One of the things even a person born here has to have to work is a social security card. They get a fake one, pay into Social Security and NEVER get a penny out. The US makes a ton of money to help float the Social Security  system. That is the main reason they do not try to stop them from comming over.

Point 2

Now that 2 UN countries are complaining about our guns, just watch. They will be doing hearings on the International level to have a excuse to take more of them away from us (US). Or at least stop imports of kits and such.

The most popular instruments of robbery, torture, homicide and assassination in this violence-racked border city are imported from the United States.

America is exporting knives to Mexico?

Quoted: Well let's take a look at some walls. Hadrian's wall kept the riff raff out of England just fine, The Berlin wall, stopped 99.99% of the east from leaving.  The Maginot line was not breached in the original section that was properly constructed, they surrendered only after exhausting or expending all their supplies.  The cheap, improperly designed section along the Belgian border failed.  The Great Wall of China worked in properly supported and maintained areas and forced armies to re-route or delay, which means it worked.

As you said above, walls are at best a delaying tactic, they cannot keep people out indefinitely, and really are best at keeping people within.

If they fly to Canada, they got re-routed, delayed and expended money they had not intended so it deterred a large percentage of them. Boats are a delay, cost money, lives and are easier to stop.  A wall is a defensive structure, it is intended to delay and deter the less than determined.  It makes catching them easier, so anything is better than what we have now.

Given the amount of money that some of these people are paying smugglers to bring them across, a plane flight or a boat trip would be far cheaper.  A wall might delay them, but it will not keep them out.  

Throwing your hands up and doing nothing is not working worth a shit.  Taking the correct steps and creating a functional system for temp workers to travel here and work then go the hell home is not going to happen with the lazy bastards we elected in office. As it sits today, damn near anyone or anything can simply wander into the US.  that is a real problem.

You've set up a straw man.  I never said we shouldn't do anything.  The border has always been porous, but we've never had problems on such a massive scale.  Why is it only in the past 10-20 years that immigration has become so massive?  The main reason is because of the welfare state we've created.  We're paying property taxes out the nose to send illegal immigrants' children to public schools, and your solution is to spend more of my tax money to build a wall to keep them out?  You're flailing at the branches when you should be striking at the root.  End the handouts.

Quoted: it causes friction you increase distance, time  and trouble to get there  it becomes more expensive and there is much  more of a chance of being caught They are not going to fly to  Canada  and a few boats loads ending around the coast will not have nearly the effect that millons just running arcoss the border does

You underestimate their will.  I'm not sure what Canadian visa requirements are like, but I can imagine that their are provisions in NAFTA which allow ease of travel for Mexicans.  Even if they needed a visa, they could always get a transit visa, book a flight to Spain, and then disappear from the airport.  

The number of boats will not be just a few.  I can foresee several hundred boats coming across each night.  How do you intercept all of them?  Can you?  Most likely not.

a) I don't believe this. I think just as many arms come from countries south of mexishito as come from us and

b) even if it's true,    Cry. Me. A. *******.River.

Bitches.

need a longer "open season" on Mara Salvatrucha.

oops.

Quoted: a functioning international border, fenced and regulated, monitored by non-corrupt police could be a viable solution and yet again the only idea that appeals is to restrict rights of law abiding citizens That has been discussed before here. None of the people in favor of it could explain how many people it would take, how much it would cost, or how it could be reasonably accomplished. I bet there are stores in Nuevo Laredo that sell fake green cards, social security cards, birth certificates, stores that sell equipment and maps for sneaking across the border, guides working on store fronts to aid the illegal immigrants, drug traffic, spies and terrorists in their quest to come into the USA. I bet you severely underestimate the size of the illegal immigrant industry.  But "spies and terrorists"????? Better adjust the tin foil hat again. Some harmful rays are getting through.

But "spies and terrorists"??????????

terrorists crossing border
terrorists crossing border
terrorists crossing border

Quoted: sounds like Mexico is trying to be like canada and blame us for their problems.   F..  both of em.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I agree.  Sad day when Americans become American'ts. Yep. Some of these people seem to want us to just lay down and die. To just roll over and leave our homes and spirits open for the use of whomever.  To give away our birth right because it wasn't fair. They seem to want to us to forget that we are the beneficiaries of the greater people that came before us. I feel a stewardship to that American greatness, so that my kids and their kids may enjoy the America that I've enjoyed. We have this country because it was given to us by our for fathers. Fair and Square. Now I feel very slightly sorry for the loosing sides in history. Very mildy sorry for them in a detatched distanced academic sort of way. I feel no pity, no sorry, nor would I feel any remorse or guilt in killing the MFers that would take or give away what is ours. Who, besides you, said that? I just asked for some figures on what the plan would cost. I guess you have automatically assumed that providing figures for the plan would immediately show that the plan is rather foolish. If that's the case, you are right.

Since when is protecting this country foolish??????????Oh by the way I buy barb wire and I know it would be one HELL of a lot cheaper to buy the wire and built the fence than allow this illegal invasion from Mexico. Your attitude of not being able to do anything about this invasion is pathetic to say the least. Whats your personal interest in the flow of illegals invaders.

PAY ATTENTION to the several threads of this type that have popped up. This is the NEW slant to the liberals old agenda. There have been a miriad of articles saying the same crap and this is how they are going to push their agenda

If i lived in mexico i would be getting my guns from some other place, like a place that had full autos readily avalible.

Sure it has nothing with the low-lifes in Mexico.  Why don't those guns cause the same significant number of problems here where they are much easier to get?


Guns are the essential tools of a war among underworld crime syndicates that claimed between 1,400 and 2,500 lives in 2005, according to tallies by various newspapers and magazines.


So what's the problem?

How could ANYTHING flow south against that flow of illegals?