North Carolina Voting - and Consistency

[JimL]

And yet when you ask border patrol and customs agents and the like they almost universally support building a wall. Go figure.

Would a wall stop you under such circumstances. I doubt it. You can go under walls, over walls or around walls (by sea). But regardless of the effectiveness of a wall, most of the immigrants illegally in the U.S. are here as a result of overstaying their visas, not because of illegal entry. A wall is not going to stop that. Not to mention the fact that the reason Trump got elected is because his campaign promise to you was that "Mexico would pay for the wall."

[Starlight]

And yet when you ask border patrol and customs agents and the like they almost universally support building a wall. Go figure.

You're so full of it.

No wall, but more high-tech gear, fencing sought by U.S. border agents:

Federal agents who patrol the U.S. border with Mexico want 23 more miles of fences, better radios and more aerial drones to tighten the southern frontier...

The modest scope of the requirements, details of which were contained in internal emails seen by Reuters and described by Border Patrol officials in interviews, contrasts sharply with calls by Republican presidential candidates for more drastic measures to secure the border.

:



It takes about 5 seconds on google to find media interviews with various Border Patrol agents. And the consistent statements they make are that they want more sensors, cameras, drones and electronic surveillance equipment. Because the way they operate across the vast vast miles of the border is not to try and stop the people physically crossing the border in the middle of nowhere (and a taller wall would just mean that people bring a ladder or rope) but rather that the surveillance cameras alert them to the illegal crossings and they track the group and then intercept them when the group reaches a road or hospitable terrain. And, as one officer I watched noted, buying the fake documents necessary to pass legally through a port of entry isn't actually all that expensive for them anyway, so plenty probably get in that way.

So it seems that Border Patrol officers only want about 23 miles worth of actual fence upgrades. For the rest of the 2000 mile border, a physical barrier isn't the relevant part, and a Wall isn't going to be much help.

[Bill the Cat]

Existing undocumented immigrants: Many of us believe that these people have set roots here because of a combination of factors, including our poor immigration laws and border defense. Arguing to give these people a path to citizen ship does not translate to "just open the borders." Most argue that we should do what Reagan attempted to do in the 1980s, only do it right this time. I happen to be one of those. I advocate to give the existing people in the U.S. and arduous path to citizenship (more than the normal path to allow for their illegal entry), and then tighten border security and adopt a "from this point on no more" stance.

You're in the minority of Dems and liberals. From the June Harvard-Harris poll

[Bill the Cat]

You're so full of it.

No wall, but more high-tech gear, fencing sought by U.S. border agents:

Federal agents who patrol the U.S. border with Mexico want 23 more miles of fences, better radios and more aerial drones to tighten the southern frontier...

The modest scope of the requirements, details of which were contained in internal emails seen by Reuters and described by Border Patrol officials in interviews, contrasts sharply with calls by Republican presidential candidates for more drastic measures to secure the border.

:



It takes about 5 seconds on google to find media interviews with various Border Patrol agents. And the consistent statements they make are that they want more sensors, cameras, drones and electronic surveillance equipment. Because the way they operate across the vast vast miles of the border is not to try and stop the people physically crossing the border in the middle of nowhere (and a taller wall would just mean that people bring a ladder or rope) but rather that the surveillance cameras alert them to the illegal crossings and they track the group and then intercept them when the group reaches a road or hospitable terrain. And, as one officer I watched noted, buying the fake documents necessary to pass legally through a port of entry isn't actually all that expensive for them anyway, so plenty probably get in that way.

So it seems that Border Patrol officers only want about 23 miles worth of actual fence upgrades. For the rest of the 2000 mile border, a physical barrier isn't the relevant part, and a Wall isn't going to be much help.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/

[Bill the Cat]

Would a wall stop you under such circumstances. I doubt it.

Will a lock on your door stop an intruder under certain circumstances? So why do you lock your doors at night?

You can go under walls, over walls or around walls (by sea).

And we have ground sonar technology and border patrol to stop them at those bottlenecks.

But regardless of the effectiveness of a wall, most of the immigrants illegally in the U.S. are here as a result of overstaying their visas, not because of illegal entry.

Which is a fault of those monitoring those here on a visa. That has nothing to do with those who storm the border, so it isn't relevant to this discussion.

A wall is not going to stop that. Not to mention the fact that the reason Trump got elected is because his campaign promise to you was that "Mexico would pay for the wall."

No it isn't. He got elected for various things - the wall being a single issue.

[Cow Poke]

...Not to mention the fact that the reason Trump got elected is because his campaign promise to you was that "Mexico would pay for the wall."

That's worth not mentioning, because, to many of us, it wasn't about the wall. Not even a tiny tad. Immigration was certainly a factor, but "the wall" wasn't.

[Cow Poke]

No it isn't. He got elected for various things - the wall being a single issue.

And this is a classic case of taking Trump literally instead of seriously. "The wall" represented immigration -- and nobody imagined that Trump would have a magic wand and suddenly there would be this big beautiful wall. It was going to be a fight. And from all indicators, the reason the liberals are against the wall they used to be for is that Trump is for it.

[Bill the Cat]

And this is a classic case of taking Trump literally instead of seriously. "The wall" represented immigration -- and nobody imagined that Trump would have a magic wand and suddenly there would be this big beautiful wall. It was going to be a fight. And from all indicators, the reason the liberals are against the wall they used to be for is that Trump is for it.

It seems to me to be more of the same junk of being for anyone and anything who will vote for you. Frame it as bigotry or a waste of resources, and feign interest in "reform" without ever doing anything real about it. They are against it because opposing it plays well to a growing demographic. Trump is just the latest scapegoat.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/

Simple logic also suggests that a wall will require less personnel to manage than wide open country, meaning that border patrol agents can be redeployed to areas where a wall might be less practical or infeasible.

To put it another way, it's pretty much impossible for a wall system to not improve border security.

[Mountain Man]

And this is a classic case of taking Trump literally instead of seriously. "The wall" represented immigration -- and nobody imagined that Trump would have a magic wand and suddenly there would be this big beautiful wall. It was going to be a fight. And from all indicators, the reason the liberals are against the wall they used to be for is that Trump is for it.

And since the "Russia Russia Russia!" narrative has fizzled, liberals have changed tack and are desperate to make Trump's first term all about the wall, hoping that it will distract voters from the President's notable successes.

[carpedm9587]

Personally, I think we'd do a whole lot better to actually come up with a reasonable, consistent, and consistently implemented immigration policy.

On that we agree 100%

[carpedm9587]

You're in the minority of Dems and liberals. From the June Harvard-Harris poll

I looked at the poll and the question. I think it's a bad question. It fails to account for the status of the person crossing the border. If one assumes (as many, perhaps most, liberals and Democrats do) that the majority of people crossing the border are seeking asylum, then a natural answer is yes. We are (or at least have been) a safe haven for many over the years. If one assumes (as many, perhaps most, conservatives and Republicans do) that the majority of the people crossing the border are riffraff and scum and rapists and drug dealers, then obviously the answer will be no.

I believe those crossing the border seeking asylum should have a fair hearing and should be granted asylum if their situation warrants. I suspect, but cannot prove, that a huge percentage of the people crossing the border are of that type. But I do not believe we should have the equivalent of a wet-feet/dry-feet policy at the southern border.

[Cow Poke]

On that we agree 100%

I'm sure, however, we differ on what that "reasonable" policy would be.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure, however, we differ on what that "reasonable" policy would be.

Which is probably why we don't have one.

When the word "compromise" was made a dirty word - the ability to govern and move forward was lost.

[Cow Poke]

Which is probably why we don't have one.

When the word "compromise" was made a dirty word - the ability to govern and move forward was lost.

That's why we need more drinking in the White House!!!