North Carolina Voting - and Consistency

[Littlejoe]

And the raging Rio Grande is just a trickle at some places in some parts of the year.

Plus they cross by boat all the time with ease. Lake Amistad and Falcon Lake are common crossing points by boat. I found this interesting report filed back in 2010. A 19 y.o. illegal Mexican national was arrested crossing Falcon Lake by boat transporting 400 lbs of marijuana. Some excerpts of the interview in a Field investigation report to the U.S. House of Rep. by U.S. Republican Conference Secretary, John R. Carter

Some excerpts from pages 8 - 11

According to the suspect, the border is absolutely not secure and is open for easy illegal entry for immigrants and drugs, thanks to the elaborate criminal organization support in both Mexico and now in place on the U.S. side of the border, coupled with the total corruption of Mexican law enforcement by the cartels, from the lowest recruit to the highest ranking officials...

The suspect said the safest place for illegal entry in the region was across the narrow RioGrande in Laredo behind the HEB store and the adjacent McDonalds restaurant. He said Delores Road and nearby gully were left unpatrolled by the Border Patrol, and once across the shallow river and up the hill illegals would instantly blend in with the large crowd of pedestrian shoppers.

Bold emphasis mine

[carpedm9587]

I'm ready for the next chapter.

Chapter of...?

[Cow Poke]

Chapter of...?

History -- post Trump.

[carpedm9587]

FIFY N/C

There's a lot places at the border that has nothing, no fence no wall...nothing

This is what is not talked about in most of the discussion. I'd love to see a cogent response to the following points.

- Along the US-Mexico border there are several reservations that extend across the border. They are sovereign nations that have explicitly refused the construction of a wall across their lands. So it is actually relatively impossible to put a border everywhere, and many of these are flat, easily-crossed locations.

- Along the Texas part of the border runs the Rio Grande, which waxes and wanes with the seasons and regularly floods at many places along its length, further challenging the construction of a barrier. Mexico will not permit construction of the wall on their side of the river and constructing it down the center of the river is not an option. This means the remaining option is to construct it on the U.S. side, often well-back from the river - essentially isolating the U.S. from this major water source.

- The constant references to the Israeli wall are false comparisons. Trump has repeatedly said he wants an "all concrete barrier" and has noted we need to add 700-900 miles of barrier, supplementing the existing 650 miles of fencing, leaving 670-870 miles unfenced. Presumably this is because those 670-870 miles are "impassable?" The Israeli fence is 404 miles long and only 10-12 miles of it are solid concrete walls. Those 10-12 miles are concrete to stop snipers (a problem we do not have on the southern border). The rest of the wall is various types of fencing supplemented with patrolling, detection election electronics, etc.

The bottom line is - most Democrats and Republicans are actually in favor of solid border protection. Most Americans want border protection. Most Democrats and most Americans are against the wasteful spending of billions of dollars to construct a particular type of barrier that is not warranted. That is my position. I am not for open borders (though I wish I could be), and I think we need to be securing our country. I'm not into spending billions of dollars for something that is not needed and is nothing more than political grandstanding.

[Littlejoe]

This is what is not talked about in most of the discussion. I'd love to see a cogent response to the following points.

- Along the US-Mexico border there are several reservations that extend across the border. They are sovereign nations that have explicitly refused the construction of a wall across their lands. So it is actually relatively impossible to put a border everywhere, and many of these are flat, easily-crossed locations.

then build a high and strong fence around the reservation and make them responsible for their border with Mexico?

- Along the Texas part of the border runs the Rio Grande, which waxes and wanes with the seasons and regularly floods at many places along its length, further challenging the construction of a barrier. Mexico will not permit construction of the wall on their side of the river and constructing it down the center of the river is not an option. This means the remaining option is to construct it on the U.S. side, often well-back from the river - essentially isolating the U.S. from this major water source.

Actually, I've never thought of putting it in the middle of the river, but what would preclude that?

- The constant references to the Israeli wall are false comparisons. Trump has repeatedly said he wants an "all concrete barrier" and has noted we need to add 700-900 miles of barrier, supplementing the existing 650 miles of fencing, leaving 670-870 miles unfenced. Presumably this is because those 670-870 miles are "impassable?" The Israeli fence is 404 miles long and only 10-12 miles of it are solid concrete walls. Those 10-12 miles are concrete to stop snipers (a problem we do not have on the southern border). The rest of the wall is various types of fencing supplemented with patrolling, detection election electronics, etc.

I would say put concrete barriers where needed (major known crossing points) Fencing where necessary with electronic survelliance...and hire more Border Patrol Officers, and give them better training and better weaponry...both lethal and non-lethal

The bottom line is - most Democrats and Republicans are actually in favor of solid border protection. Most Americans want border protection. Most Democrats and most Americans are against the wasteful spending of billions of dollars to construct a particular type of barrier that is not warranted. That is my position. I am not for open borders (though I wish I could be), and I think we need to be securing our country. I'm not into spending billions of dollars for something that is not needed and is nothing more than political grandstanding.

And your solution to achieve this^^^ is?

[Sparko]

My solution is land mines. And putting sharks with laser beams in the Rio Grande.

[One Bad Pig]

$5 Billion, in this day and age, is governmentally equivalent to pocket change; it's not even 0.2% of the budget.

[Cow Poke]

$5 Billion, in this day and age, is governmentally equivalent to pocket change; it's not even 0.2% of the budget.

But, but, but.... Trump!!!!

[carpedm9587]

then build a high and strong fence around the reservation and make them responsible for their border with Mexico?

For one of these tribes, you are talking about a wall around 2.7 million acres of land, substantially inflating the costs, again - without any indication that such a constuction is needed.

Actually, I've never thought of putting it in the middle of the river, but what would preclude that?

The river. If you have never lived by one, you may not know that they are living things that constantly change. Year after year, the river alters its course, eroding one bank and building up the other. It alters its depth, piling sand and stone in one place and scouring it out of another. Any attempt to build a wall in the middle of such a thing would be folly. The river would undermine it at some points, and pile sand and stone along it at others, rendering it largely useless. Not to mention there is nothing forcing the river to stay along the course of the wall. I think you would find that most civil engineers would tell you it is either folly, or amazingly expensive to build such a thing.

I would say put concrete barriers where needed (major known crossing points) Fencing where necessary with electronic survelliance...and hire more Border Patrol Officers, and give them better training and better weaponry...both lethal and non-lethal

And your solution to achieve this^^^ is?

I can answer your question exactly the way the Democrats are answering it. Do not pour money into a pointless "all concrete wall." Use the Israeli model, which pretty much aligns with what you are saying. We don't have snipers on our border, so solid concrete walls to stop bullets aren't necessary. Putting up fencing (as has already been done) supplemented with electronic detection and increased border patrolling is the way to go. But barriers and methods for "blocking" at the border can only be part of the solution. The problem is a simple one: we live in a country with significant freedom and opportunity. Many (most?) of the countries of South and Central America have significant violence, corruption, and limited opportunity. So long as that disparity exists, illegal immigration will be an inevitable consequence. Put up a partial barrier and they will find the holes. Put up a complete barrier, and they will go around, over, or under. Human ingenuity will win out, and they will find a way. We may slow it to some degree, but the only way to eliminate it is to bring the countries into a greater degree of parity, eliminating the attraction. I would prefer we do not lower our levels of freedom and opportunity (though we seem hell bent on doing so, sometimes), so that suggests finding ways to help these countries move towards greater freedom and opportunity. Even if we have become a country with no heart - unwilling to open our wallet for the less fortunate in the world (which it seems has become more and more the case), this is a reason for our continued international involvement - and it is why we should be investing our significant wealth to help foster opportunity and freedom in other countries.

ETA: As for "both lethal and non-lethal," - I don't disagree. But "lethal" should be reserved, as it is within our country, for places and times when the patrollers are at risk of significant harm or death.

[carpedm9587]

$5 Billion, in this day and age, is governmentally equivalent to pocket change; it's not even 0.2% of the budget.

An interesting argument. So how about we add $5B to the food stamp program? After all - it's just chump change, right?

[JimL]

An interesting argument. So how about we add $5B to the food stamp program? After all - it's just chump change, right?

Not to mention that 5 billion is only the start, he's not going to build his border length wall with 5 billion. A few months back he wanted 25 billion, and could have had it if he rather than Fox News was leading the negotiations.

[carpedm9587]

Not to mention that 5 billion is only the start, he's not going to build his border length wall with 5 billion. A few months back he wanted 25 billion, and could have had it if he rather than Fox News was leading the negotiations.

Well, as Rogue correctly challenged me when I also thought Trump wanted it to be "border-length," Trump doesn't want a "border-length wall." He actually wants to add 700-900 miles to the existing 650 miles of fencing, leaving 470-670 miles "unfenced" (that border is about 2020 miles long). Apparently that is the amount of the border that is "naturally impassable." I have no idea if that is true. Since Trump said it, probably not. But I have not done the legwork to determine the truth of the statement. He apparently wants that addition to be "all-concrete."

However, you are correct that $5B is just the beginning. This article outlines some of the estimates, but the fact is that no one really knows. The reason for the question marks is that no one really knows what Trump is planning or envisioning. It keeps changing. It's an all-concrete wall one day, and "metal slats" the next, and then back to all-concrete. It's 700-900 miles in one speech, and 1,000 miles in another, and 600 miles in a third. It's 40 feet high and 10 feet deep in one conversation, and 30 feet high and 5 feet deep in another. It has electronic detection, and then it doesn't have electronic detection. Then there will be all of the legal costs associated with eminent domain, plus the problem of the border-spanning reservation in Arizona.

The whole thing, IMO, is a ridiculous political stunt, for which real people are paying a real price. TSA is under DHS - and we are already seeing them call in sick so they can work paying jobs and put food on the table. Much as I have an issue with just how effective TSA actually is, they at least serve as a form of deterrence. So while Trump is "making America safe" from things we really have little cause to fear, he is actually making America less safe from things we actually do have reason to fear. As we well know, a fully-fueled jet makes for a pretty significant bomb.

[rogue06]

Well, as Rogue correctly challenged me when I also thought Trump wanted it to be "border-length," Trump doesn't want a "border-length wall." He actually wants to add 700-900 miles to the existing 650 miles of fencing, leaving 470-670 miles "unfenced" (that border is about 2020 miles long). Apparently that is the amount of the border that is "naturally impassable." I have no idea if that is true. Since Trump said it, probably not. But I have not done the legwork to determine the truth of the statement. He apparently wants that addition to be "all-concrete."

While that is what he desires he has signaled multiple times he is willing to settle for something else. Most recently he has talked about one consisting of steel slats. Not sure if that would be more or less expensive though.

[carpedm9587]

While that is what he desires he has signaled multiple times he is willing to settle for something else. Most recently he has talked about one consisting of steel slats. Not sure if that would be more or less expensive though.

Trump has shifted his tune so many times, over the course of his campaign and this current disagreement, that I doubt anyone really knows what the heck he wants. He is hardly the gold standard for consistency. As with so much of what he does - there is little study and thought that goes into it. The image of a "wall" between us and Mexico galvanizes his base, so that's all he needs/wants. I have not seen any study of where barriers are most/least needed, what designs would be most effective, and what the cost of that expansion would be. Much as Trump likes to tout himself as a politician, he has completely failed to do a very basic thing: make a proper business case for the proposed solution. It's all just vapor and vague assertions. But it certainly does rally the base - that much is for sure.

[carpedm9587]

So I started this thread some time ago, and the evidence has been piling in. It has finally reached a point where North Carolina has called for a new election in the 9th Congressional District.

It seems to me that fraud is not limited to any one party - and has more to do with ballot handling than it has to do with the individual voters. We have little/no evidence of any widespread, election affecting fraud based on individuals voters voting more than once or unauthorized voters (e.g., non citizens, etc.) voting. But we have several instances of widespread voter fraud based on the actions of those handling the ballots. And we have increased risk of voter fraud due to voter role tampering/hacking. Perhaps that is where we should be putting our "election protection" attention.