Of course a project to build a couple hundred miles of properly designed multiple (two and three layer) fence system along the border would provide additional information. That goes without saying. In fact, Congress (at the urging of the American people) overwhelmingly passed a bill funding just such a project in 2006.
It called for DHS to complete construction of 300 miles of double fencing by December 31, 2008. It also required contruction of 700 miles of fencing along the border with no specific deadline for completion. DHS set the goal of completing 670 miles by December 2008. But unfortunately, in 2007 an amendment was placed (by democrats) in the 2007 omnibus spending bill that eliminated the double fencing requirement. It gave the head of DHS (and hence his/her boss) the power to do whatever they like, instead. So guess what? Instead of building a multiple-fence system of the type recommended by proponents (and known to work), the Bush and Obama administrations defied the will of the people and built only single fence systems (and half of what they built only prevents vehicles from crossing the border). In fact, only about 34 miles of double fence system was ever built (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37025 ).
The DHS is so bold about it's lies that in 2009, Napolitano claimed ((http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-6714-napolitano-pronounces-us-border-more-secure-now.html ) that 600 miles of fencing had been built and that as a result our border was more secure … so secure that she said it's time to move towards giving the millions of illegals already in the country citizenship. Both are lies. Neither 600 miles of fence was built, nor is the border more secure now then it was in 2005.
And the fact is that most of the "new fence" they are taking credit for was built under Bush. The fact is that Obama administration stopped the building of fences (of any kind) almost entirely. The fact is that almost none of the fence that was built is of the multiple fence type which was recommended by fence proponents. And that is despite sufficient money being allocated by Congress to build such fences. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly failure.
So don't expect people like me to believe you folks are serious now. Don't expect us to be fooled twice. The fact is that multiple fence/wall systems have already been shown to work in various areas of the world. Here's one separating Morocco from the Spanish city of Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence ). And as noted, "so far the new fence has succeeded in deterring new massive intrusions and the subsaharian camp sites in the buffer zone have mostly disbanded." So it's time to authorize and fund one here. Else we will just see another 10 million illegals enter the country while you folks dilly and dally another 5 years. But then that's your goal, isn't it?
So don't expect people like me to believe you folks are serious now. Don't expect us to be fooled twice.... So it's time to authorize and fund one here. Else we will just see another 10 million illegals enter the country while you folks dilly and dally another 5 years. But then that's your goal, isn't it?
As much as I'd like to take credit for the collective, "folks", I don't get the conspiracy memos, so I'm just winging it. If others agree, good on them.
I also don't have any overarching goal in mind, although I'd be curious to know what the goal of no fence is supposed to be.
As far as congressional funding goes, they funded it and then backdoored a way to unfund it? Sounds normal. The case is going to be tougher without the political will to build a fence though. Is this one of those coalitions where the farmers and the human rights folks are on the same side of the issue for different reasons? Hard coalition to stop.
Bottom line: The more immigrants in an electoral district, the more grim the GOP’s prospects. Consider a few of the largest counties in the nation.
Between 1980 and 2008, Los Angeles, No. 1, grew by 2.5 million to 10 million people. The immigrant share went from 22 percent to 41 percent. Over those decades, the GOP share of the presidential vote fell from 52 percent in Ronald Reagan’s rout of Jimmy Carter to 29 percent for John McCain.
Orange County, the bastion of Barry Goldwater conservatism, saw its population rise from 1.9 million in 1980 to 3.2 million in 2008, with the immigrant share rising from 13 percent to 34 percent. Reagan swept Orange County with 68 percent. McCain got 50 percent.
Consider Cook County, the nation’s second largest. While Cook grew by 350,000 from 1980 to 2008, the character of Chicago changed, with the immigrant share of the population rising from 12 percent to 25 percent. In those 28 years, the GOP share of the presidential vote fell from 40 percent to 23 percent.
In Kings County (Brooklyn), the immigrant share of the population rose from 24 percent to 44 percent and the Republican share of the presidential vote plummeted from 38 percent to 20 percent.
… snip …
According to CIS, of recent immigrants who became citizens by 2008, by 55-30 they identified as Democrats. Among immigrants who have not yet become citizens, 70 percent identify as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans. The sooner Democrats get them naturalized, registered and voting, the sooner the bell tolls for the Grand Old Party.
The democratic party sees the potential of 12 to 20 million instantaneous new democratic voters in the amnesty of illegals. And the more that get in before that happens, the better. And when that happens, this will effectively become a one-party nation. With socialists and communists in control.
So it falls under party lines then? But your cite about the funding and then taking away the funding happened under Republican control, so I'm confused by that part.
I could buy an economic reason more than a political one -- or a combination of economic and political. Like farmers and construction wanting cheap labor coupled with social justice ideas from the Dems.
If I had to identify an anti-illegals party, I'd have to go with Libertarian.
I do like the Reagan idea of 3-year renewable work visas and better enforcement over a fence though. It gives an incentive for those who are mere instruments of migration because of economic realities to register and the rest, who are not helping, to get tagged and returned.
By the way, worst case, we could absorb the entire population of Mexico (the country) without too much trouble. If we did so, the end result would be only 1/4 of our new demographic being Mexican. So, yes, I do think the problem is exaggerated.
The population of Mexico is about 120 million people. The current estimated Hispanic population of the US is nearly 50 million of which about 64% are from Mexico. Out of about 310 million. So if you added 120 million and 64% of 50 million, you get about 150 million out of 430 million which is over 1/3rd the new demographic. Furthermore current average per capita GDP of Mexico is about $13,500. So dropping those people in the US pool where the average per capita GDP is currently about $44,500, would lower our per capita GDP to about $35,500. I'd say that a pretty serious hit. Not to mention bringing in all the other problems that Mexico is currently plagued with.
So do you have any other astute ideas to bring to the table?
PHOENIX (AP) -- The number of deaths among illegal immigrants crossing the Arizona desert from Mexico is soaring so high this month that the medical examiner's office that handles the bodies is using a refrigerated truck to store some of them, the chief examiner said Friday.
The population of Mexico is about 120 million people. The current estimated Hispanic population of the US is nearly 50 million of which about 64% are from Mexico. Out of about 310 million. So if you added 120 million and 64% of 50 million, you get about 150 million out of 430 million which is over 1/3rd the new demographic.
I wasn't distinguishing Hispanics from other US citizens and I assumed the illegals that are here are already counted as part of the Mexican population. It gets a lot more confusing when ethnicity instead of citizenship is the target.
Furthermore current average per capita GDP of Mexico is about $13,500. So dropping those people in the US pool where the average per capita GDP is currently about $44,500, would lower our per capita GDP to about $35,500. I'd say that a pretty serious hit. Not to mention bringing in all the other problems that Mexico is currently plagued with.
So do you have any other astute ideas to bring to the table?
Well, you could look at Puerto Rico as an example. Lots of people don't leave their native land for whatever reason. Plus, we'd get their land, oil and so on as part of the mix. You are assuming that adding Mexico to the U.S. wouldn't elevate the annual income of people originally from Mexico, I don't see how that could be. After all, it would then allow them access to all the opportunities, free markets, rule of law and all the other goodies that makes the U.S. have such a high per capita income in the first place.
I wasn't really suggesting it as anything other than a throw-away; I don't think the Mexicans would be interested anyhow. But now that you've got me thinking about it, it might be a good idea.
I think you are implying that a fence is going to keep out people who are willing to die for a chance to work in the U.S. ? The same people who are risking their lives to cross a desert won't bother crossing a fence? That probably feeds into why so many don't think a fence will solve anything.
It might save lives in this way though -- if there is a fence along a good portion of the border and less enforcement in depth because of the fence, then people could cross in more hospitable locations. Places where a breach or a tunnel would place them right in a major city instead of the desert. You might have something there, I'm not sure.
Well you should have, since you were talking about the demographics of Mexicans in the US. And if you are going to just lump all Hispanics into that category, perhaps America should also be ready to accept the populations of Guatemala, etc ... "without too much trouble".
Now you are talking about a nation of just 4.4 million people who are already US citizens that isn't much of an illegal immigration problem because it's an island. We don't need a fence there, just better monitoring of who is flying from there to the US.
No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out what will happen to US per capita GDP the moment we combine the two. What would happen to per capita GDP after that is anybody's guess. I would hazard that US per capita GDP growth would slow while we tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to deal with the many problems Mexico has.
Yes it will, much like the Israeli wall keeps out islamofanatics who are willing to die for a chance to kill Jews (and anyone else who happens to be standing nearby).
You are assuming they are going to be able to cross it. But the examples of fences we have so far suggest very few of them will succeed. Hence, there will be far fewer people dying in the desert. Don't the anti-fence folks that would be a good thing?
Here's yet another expensive, failed Federal Government program.
Back in 2006, the feds promised to build 655 miles of REAL fence along our southern border. Then they ended up spending most of the money that was allocated to that on a "virtual" fence. And here's what you go for about $833 million dollars folks:
53 miles of operational "virtual fence" in Arizona for a cost of at least $15 million a mile, according to testimony in previous congressional hearings.
The department required, for example, that the system help Border Patrol agents be in position to apprehend 90% of the incursions over the border, but the technology has achieved only a fraction of that goal.
Napolitano said the department's new technology strategy for securing the border is to use existing, proven technology tailored to the distinct terrain and population density of each region of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S-Mexico border.
LOL! It's like watching an army of marching morons. People who are Stuck On Stupid. Who can't learn from history. Just build a REAL fence system. A physical barrier. You could do that for a lot less than $15 million a mile and stop AT LEAST 90% of the influx.
Oh yes … and fire all those who were involved in this fiasco and make sure they don't come within a hundred miles of the next border security program. Anything less is dooming it to failure too.
Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570 million in 2009.
LOL! It's like watching an army of marching morons. People who are Stuck On Stupid. Who can't learn from history. Just build a REAL fence system. A physical barrier. You could do that for a lot less than $15 million a mile and stop AT LEAST 90% of the influx.
Oh yes … and fire all those who were involved in this fiasco and make sure they don't come within a hundred miles of the next border security program. Anything less is dooming it to failure too.
No, that is not the type of structure we want built. That's simple landing mat/bollard construction and is just begging to be climbed. That's just what people who really didn't want to build a fence system in the first place chose to build instead. That's the result of people with other priorities. That's the result of people who think that being able to see through the border and allowing small animals to cross it is more important than securing the border from illegal invaders. That's the result of fundamentally stupid thinking, since even the dumbest of us can see such that a fence would never be effective at preventing climbing.
What has been proposed be built … what has proven very effective when it's been tried … is a multi-fence/wall system. There are numerous alternatives.
One would be to make the outer barrier a wall that does not provide good hand holds for climbing, can not be gone through or under very easily, is too tall for most ladders, and has integral obstacles that make using ladders and what those two did in your video next to impossible. I'll discuss a couple possibilities for such a barrier later on below. In this alternative, there would be one or two additional fences/obstacles behind this other wall, designed to trap those who might manage to make it over long enough for border agents to arrive and detain them.
Another possibility is to have an outer fence that serves as a warning, obstacle and trip wire. This barrier is designed to pose an obstacle but not one that is totally insurmountable. Its primary purpose is to keep people from easily or stealthily approaching the middle barrier. It will be a mix of open fence and barbed wire. The first barrier should have features to detect people trying to scale or go through it. It will make it harder for them to bring tools, ladders or anything else to the middle barrier. And will keep large animals out of the zone between it and the second barrier, since that zone may itself be laced with sensors.
The middle barrier is of a form that does not provide good hand holds for climbing, can not be gone through or under, is too tall for most ladders, and has integral obstacles that make what those two did in your video next to impossible. In other words, a wall. This wall can mount cameras to observe both sides of the barrier, but particularly the Mexican side. There would be a road between the outer fence and this wall that border agents could access in order to detain or hinder illegal crossings. I will discuss the design of this barrier in a moment.
The third layer is another fence, to trap anyone who somehow manages to scale the second barrier long enough that guards will for sure have arrived. It need not be designed to prevent vehicle penetration but will have features to keep someone some simply climbing it or easily cutting through it. Probably a lot of barb wire (see the Israeli example below), hence, not very costly.
And yes, there will be guards observing every portion of the system 24/7 with quick reaction teams on-call to intercept invaders. You ask how many? Well, right now the US Border Patrol has over 18,000 agents deployed in the southern border. ICE employs another 20,000 people, many of whom deal with illegal immigrants who have made it past the Border Patrol. Fewer would be needed with a fence system in place.
I imagine there would be roving patrols along the fence system, day and night. But instead of agents having to cover the border to a depth of a hundred miles as they now do to round up even a fraction of the illegals (an impossible task) they'd just have to cover the fence system itself. I would imagine there would be manned outposts every 4 or 5 miles along the fence, with quick reaction forces to support the agents that constitute roving patrols and the sensor (intrusion alert) system that will be part of the fence system, and platforms to physically watch the fences in that area. That would mean about 500 such outposts. Even if you manned each of them with 5 agents at a time, in 3 eight hour shifts, you would still only need 7500 agents. Throw in another 2500 for roving patrols and vacation/down time for the agents. That would allow you to put at least 10, well-armed, well-rested agents in any given spot, day or night, along the fence in just minutes. Well within the timeframe needed to prevent a breach of the system. And under those assumptions, we could pay for building the fence system in just a few years with the savings in border patrol and ICE agents alone.
I think you way underestimate the difficulty of getting over, through or under a properly designed fence system. Getting past the wall will take equipment that most people do not have. And all the while the clock is ticking. Do you know that when they built a real multi-layer system in San Diego (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdvnWmgySrE ) and in the Spanish city of Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence ), they caught almost everyone who tried to get past it. The later article states "the new fence has succeeded in deterring new massive intrusions and the subsaharian camp sites in the buffer zone have mostly disbanded."
Now that doesn't mean a fence system will stop everyone. The purpose isn't to stop everyone. My suspicion is that it will deter perhaps 90 percent from even trying, and stop all but 5-10% percent of the rest, at minimum. In other words, it will dramatically reduce the problem from what we now have. And if it only stopped 90 percent of the flow, it would still be a huge improvement … one that would pay for itself in only a few years.
Now as to the cost cited by you, the claim the government spent about $4 million per mile on the fence in your video is based on a report by the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09244r.pdf ) that actually said:
Pedestrian fencing accounted for 140 of the miles that CBP had completed as of October 31, 2008, with costs ranging from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile for an average of $3.9 million per mile.
Now do you know where the $15.1 million per mile figure came from? From virtual fencing.
The average cost of SBI pedestrian fencing per mile as of September 30, 2007 (with costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8 million per mile) was actually only $2.7 million per mile. They completed 70 miles of that *fence* under what they called PF70. By October 31, 2008 they'd built another 145 miles of fence. Another 5 under PF70 and then 65 miles under PF225 (with costs from $2.8-15.1 million per mile, averaging $5.1 million per mile). PF225 included miles and miles of virtual fence at $15 million, which is what raised the cost. They also built 75 miles of vehicle fence under VF300 at an average cost of 1 million per mile. The point is not to suggest that the fence will cost lost than $4 million a mile, but just to be sure folks know that the fence they show in that video is probably not $4 million a mile fence.
Now what type of fencing is proposed for the outer or middle barrier wall? Something that will resist penetration by vehicles, be difficult to climb, prevent most tunneling attempts, be virtually impervious to cutting, and have a long life. Here are some examples of the many, already existing possibilities:
And you want to talk about the effectiveness of that Israeli fence system? In 2002, the year before construction started, 457 Israelis were murdered; in 2009, 8 Israelis were killed. So fences can work, even against people determined to get through them. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
And even if a fence/wall system costs $10-20 million per mile, it would still be a great investment … provided it stopped the bulk of illegals from entering the country at will. Because in just a few years, savings in health care, schools, welfare, law enforcement, prisons and infrastructure, not to mention Border and INS agent salaries and benefits, would more than pay for building and maintaining the fence/wall system and any guards assigned to it. And as I've already noted in this thread and others, there are many other advantages to a fence/wall system protecting our southern border. For example ...
How can any of the alternatives to a physical barrier be more reliable? How often do we hear about people in the government being bribed or being found incompetent? A fence can't be bribed. And can be fixed if found inadequate.
Would any of the alternatives you folks suggest (and I notice you haven't suggested any so far) be more easily tested? No. A barrier you can build anywhere and tested anytime. You can easily put your best, brightest, leanest, tallest, smallest and meanest against it and see what they do. If they find a defect, you can improve the barrier (before it's built). Improving human guards or electronics is not all that easy, as Boeing and the Obama administration have learned … especially if government unions and aerospace engineers are involved.
And would any of your alternatives have less impact on those in the border areas? I doubt it. Since you approaches are not going to stop illegals at the border, you must be going to try and catch them after they may have traveled tens, scores or even hundreds of miles inside the border. How can putting tens of thousands of armed personnel who will have to operate in America's backyards, on America's highways, in America's border cities, in America's wildlands, many miles inward from the border or in the middle of big cities that are near the border ever be less impactful than simply stopping 90-99% of the flood between two or three fences built right at the border? With an unfenced/unwalled or even virtually fenced border, your only alternatives are to literally militarize the southwest if you hope to catch an equivalent fraction of those who would be stopped by a fence/wall system. Or are you suggesting we just do what the Obama adminstration has now done in Arizona and erect a couple signs here and there warning American citizens not to go within a hundred miles of the border because it's become too dangerous? In essence, hand over part of the country to the drug cartels and illegals?
Will your alternatives be more humane to the illegals? No. You are going to allow illegals to go on risking their lives in the millions because they will think they can beat your armed border guards at their own game. Because they can't see a virtual fence. And even if they can see it, not knowing it's capabilities, they may still think they can beat it (which we now know they can). Many will die in American deserts, just as they do now. Many will be killed by smugglers who will take their money and lead them to nowhere, as they are now. Many will be raped and held hostage by the coyotes or drug cartels demanding more money from relatives, as they are now. Some may be killed by border agents trying to intercept them if the illegals resists. Some may pray on each other, even after they get to a neighborhood near you.
And is it humane to allow pregnant women and small children to face the dangers they do now? A pregnant woman would have a problem scaling a properly designed fence/wall. So would a child. But a few additional guards and some electronic sensors aren't going to stop them in your alternatives. So what will our government do then under your unnamed alterative ... since the child birthed by the woman automatically becomes a citizen and an anchor baby? Since it may seem unkind to deport small children. The humane thing is not to allow these people the hope of beating the system by putting a larger barrier in their path ... one not easily crossed. One that will deter folks from giving thousands of dollars to smugglers but instead spend that money on improving their lot in their own country.
Will your alternatives be less subject to the whims of the border patrol agents and current administration? No. Agents are already being corrupted, but now it's easy for them to get away with that corruption because they do so in circumstances far less controlled than a fence/wall system would be. There already are governors and mayors in California who are not enforcing immigration laws ... who are openly hostile to the notion of stopping the flow … who have even called for boycotts against anyone who suggests such a thing as enforcing existing federal immigration laws. But a real fence/wall is blind to such whims and can't be bribed.
Look at the whims of the Bush administration ... a republican administration. They promised us 10000 new guards in 2004's budget and gave us 210. Look at Obama. A bill was passed and signed into law requiring the constuction of hundreds of miles of double fence. When Obama became President he immediately stopped all construction of real fences, while his head of DHS lied to us claiming that 600 miles of fencing had been built (http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-6714-napolitano-pronounces-us-border-more-secure-now.html ). And his administration is now suing a state simply because it tried to enforce the Federal laws his administration has chosen not to enforce. We've watched the INS and border patrol catch over 1000 illegals a day ... and then promptly release 80 percent of them into our society. THAT is what I think we can expect under your alternatives. A fence, on the other hand, will be much harder for politicians and everyone else to negate the effectiveness of on a whim or for political gain.
Would your alternative cause less harm to our relationship to Mexico? No. A fence will actually reduce contacts that may lead to confrontation. A fence will make it less likely that Mexico will see America as a dumping ground for its poor. A fence will return the focus to legal immigration between the two countries. A fence will force Mexico to look to its own devices for solutions to its economic and social problems. A fence system will seriously weaken the cartels, perhaps making it possible for decent Mexicans to regain control of their own government and country.
But then, you and the other opponents of fencing on this thread didn't join in to debate this topic rationally, did you?
Yes, Upchurch, as pointed out in post #121, Bush did defy the will of the people and built only a small amount of double fence (34 miles) , despite the fact the original bill called for 300 miles of it. But in Bush's defence, most of the actual fence (and any kind) that was built, was built during the Bush admistration. The Obama administration stopped the building of real fences almost entirely. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence BY OBAMA, a fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly FAILURE.
Yes, Upchurch, as pointed out in post #121, Bush did defy the will of the people and built only a small amount of double fence (34 miles) , despite the fact the original bill called for 300 miles of it. But in Bush's defence, most of the actual fence (and any kind) that was built, was built during the Bush admistration. The Obama administration stopped the building of real fences almost entirely. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence BY OBAMA, a fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly FAILURE.
Bush fails at yet another something and it's Obama's fault? I suppose it was Obama's fault that Bush didn't catch bin Laden, too? Or to find the Iraq's dangerous supplies of WMDs?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
