This is the problem, for every fox news survey of border agents that shows that they overwhelmingly favor a wall, there is a conflicting survey that shows they do not. They want what every government agency wants, more funding.
Is the “Gubment Shutdown” affecting you?
- Thread starter CU1TruTiger4Life
- Start date
This is the problem, for every fox news survey of border agents that shows that they overwhelmingly favor a wall, there is a conflicting survey that shows they do not. They want what every government agency wants, more funding.
Impossible to verify but consider the numbers you forwarded(excellent job, thank you) are for drug confiscations, not the amount that make it through. It makes complete sense that more is confiscated at the border points where they are set up to detect.
How much is transported in areas where they are not equipped?
N---
This is just a talking point. Show me the data and the resources used. I have only seen disproportionally the opposite..
Agree.
LOL at pretending that a significant percentage of the drugs are smuggled across the unfenced border are carried in people's backpacks. Common sense doesn't even support this position. You can't move enough weight that way and it is risky getting across the border. It isn't like their is a section of the unfenced border that you can get to easily that doesn't have a high probability of being caught.
Nor is anything stopping drugs in this country. Like believing prohibition is stopping drinking.
At some point the juice isn't worth the squeeze. You could spend a trillion dollars stopping drugs along the southern border and it likely makes an infinitesimal difference in the drug problem in the US.
I built them to turn enemy combatants, per every FM everything we know about a wall, fence or other physical barrier says that without armed surveillance they are worthless. Walls and fences work in residential and commercial applications because there are people on the inside (or perceived to be inside) that will defend the wall. Let a home or business with a wall or fence become vacant- how effective is the wall or fence? Not very, because if a criminal wants in, there is no threat of a force inside defending the premises. A wall needs a cavalry.
I know there is more to his goals than a wall, but the wall is what is holding this up because he wants to make it about a campaign promise rather than security. Trump can end this today if he focuses on the other relevant parts of border security and acknowledging that very little of a physical wall is actually needed to accomplish the goal. He could get what we really need, but at the expense of a talking point. He is simply trying to rub Dem noses in the issue. He is succeeding at making the wall an issue, but at great cost to the country for a purely political point. This is an example of why I detest all politicians- its not about the country, its about a party talking point.
China built a wall, Hadrian built a wall, Russia/East Germany built a wall- what do they have in common? Each were 'successful' only when supported by a large reactionary force that defended the wall. The minute the force was not there, the walls were immediately circumvented and breached.
really whats the point? I could send you the link below to a NY Times article that discussed a report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee's findings last year. But you will dismiss it b/c it is the Ny Times and b/c it does not support your bias view.
So let me ask you the same question that so far nobody else has been willing to answer in this thread. Why didnt trump insist on this wall in this previous spending bills that he signed? Why didnt he threaten to shut down the government when his party controlled both houses? Why now, when he knew it would be a showdown and hard working americans like yourself would not be able to get government subsidized loans to run your business?
Previous presidents where not using the wall or border security as way to show immigrants that they were unwelcome.
Previous presidents didn’t call immigrants rapists or say they hailed from shithole countries. They didn’t didnt deny protected status from those fleeing wars, abuse, or natural disasters. They didn’t fear monger the American public by highlighting every impropriety that an immigrant committed against a white citizen. When this president needs a boost he hypes a innocuous caravan of migrants coming to wreck havoc on the country.
But other than that, it’s just a harmless overpricedwall.
I don't really get the big deal about a border wall on either side. Just like most things Trump proposed during the campaign, it sounded like the kind of simplistic solution your friend/family member who didn't really know anything about politics and policy, but who thought they knew better than everybody, would throw out. I'm not sure I get why it's so important to some people, other than because it's something Trump wants.
On the other hand, just like has happened with nearly everything else Trump has proposed, the Democrats and liberals have gone into hysterics over the wall that seem wholly inappropriate. Someone in this thread called it "racist."
It's all just kind of ridiculous over a goofy idea that nobody was particularly interested in before a couple years ago. I don't mean this as a condemnation of politicians, because I think that's silly, too. It seems to me that what most people actually want is for them to act in more partisan ways. If they're cynical, it's because they're just doing their jobs- representing the people who elected them.
On the other hand, just like has happened with nearly everything else Trump has proposed, the Democrats and liberals have gone into hysterics over the wall that seem wholly inappropriate. Someone in this thread called it "racist."
It's all just kind of ridiculous over a goofy idea that nobody was particularly interested in before a couple years ago. I don't mean this as a condemnation of politicians, because I think that's silly, too. It seems to me that what most people actually want is for them to act in more partisan ways. If they're cynical, it's because they're just doing their jobs- representing the people who elected them.
I agree with labels and abhor identity politics. I do like Trump, but agree that both parties are mostly full of those whose interests are mostly limited to re-election and influenced by those who help them to be elected.
N---
Lived in AZ and Cali for a while- I found illegals harmless, many found them useful as they were willing to work when others weren't. I would be more worried about the Border Patrol chasing illegals- they can get out of hand. You would think they were chasing Bonny and Clyde plus ISIS rather than a mother with 5 kids.
The illegals were way down the list of the problems in California or AZ. Domestic gangs are much bigger issue, as is congestion, over regulation, infrastructure failure, taxation, education, etc.
Yes, because I can't get my damn Global Entry approved. It's been almost 3 months now although that little arrest in Clemson my Junior year may be holding things up, lol.
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying the drugs are getting here and you are talking about drugs that are confiscated? Those that are confiscated aren't getting here. Logic says they are coming here and are not being confiscated. Consider that they may fly, ship, drive, whatever and they are not being confiscated.
And yes, you are correct, there are areas that are unfenced that you can get at easily. That's the whole point.
N---
The gang situation here in NY is primarily MS13 so my opinions are clearly skewed there.
Did you ever consider the cost of illegal immigrants to the taxpayers through social programs and public health.
I have no ill will towards immigrants and even those that came here by any means but are pursuing measure to become legal. Unfortunately those are not the norm.
N---
You can only study the flow of drugs that have been confiscated. If ~90% of drugs that are confiscated are found at a legal point of entry then it would follow that ~90% of drugs are smuggled through the legal points of entry. Cartels are smart. They use the legal ports of entry because it is the most effective way to get drugs across the border. They only search ~20% of cars/trucks at the border, so it is much easier to get drugs through the trek small quantities through the desert for miles on people's backs.
The DEA backs up this theory. The Cartels including in the current El Chapo Trial say that all their drugs are smuggled through legal points of entry. Nothing anywhere to suggest that most drugs go through unfenced areas and just are not caught.
Here is an article about it. It also includes how the US built a high tech fence in AZ to keep everything out and cartel just catapulted drugs over the top of it. 100 pounds at a time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/el-...nt-stop-drugs-from-crossing-the-border-2019-1
This is my core issue, I favor restricting access to as much of those incentives as possible. We should not be encouraging illegal entry. However, we need productive immigrants.
The problem we have is that there is not a process to handle those that came illegally, but have subsequently become productive members of a community (this includes the so called Dreamers that did not make any choice). We need a policy that addresses this- not an easy amnesty program. Make it long and hard to gain- no citizenship ever for an adult illegal- maybe only conditional legal supervised residency (commit serious crime = immediate deportation) and never eligible for EIC or child credits on taxes. If they are really coming for opportunity, that is all they will be allowed to have- opportunity not support.
For a entrant that was a minor/'Dreamer' develop a 10-12 year process- those that complete it can apply for citizenship, those that can't successfully complete the process (crime free, HS school graduation) must depart. By the end of the period, they would no longer be minors.
I would love to avoid the cost of public health, but that would be shooting the rest of the country in the foot.
This... the reason the wall wasnt funded the last two years is because there wasnt even enough Republican support for it. Though theynwouldnt say it publically, they saw it as a bridge to nowhere project and true conservatives didnt want to spend $40 billion on something that will return very little, if anything. There are legit things that can be done to improve border security that would have Democratic and Republican support. They could be quickly voted on and passed after this shutdown ends. But as usual, we can't have that discussion. This is about grand standing to try and gain political favor with Trump's base and trying to make good on a promise that wasn't practical to begin with, even if the majority of voters are too dumb to realize it.
This government shutdown was a loser for the President. He is now seeing that. He would end this thing tomorrow if he could find a way out of it without looking like he caved to Pelosi and Shumer with nothing. But he stuck his foot in his mouth in the oval office with Pelosi and Shumer watching and now his ego is getting in the way of the pay checks several hundred thousand hard working Americans (some of which are Trump supporters) need.
Every day that this shutdown goes on will be worse. There has been a lot of forward funding practices used by the government to mitigate some of the impacts. But some of those funding sources for things that really matter to people will be drying up soon. And there are only so many pay checks that the average person can be expected to miss before the s##t hits the fan. People cant work without pay forever.
Pelosi and Shumer (neither who I support on most issues politically) got the President to stick his foot in his mouth in the oval office and now they are going to make him gag on it. Let's see how long he can stomach it. Something will have to give soon. Whatever it is, I dont see how he will avoid coming out as the loser on this. He will claim otherwise, and most in his base will believe him, but this was a dumb political move.
I agree, the longer this goes on, the more childish and indefensible the shutdown appears.
Again, this is just my opinion, but the fault lies with Trump. He shut the government down to pressure Dem's to give him the victory he wants. I don't know how people can blame the house, I guess they could cave and give him what he wants. Then the presidents going forward will know they can just veto the spending bills to get what they want.
I really am unsure how this ends. I imagine Trump might be getting closer to a 2/3rd super majority funding bill getting passed that he can't veto. That would be the ultimate defeat for him. I agree that the dems have absolutely no motivation to cave, while Trump's name is on this and the buck has to stop there.
Agree.
I’m surprised the democrats haven’t attacked Mitch McConnell head on. He can end this right away.
So why is my point of view dumb?? You could go to most any airport and film whatever suits your narrative. What's dumb about that?? You have people here saying they got through security with no delays at all so, because it didn't happen to them, therefore there is no problems system wide.
The most effective way to stem the tide of illegal immigration is make it extremely difficult to work in the US unless you have the proper paperwork. You basically need to crack down on the employers that hire them.
If you take away the jobs then they will leave on their own accord and the message will get around that their isn't worth it to cross over because the opportunity isn't there.
This already occurred during the Great Recession as the number of illegals in US decreased by over a million and has continued to decrease slightly overall until recently ticking upward, but the number is still less than there were in 2008.
It also shows that it isn't some huge issue that we are now combating. The 90s and 2000s were peak illegal immigration. Now there is barely even a net positive migration and that is after years of negative migration. 65-70% of illegals just overstay their VISA.
It is largely an issue that isn't even an issue. Certainly shouldn't be Top 10 on anybodies priority list. The people that it doesn't even effect and never come across immigrants are the most vocal about curtailing it. It is quite a strange phenomenon, which makes me believe other factors are at play.
If you take away the jobs then they will leave on their own accord and the message will get around that their isn't worth it to cross over because the opportunity isn't there.
This already occurred during the Great Recession as the number of illegals in US decreased by over a million and has continued to decrease slightly overall until recently ticking upward, but the number is still less than there were in 2008.
It also shows that it isn't some huge issue that we are now combating. The 90s and 2000s were peak illegal immigration. Now there is barely even a net positive migration and that is after years of negative migration. 65-70% of illegals just overstay their VISA.
It is largely an issue that isn't even an issue. Certainly shouldn't be Top 10 on anybodies priority list. The people that it doesn't even effect and never come across immigrants are the most vocal about curtailing it. It is quite a strange phenomenon, which makes me believe other factors are at play.
Look at what you were responding to. It isn't just "Atlanta at 3AM" where lines are short or normal. Last Thursday, it was Chicago O'Hare at 8:30 AM where I walked through the security line in 5 minutes. Then, in New Orleans on Sunday at 3, the line was nearly 2 hours long and was longer than I've ever seen. Clearly, lines haven't been long in other places where people have been. So it seems the problem is very spotty, and not just at times when people aren't travelling.
I agree with much of this but I fault the Dems as much as the president. At least he has made suggestions and attempts to negotiate.
I fault the former republican congress even moreso. The should have passed legislation as well. Unfortunately there weren't enough votes in the senate at that time with some opposed as well.
N---
Let's compare this to something like fisheries management. I have a HMS permit which allows a certain amount of tuna to be landed over the course of the season. So when I catch I file a report with NOAA and they keep #'s not dissimilar to those put forth here from the DEA. I would argue that the catches of bluefin tuna not reported are likely even larger than those that are reported annually. You will not find documentation of the same because any of the sort would be in violation of federal law. Not that dissimilar to drug trafficking.
I don't see why this couldn't be true with regard to drug trafficking. Of course they will have greater success confiscating where they have better facilities. This actually helps the argument for border security funding, wall/fence, technology, agents. Exactly what the proposal calls for.
N---
No facts back up your opinion though that large quantities of drugs cone through unfenced areas just your opinion against everybody else DEA, Drug Taffficers, experts, common sense, etc
You analogy to wall is why fish where their are no fish or not nearly as many fish. Spend resources fishing where the fish are which is the already fenced areas
I fish where there are less boats ;>)
All I'm saying is it is impossible to know how much drugs come through in those other areas. And yes, I admit I have no idea either. TBS, if I were to traffic drugs, I would not go through a major port of entry.
N---
That would not be true if we invested in satellite and drone surveillance. You could build out metrics to determine these things. Also, your assumption to not go through a major port of entry is flawed. People making money and decisions do not themselves go through ports of entry. No, they cultivate mules to do this for them. Of course people are lining up around the block to go to America. So theres no risk for the businessman.
Its far too convenient to use the major highway infrastructure than to risk sending people walking through the desert. Especially when you are moving kilos of product.
Or when you are moving kilos of product you don't worry about the cost of doing a little extra work and getting to the point in the desert where there is no resistance. Im sure they would have to buy an expensive truck to get all the way out to the desert. Those businessmen arent concerned about a buying a $20k car or other measures to make sure their drugs have a better chance of getting through.
Last edited:
they just shut down LGA airport due to government shutdown. Trump's shutdown in full effect.
Yes- too much political risk to not end it. Betting its close to what Dems want- temp opening, nothing new on the wall for now, then negotiations. So far we are lucky no one has lost a life.
That seems highly unlikely, is there any evidence to this claim? All the research shows its #1 Bloods, #2 Latin Kings and both are considered rivals to MS-13
Whats amazing to me, is that Trump has had all this time to make a coherent argument, with charts and facts, to support his need for a boarder wall. But what he does is go out on stage, or behind his desk and rambles about trafficking, drugs, and crime issues. But he never shows where his 5.7 billion will be spent or how it will help. It's all emotional sappy appeal but he never shows the facts to support his view or way forward to help.
He's terrible at making an actual deal with the voting population.
He's terrible at making an actual deal with the voting population.
