• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immigration Deal Would double size of Border Patrol And Finish 700 miles of Fence

Who would you prefer as border gaurds? Uzbekistan gaurds? They are perfect if you don't mind the use of excessive brute force.




You obviously have a problem.

I suggest that you deal with it.
 
As my friends here know, my opinion regarding the "illegal immigration" is rare and "extreme": Basically, I consider it an imaginary problem in perpetual search of nasty and expensive solutions.

Having said that, a physical barrier on the border does not offend my sensibilities. After all, criminals, human traffickers, and just plain infectious diseases are beneficiaries of poorly guarded borders as well.

But is anyone going to do cost-effectiveness analysis? Let's say per every billion spent on the Great Fence, we "apprehend" - or prevent from even trying to enter - a thousand migrant workers who would contribute to our economy, a dozen thugs who would subtract from it, and one hapless dude carrying the latest fashionable coronavirus.

Was it worth the sacrifice? How do we calculate these things?
 
Fences are largely a waste of time and money. They are no real deterrent for those wanting to cross. Imagine putting a 15' fence around a briefcase with $10M inside. Once people found out what was there how long do you think it would take before someone circumvented that fence? I doubt it would take 15 minutes. My point is a fence really wont stop anyone from crossing that wants to cross unless you have that fence manned and then it is the man and not the fence that works. Fences are just a token show of effort to stop illegal crossings and little more.

The real solution is to remove the incentive for any seeking to cross illegally. We should remove all public services/aid to anyone with illegal status. Remove birthright citizenship of children who have parents with illegal status. A National E-verify system that can compare fingerprints or photos to validate ID and their legal status. And most importantly we should deport every single illegal immigrant found in our country. If we continue to ignore those which are here as we have for the last 30+ years then nothing is going to work as effectively as it should.
 
The gov will be in charge of this fence and ten years is wildly optimistic. The last time we tried to build one much of it was tied up in court and still is over environmentalist law suits.




The right legislation can avoid problems like that.

Think back to WWII
 
The right legislation can avoid problems like that.

Think back to WWII

You have more faith than I do in our current gov both dem and rep. I don't think we will ever be the country we were in the 40s. Here's hoping you are right and I am wrong though. :cheers:
 
As my friends here know, my opinion regarding the "illegal immigration" is rare and "extreme": Basically, I consider it an imaginary problem in perpetual search of nasty and expensive solutions.

Having said that, a physical barrier on the border does not offend my sensibilities. After all, criminals, human traffickers, and just plain infectious diseases are beneficiaries of poorly guarded borders as well.

But is anyone going to do cost-effectiveness analysis? Let's say per every billion spent on the Great Fence, we "apprehend" - or prevent from even trying to enter - a thousand migrant workers who would contribute to our economy, a dozen thugs who would subtract from it, and one hapless dude carrying the latest fashionable coronavirus.

Was it worth the sacrifice? How do we calculate these things?




I am going to guess that if the fence, plus increased security prevents one incident like 9/11 most Americans will agree that it was worth the cost.
 
You have more faith than I do in our current gov both dem and rep. I don't think we will ever be the country we were in the 40s. Here's hoping you are right and I am wrong though. :cheers:

The 40's were not great for most people we should not want to go back.
 
You have more faith than I do in our current gov both dem and rep. I don't think we will ever be the country we were in the 40s. Here's hoping




you are right and I am wrong though. :cheers:




I agree that Congress doesn't have a great record, but we can't stop trying.
 
The right legislation can avoid problems like that.

Think back to WWII

I recall the French built extensive fortifacations called the maginot line to keep the Germans out. Too bad the Germans found a way around it.

Sorry I am so cynical but i don't see how a fence is going to deter anyone from crossing the border, especially if they are determined.
 
I am going to guess that if the fence, plus increased security prevents one incident like 9/11 most Americans will agree that it was worth the cost.

Certainly. But the same could be said about any measure at all. Abolishing air travel altogether would guarantee that 9/11 ever repeats itself. Of course, nobody contemplates such action - the cost-effectiveness is ludicrous, obviously. But where is the throbbing neon line between "ludicrous" and "acceptable"?

We are talking about a truly grandiose "infrastructure project" here. I lived in Boston for almost all of the 20+ years of the Big Dig epic disaster. The original cost estimate was about $ 2.2 B. The actual cost by the time of the opening? $ 22 B. And the Big Dig is a microscopic endeavor, comparing to building a functional barrier along a 2,000 mile border.
 
I recall the French built extensive fortifacations called the maginot line to keep the Germans out. Too bad the Germans found a way around it.

Sorry I am so cynical but i don't see how a fence is going to deter anyone from crossing the border, especially if they are determined.




You missed my point.

I referred to WWII because in WWII the USA didn't let red tape, etc. stand in the way of winning the war.
 
You missed my point.

I referred to WWII because in WWII the USA didn't let red tape, etc. stand in the way of winning the war.

Yeah try making people ration food gas and make sacrifices. Wont happen.
 
Immediate laws (with real enforcement) against hiring illegal labor should be more of an issue than future plans for border control. Most illegals are not jumping any fence, they simply enter as tourists, shoppers or students and then stay here. I agree that much better border control is needed, but that is much less effective while maintaining the economic magnet of a steady employment opportunity, little chance of deportation and coupled with automatic birthright citizenship for any offspring.

Yes. That is what is almost totally lost in this debate. Many of those here are overstays,either on work or student visa's(which I actually am a supporter of both). Until we have a better way,and some results with regards to this issue I can't get behind what the "gang"is doing.
 
Senators plan to introduce a 'Border Surge' plan that would double the size of the Border Patrol and ensure that 700 miles of fencing is finished on the Southern border.

Read more here: Immigration deal would double size of Border Patrol - Manu Raju and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com


I just want to add that every sovereign country on this planet has the right to guard its borders against unwelcome intrusions and control access to its territory.

This should have been done a long time ago.

I totally support this idea and anyone who knows me, knows that I am not anti-immigrant. My wife is an immigrant (She didn't sneak across the border.).



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

There's already a law (since 2006) requiring the 700 mile of fence. only 35 miles have been built and gaps in that have been mandated by the Secretary of the Interior as necessary for deer crossings. What will be different this time?

I'll answer my own question. Nothing, except we get legalization once again just as in 1986 without solving the problem...
 
What do you think of all of the "Cornhusker Kickback" type pay-offs being demanded by the several Senators on both sides of the aisle from Reid before ensuring their vote on immigration?
There's already a law (since 2006) requiring the 700 mile of fence. only 35 miles have been built and gaps in that have been mandated by the Secretary of the Interior as necessary for deer crossings. What will be different this time?

I'll answer my own question. Nothing, except we get legalization once again just as in 1986 without solving the problem...
 
What do you think of all of the "Cornhusker Kickback" type pay-offs being demanded by the several Senators on both sides of the aisle from Reid before ensuring their vote on immigration?

It simply means the bill is a stinker...
 
I'll be enjoying the petition from Bachmann and her 70-member team aimed at Boehner that comes out tomorrow on immigration.

You may not remember me predicting before the election the advent of a more regionalized Congress, with dual-party and multi-wing "gangs" as they're called? The gun bill showed this.

So how do we insure the number of "guest" workers needed in this Country, especially in the Southern states?

It simply means the bill is a stinker...
 
Passing legislation that provides needed funds makes it at least a little more likely, eh?

Not necessarily.

Frankly, the fence is a waste of time and more for political grandstanding than anything else. It's one of those "feel good" measures that allows government to say to the voter "Look, we did something!" and then, in a year or two, they pull the manpower saying that the fence is sufficient and they'll save us money while the smugglers just bridge the fence like they do now.

The key to border security is and always will be manpower combined with a solid, enforceable, trackable guest worker law. If you make it easy for people to come here legally, work and go home then the only people you need to worry about on the remote border are the bad guys.

My personal preference would be for a sponsored guest worker program combined with employer verification and strict enforcement of immigration policy. You don't get to bring your family here with you if you're just coming to work and if you plan on staying then you start that process before you come here and you complete it in two years or less. If you're coming here for an education then you stay in school and maintain a respectable GPA. If you can't handle that then you go home. If you're here already you'd better get sponsored and do things the right way because if you get caught before you're legit you're going home and you're family is going with you.
 
Polgara, I see you. Tell me again please how your relatives feel about what the Repubs have done to them with the Post Office pension scandal. :peace
 
It simply means the bill is a stinker...

Greetings, AP. :2wave:

:agree: When the general public, and the various unions and other groups with any clout insist upon being exempted, why can't the administration accept that this is NOT wanted in its current form? The untruths about Obamacare are starting to emerge more and more every day, and BHO still doesn't get it? Why not? He is supposed to be a smart man, so what's the problem? When Baucus calls it a "trainwreck," and he knows more about it than most people, what is the public supposed to think... the worst is yet to come? Unfortunately, that is probably true! :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom