Talk about obnoxious...

[Occhidiangela]

Actually walls work pretty well if you tend them.

Gaurds with no walls work poorly. Walls with with no gaurds work poorly. Sure a few would get through, but it would be a tiny trickle compared to todays deluge.

And please Occhi I though you were a bit better than Drasca on reasonable examples. The Great Wall of China?

The walls involved in the old Iron Curtain worked pretty well. We loved the stories of people who got through, but many more were coaght and countless more didnt even try because of the bad odds.
EDIT: I see Munkay pointed out the same things I did.
[right][snapback]106641[/snapback][/right]

Ghost:

The zone defense in depth, the death strips, the search lights, the machine gun towers, the will to shoot to kill. That is what made the "Berlin Wall" so effective, it was the MEN with the guns, the surveillance system, and the will to use deadly force that created the effective barrier.

Occhi

[Guest]

Ghost:

The zone defense in depth, the death strips, the search lights, the machine gun towers, the will to shoot to kill.  That is what made the "Berlin Wall" so effective, it was the MEN with the guns, the surveillance system, and the will to use deadly force that created the effective barrier.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106678[/snapback][/right]

The wall is part of it. I would think you understand this, but since you are playing naive for the forum Ill explain it.

Walls make a point that slows people down and in turn makes it easier to intercept them.

Sure shooting to kill would make the "wall" more effective, but just because you dont primarily use lethal force does not mean its impossible to largely secure a border.

If you are going to attempt to have any restrictions at all on the border its common sense to use all the simple and effective tools. Sure they arent absolute, but used in conjunction with gaurds its much better than what we have now.

[Alram]

It is naive to think that a wall would put a dent in illegal immigration.

But suppose for a moment that congress would actually enact such a harebrained scheme. Guess which workers would build the wall in order to save costs. :P

[Occhidiangela]

The wall is part of it.  I would think you understand this, but since you are playing naive for the forum Ill explain it.

Walls make a point that slows people down and in turn makes it easier to intercept them.

Sure shooting to kill would make the "wall" more effective, but just because you dont primarily use lethal force does not mean its impossible to largely secure a border.

If you are going to attempt to have any restrictions at all on the border its common sense to use all the simple and effective tools. Sure they arent absolute, but used in conjunction with gaurds its much better than what we have now.
[right][snapback]106684[/snapback][/right]

Naive?

I happen to know exactly what I am talking about, Ghost, whereas I am not so sure you do.

I lived in West Berlin for three years, when the Wall was still up. The reason the wall worked was not because it was hard to scale, or because it presented a barrier. What made it work as a barrier was the defense in depth; the death strips which were half mile wide areas that created perfect fields of fire; the series of watchtowers; searchlights, and men in them. Armed men. The Volkspolezei. Men with orders to shoot to kill. Which they did.

The Southwest border of the US would need to be similarly backed up if a "wall" or a "fence" were constructed. Otherwise, any such barrier merely presents one more obstacle beyond the River that is already there. (Not the most daunting of obstacles.)

I used to report illegals coming across the Tijuana river in Imperial Beach, California. I'd spot them in my helicopter when I was giving instructional flights. I'd call the tower to alert the local border patrol/INS crew. This was early 1990's.

I was eventually asked to "stop doing border patrol's work." That is politics. I was told it wasn't the military's job.

The political will is absent, still, to secure the border. I don't know if it will ever grow to a sufficient level to get it right. The internal rot may be too deep.

Alram makes an interesting point about how to build a wall, and who might.

No wall will prevent the influence of internal rot. There is an inceitive to hire illegals, to pay them low wages, to keep them off the tax roles, to not pay into SS or Medicare, et cetera. Unless that incentive is taken away, the monetary incentive will remain.

It takes political will to hammer those who, already in this country, are scofflaws, who not infrequently work to sponsor legislation, or to pedal influence, to NOT enforce the laws. My county is full of such filth.

The wall is at best a symbol. From Brownsville to San Diego? A pointless expense. The true threat is internal corrupution, treason, and the lack of political will to retain control of our sovereign nation. The lack of will to enforce Article IV, section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. That is best done with men, with an integrated surveillance package, and with permissive RoE, per my previous posts. When the word gets out that you will die trying to cross the river, the invasion will slow down.

Walls can't stop that. Only people can. The wall would be an expense as pointless as the Maginot Line.

Occhi

[jahcs]

I've been listening to some interviews of folks involved in these protests on the radio this morning. A very common answer to to the "Why are you here?" question are the words "justice" and "recognition."

IMHO if justice is what they were after then deportation would be the just outcome, no matter how unattainable that is.

And on the wall debate: San Diego's recently improved barrier sections are being shown to reduce the number of attempted crossings in that area. I'm sure many of the folks are just rerouting but why make it easy for them?
Also the Minutemen posting along sections of border are working with the border patrol to report illegal crossings. Other than the "vigilante" rhetoric I have heard that they are fairly effictive.

EDIT: Any solution that takes more than 5 minutes or 5 dollars will not be popular with the American people. Do the majority of voters in this country have the willpower to have our elected officials actually make tough choices and stick to them? I doubt it.

[Occhidiangela]

I've been listening to some interviews of folks involved in these protests on the radio this morning.  A very common answer to to the "Why are you here?" question are the words "justice" and "recognition."

IMHO if justice is what they were after then deportation would be the just outcome, no matter how unattainable that is.

And on the wall debate:  San Diego's recently improved barrier sections are being shown to reduce the number of attempted crossings in that area.  I'm sure many of the folks are just rerouting but why make it easy for them?
Also the Minutemen posting along sections of border are working with the border patrol to report illegal crossings.  Other than the "vigilante" rhetoric I have heard that they are fairly effictive.

EDIT:  Any solution that takes more than 5 minutes or 5 dollars will not be popular with the American people.  Do the majority of voters in this country have the willpower to have our elected officials actually make tough choices and stick to them?  I doubt it.
[right][snapback]106702[/snapback][/right]

THe fence is only effective when backed up by manpower.

The operations that we supported with tactical air strikes, mid 2004, along the Syrian Iraq, and the Iraqi Saudi border didn't need a wall. Sadly, they tended to be an economy of force, and thus routinely underresourced. Central Iraq tended to get all the troops, since that is where the civil war as going on. During those weeks when border security became the main effort, it was remarkable how quickly the trickle slowed down.

It helped that the RoE was permissive.

Occhi

[jahcs]

THe fence is only effective when backed up by manpower.

The operations that we supported with tactical air strikes, mid 2004, along the Syrian Iraq, and the Iraqi Saudi border didn't need a wall.  Sadly, they tended to be an economy of force, and thus routinely underresourced.  Central Iraq tended to get all the troops, since that is where the civil war as going on.  During those weeks when border security became the main effort, it was remarkable how quickly the trickle slowed down.

It helped that the RoE was permissive.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106706[/snapback][/right]

Exactly, do we fight the problem or the symptom?

Root beer floats for everybody! :D

[Alram]

The majority of illegals do come from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Consider this from a different perspective.

In 2003 an INS report found that 78,000 illegal immigrants came from the Middle East.Although the numbers are smaller than Mexico, this should be a much bigger concern for obvious reasons.

More than 500,000 Chinese have been smuggled into the U.S. since the late 1980s, making them the second-largest undocumented immigrant group.
Considering the Chinese Communist government could place agents here this should also be a greater concern than Mexico.

There are tens of thousands of illegal Irish immigrants. click
Well, the Irish are white and blend into American society better, but there are few countries with a more colorful terrorist track record.

A wall wouldn't help.


Regarding Social Security, illegal households create a combined net benefit for Social Security and Medicare in the billions a year, accounting for some of the total annual surplus in these two programs, because illegals pay into the system, but don't take money out. National Immigration Forum
Obviously illegals are not the drain on America that some of the media and politicians would have you believe. They come to this country to work--not to go on welfare.

[Occhidiangela]

Regarding Social Security, illegal households create a combined net benefit for Social Security and Medicare in the billions a year, accounting for some of the total annual surplus in these two programs, because illegals pay into the system, but don't take money out. National Immigration Forum
Obviously illegals are not the drain on America that some of the media and politicians would have you believe.  They come to this country to work--not to go on welfare.
[right][snapback]106710[/snapback][/right]

Alram:
As to the last, tell that to the border counties whose medical systems are overwhelmed with free loaders.

As to the SSN, gambit:

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

People paid under the table, not on tax roll, not on employee rolls, make no contributions to SSA, nor do their employer. People who sell dope for cash don't pay taxes on it either. People who don't register their cars force the rest of us to pay for Uninsured Motorists coverage. That is, in outcome, a national tax on every one who drives and insures their car in accordance with the law.

Someone has been having fun with numbers. Gee, no surprise. Look at the web page. Remember the word "agenda."

Obviously?

Here is what is obvious.

Liars figure, figures can be made to support a lie.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Alram:
As to the last, tell that to the border counties whose medical systems are overwhelmed with free loaders.

As to the SSN, gambit:

Riiiiiiiiiiight. 

People paid under the table, not on tax roll, not on employee rolls, make no contributions to SSA, nor do their employer.  People who sell dope for cash don't pay taxes on it either.  People who don't register their cars force the rest of us to pay for Uninsured Motorists coverage.  That is, in outcome, a national tax on every one who drives and insures their car in accordance with the law.

Someone has been having fun with numbers.  Gee, no surprise. Look at the web page.  Remember the word "agenda."

Obviously?

Here is what is obvious.

Liars figure, figures can be made to support a lie.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106711[/snapback][/right]

While you make some good points, Occhi, you raise some further questions, at least for this observer.


1) What is Uninsured Motorist coverage? And how, exactly, is it relevant to the issue of illegal immigration? i.e. Can you point to some (*grins*) more figures that would give a realistic proportion of the uninsured drivers who are illegal immigrants? I have a hard time swallowing your implication that it is close to a 1:1 ratio.

2) What about those employers who do need and hire 'minimum wage' workers and do the wink and nod at the SS number provided and the name thereon? I suspect there are more than a small number of them too.

[Alram]

Alram:
As to the last, tell that to the border counties whose medical systems are overwhelmed with free loaders.

As to the SSN, gambit:

Riiiiiiiiiiight. 


Occhi
[right][snapback]106711[/snapback][/right]

I don't have the website address handy, but do recall that a US gov't. report estimated 7 billion per year going into Social Security surplus from illegal immigrants.

You also overlook my points about national security.

[Guest]

You arent saying anything.

Your point is basically - with all the other problems its a waste of time to worry about the border.
You never presented one piece of real evidence to refute my obvious point - a wall would help secure the border.


If you want to argue that we shouldnt bother securing the border - fine. Thats a legitimate position, although I disagree. But its not all the same as saying a wall wont help stop illegals.

[Occhidiangela]

You arent saying anything.

Your point is basically - with all the other problems its a waste of time to worry about the border.
You never presented one piece of real evidence to refute my obvious point - a wall would help secure the border.
If you want to argue that we shouldnt bother securing the border - fine. Thats a legitimate position, although I disagree. But its not all the same as saying a wall wont help stop illegals.
[right][snapback]106724[/snapback][/right]

You are suffering under the standard "security" illusions.

It is a waste of time and money to build a wall. The money spent on troops and surveillance systems to man the border would be money better spent.

The wall won't solve the problem, but building one will waste a lot of money under providing the illusion that 'something is being done.' Think military tactics, and a flexible versus fixed defense.

Unless you'd rather all your base belong to nosotros. :P

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I don't have the website address handy, but do recall that a US gov't. report estimated 7 billion per year going into Social Security surplus from illegal immigrants.

You also overlook my points about national security.
[right][snapback]106714[/snapback][/right]

This is estimated under what rubric: that money not set aside by workers not reported, or workers fraudulantly reported is 7 billion per year? Do you smell the irony? If illegal income and payments are being reported, where are the prison sentences?

As to national security:

1. Defend your borders, shoot to kill.

2. Root out the fifth column, and execute them.

Just as we did in WW II, to some German saboteurs and some spies.

Next question.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

While you make some good points, Occhi, you raise some further questions, at least for this observer.
1)  What is Uninsured Motorist coverage?   And how, exactly, is it relevant to the issue of illegal immigration?   i.e.   Can you point to some (*grins*) more figures that would give a realistic proportion of the uninsured drivers who are illegal immigrants?   I have a hard time swallowing your implication that it is close to a 1:1 ratio.

2)  What about those employers who do need and hire 'minimum wage' workers and do the wink and nod at the SS number provided and the name thereon?   I suspect there are more than a small number of them too.
[right][snapback]106713[/snapback][/right]

Shadow:

Minimum wage workers are not exclusively illegals.

Do you understand how big the lie is in the press on this matter? The meme that keeps on getting spread, the lie, is

Lie Number 1. "It is only illegals who will "do the jobs Americans won't do." That is crap. Legal immigrants, and legal citizens have been doing them for years. Hard working, salt of the earth people. People like my grandfather. People like me when I was in high school.

Lie number 2. "Where do you get the minimum wage workers."

Where you have always gotten them. You don't need an illegal to hire someone at minimum wage. If the labor market gets tight, you might have to pay above the minimum wage. What a concept! :blink:

Note: Uninsured motorists coverage is a fee insured motorists pay so that when an uninsured motorist, who is breaking the law by not being insured but who hasn't been caught yet, hits your car, you are "covered." If you are hit by an uninsured motorist, and you have not paid that fee, you are screwed as your insurance company is not bound to pay.

When is the last time the cops did a sweep/roadblock to check for insurance? And impounded uninsured vehicles?

Down here, not since 2002.

In South Texas, the uninsured motorist is estimated to be between 10% and 30% of the drivers, depends on who you want to believe> Illeals are often in that category when apprehended by police. Not all uninsured motorists are illegal aliens: some are simply scofflaws who let their insurance lapse due to inertia, or lack of a sound budget, or because it dug into their beer money.

Occhi

[Guest]

You are suffering under the standard "security" illusions.

It is a waste of time and money to build a wall.  The money spent on troops and surveillance systems to man the border would be money better spent.

The wall won't solve the problem, but building one will waste a lot of money under providing the illusion that 'something is being done.'  Think military tactics, and a flexible versus fixed defense. 

Unless you'd rather all your base belong to nosotros.  :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]106729[/snapback][/right]

That makes sense. I agree its possible that the wall would help but that spending the money on man power would help more.


Im curious about some potential costs.

-cost of a wall?
-current money spent on Mexican border patrols?
-what the projected cost of reducing say 95% of current traffic would be in terms of man power.


But Im not sure your right. an active defense against many individual targets(from an unending pool) isnt always effective like it is against other forces.

Your military tactic metaphor doesnt quite fit.
In a military operation its a disaster to be tied down in defense and to not beable to attack the opponent.
But that situation DEFINES border defense.

[Occhidiangela]

That makes sense. I agree its possible that the wall would help but that spending the money on man power would help more.
Im curious about some potential costs.

-cost of a wall?
-current money spent on Mexican border patrols?
-what the projected cost of reducing say 95% of current traffic would be in terms of man power.
But Im not sure your right. an active  defense against many individual targets(from an unending pool) isnt always effective like it is against other forces.

Your military tactic metaphor doesnt quite fit.
In a military operation its a disaster to be tied down in defense and to not beable to attack the opponent.
But that situation DEFINES border defense.
[right][snapback]106733[/snapback][/right]

Ghost:

It is a hybrid military/law enforcement problem. Military because the nation's borders are being violated, aided and abetted by a foreign government. (Fox and his crowd, and others before him.) Law enforcement because the laws are being broken by both the intruders, and by persons on our side of the border who aid and abet the infiltration. Check the ddemographic change in Chicago in the past 20 years.

Infiltration is a military tactic. To counter an infiltration in a flexible defense, you need active patrolling and an integrated surveillance scheme. Air assets are already provided, but they need to be boosted, and then augmented by UAV's.

Closing off this invasion also supports the infamous "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" and might have an effect on the old "War on Poverty" if a tighter labor market raises wage levels, but I am not so sure about that last bit.

Infiltatrion is also a strategy. It has been the strategy of La Raza, and other groups both within and outside of America, who wish to overturn the Treaty of Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe, 1848, for about the last 50 years.

Think Kosovo, on the Rio Grande.

Mexico received a bailout from Bill Clinton of around 58 billion dollars. The thanks we get is the governments of Mexico not only ignoring their side of the border, but pass out maps of

Infiltration Routes.

I wonder: wouldn't it be ironic if those maps were provded by a few of the drug runner cartels who use them, and who have cousins in the Government.? It would not surprise me.

Occhi

[Guest]

Ghost:

It is a hybrid military/law enforcement problem.  Military because the nation's borders are being violated, aided and abetted by a foreign government.  (Fox and his crowd, and others before him.)  Law enforcement because the laws are being broken by both the intruders, and by persons on our side of the border who aid and abet the infiltration.  Check the ddemographic change in Chicago in the past 20 years.   

Infiltration is a military tactic.  To counter an infiltration in a flexible defense, you need active patrolling and an integrated surveillance scheme.  Air assets are already provided, but they need to be boosted, and then augmented by UAV's. 

Closing off this invasion also supports the infamous "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" and might have an effect on the old "War on Poverty" if a tighter labor  market raises wage levels, but I am not so sure about that last bit.

Infiltatrion is also a strategy.  It has been the strategy of La Raza, and other groups both within and outside of America, who wish to overturn the Treaty of Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe, 1848, for about the last 50 years. 

Think Kosovo, on the Rio Grande.

Mexico received a bailout from Bill Clinton of around 58 billion dollars.  The thanks we get is the governments of Mexico not only ignoring their side of the border, but pass out maps of

Infiltration Routes. 

I wonder: wouldn't it be ironic if those maps were provded by a few of the drug runner cartels who use them, and who have cousins in the Government.?  It would not surprise me. 

Occhi
[right][snapback]106737[/snapback][/right]

It really doesnt matter what terms you use, its a static border and a wall/fence helps secure a static border.
Id really need to see the costs I mentioned to form a final opinion, but if cost wasnt an issue a wall would help.

[Occhidiangela]

It really doesnt matter what terms you use, its a static border and a wall/fence helps secure a static border.
Id really need to see the costs I mentioned to form a final opinion, but if cost wasnt an issue a wall would help.
[right][snapback]106738[/snapback][/right]

Thank you, Monsieur Maginot.

One very good point you do raise, the cost benefit consideration.

Benefit of wall: zero above current border deterrence
Cost: billions

Benefit of a defense in depth: Some (Depends on force levels)
Cost: I will guess a few billion per year, above and beyond current border surveillance efforts Customs, DEA, JTF 6, and Border Patrol conduct.

The trap is in what happens at the fiscal appropriations level.

"Since we spent the money on the wall, we don't need to spend as much on the troops, UAV's, surveillance intergration package." The fig leaf is "we spent money on that wall, we improved border security" and the uncomfortable problem of defending against an invasion, an infiltration of our sovereign borders, is now safely ignored.

I've seen this movie before. You don't take it as seriously as I do, but that is fine, we each see the world from a slightly different angle: where you sit determines what you see. ;)

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Shadow:

Minimum wage workers are not exclusively illegals.

I did not intend to suggest so. I was just taking exception to your dismissal of Alram's contention that illegal immigrants do, in fact, pay into Social Services. I rather expect that there are both sorts of illegal immigrants - those who do get paid 'under the table' (one way or another) and those who do work at 'legal' jobs where their employers have, either wittingly or unwittingly, accepted false documentation.

Do you understand how big the lie is in the press on this matter? 

Not at all. :) That is why I have been following this thread, thus far, with such interest.

Note:  Uninsured motorists coverage is a fee insured motorists pay so that when an uninsured motorist, who is breaking the law by not being insured but who hasn't been caught yet, hits your car, you are "covered."  If you are hit by an uninsured motorist, and you have not paid that fee, you are screwed as your insurance company is not bound to pay. 

Ah - we have an entirely different set of rules for how insurance works. I insure my own car for damage and I insure myself for liability on damage to others. So there is no such issue for me.

Thanks for clarifying.

*settles back to lurking again for this thread*