Building The Wall?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Obfuscation. The central point is illegals are costing the US tax payer a ton of money and the wall would be a cheap (relative) way of combatting the costs.

OK. You are making a claim that:

1. illegals are costing the US tax payer a ton of money
2. the wall would be a cheap (relative) way of combatting the costs.

By combating, do you mean reducing, eliminating, or what?

You made two claims. Care to back them up with independent research and sources?

ETA

The implied syllogism ending is that building a wall will save US taxpayer money, correct?

a reply to: WeAreSound

if a wall doesnt work why does Obama's house surrounded with barricades, fences, concrete barriers and police cars that will stop you from even walking within 1000 feet of his house?

The wall will be built to prevent tunneling. Will be manned by extra technologies and drones on top of the personnel manning it. The wall is also built to prevent scaling. Sure it will still be possible but not by your average person and by time they got to the top, border patrol would be waiting on them. If walls didn’t work, then explain why it works for Israel, gated communities, prisons, etc.

I have seen no talk of the upkeep of said wall metal or concrete. The golden gate bridge takes about About $65 million a year to maintain. I think it should be included in any discussion. Will people be blowing holes in it alll of the time if metal will it need paint.

New solution...lets just buy Mexico, call it the 51st state, and build a tiny wall at their southern border (don't they already have one?)

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Although I agree, the argument would be clearer without a wall... of text.

LOL

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: WeAreSound

if a wall doesnt work why does Obama's house surrounded with barricades, fences, concrete barriers and police cars that will stop you from even walking within 1000 feet of his house?

This is the point really 2000 miles of desert. It would have to be watched just like Obama's house wall. How much to man it and maintain it? Which historic walls actually helped a country instead of imprisoning their citizens at some point? Right now millions of Americans travel to Mexico each year and even millions live there will their Families someday be caught in a North Korea?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jaxnmarko

You list assumptions and use them as facts.

We spend 135 billion/year on illegal aliens now.

What we're doing and what has been done on the border is not working.

And why do you think a wall would reduce that? And by how much, compared to how much it would cost?

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Will building a wall stop desperate people from building up in numbers around the legal entry point, in the hope that they can enter?

So, lets assume the wall is effective in stopping illegal crossings, that the people will continue to flood in, hoping for entry and that the rate exceeds the rate which legal entry can allow.

So you have increasingly large crowds of the desperate building up.

Fairly soon, they will begin to consider ways to get in and will realize that they have the numbers and can arm themselves.

So, you then have an army of hundreds of thousands strategizing ways to breach the wall.

It will occur to them that they don't want to enter just to be tossed out again, so their strategy must encompass defeating the US government's ability to respond.

Now, according to recent estimates, there are between 11 and 12 million migrants who aren't there legally. These guys are already within your borders and they aren't going to be happy that DACA and other schemes have been canned so they have almost no path to becoming legal. Consider them radicalized by the actions of the US government. 12 million deep cover agents ready to act against the government of the US. How might they act? Bombings? Sabotage? Assassinations?

Definitely lots of shootings, because your second amendment allows all of the millions of insurgents to be armed and openly carrying. The very thing that you think defends your liberty could be it's downfall.

My guess is that they will communicate and synchronize their efforts rather than having small and futile skirmishes. It would be all-in, all at once action.

They would aim to cripple the government so the response would be disorganized and ineffective, while simultaneously invading and taking control of cities. Attacks would occur in population centers across the country from the armed deep cover ranks and from the army moving from the border.

The enemy would suddenly be everywhere and would look exactly like everyone else. From there, fighting would be house to house guerilla style warfare (they invented it), spreading from population core to population core. They would target the uniformed, cleanly identified authorities. The armed forces would not be able to respond with most of their weapons due to the civilian collateral.

Sure, the government forces could eventually win and re-take ground. But of course you have to ask, where would South American governments stand? Surely Mexico would love to take back Texas and California. What of other anti-us governments, do you think they will let their opportunity slide by?

My guess is that, strategically, the wall on the Southern border could end the United States government and constitution.

I'm sure Trump knows that (he is, after all a puppet of Russia, allegedly).

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: WeAreSound

if a wall doesnt work why does Obama's house surrounded with barricades, fences, concrete barriers and police cars that will stop you from even walking within 1000 feet of his house?

For starters, Obama's home is not that well fortified. And what fencing is there, is to slow down a threat rather than to stop it. Furthermore, his home has a perimeter of about 270 feet, and the security detail for a former President when things are normal is approximately 3 people per shift (though it does vary based on the situation). So that's one person for every 90 feet. If we apply that same logic to the requirements for a border wall, that would be 116,667 people per shift. Throw in travel time to wall locations, and you would be looking at needing 6 shifts per day (2 hours travel to your post each way, 4 hours on duty), so that would be 700,000 agents at minimum, probably closer to 750,000 to cover sick days. Then the administation for them would be another 186,000 people or so, so you would need 936,000 people to guard the border. At an average salary of $50,000 per year, plus payroll taxes and other employer expenses, that would come to about $90k per person per year, which would be $84 billion in salary. Then, you would have all the maintenance requirements for the wall, for the roads to get to the wall, for the utilities to reach the wall, for the vehicles to transport to the wall, and so on. You would be looking at, a minimum of $120 billion per year to do this.

Large walls are simply not economical.

The wall. Here is what can be stated about the wall:
This is a bad idea, and one that could cause the country far more problems. And having asked why a wall the response is that it is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US, to stop the bad guys from getting into the country, to stop the flow of drugs.

The sad thing is that this wall was sold on a premise of half truths and lies. No one ever asked what caused some of these problems mentioned, and ultimately now does it matter?

And while everyone is focused on this wall, the question is what is the cost?

A large percentage of the illegal immigrants fly into the country and overstay, so a wall is not going to stop that. Drugs, such as opioids are shipped via the waterways, so the wall will not stop that. Laws that were passed to make pot legal, have taken a bite out of the flow from the south, so that is going to dwindle down. And then there is what we do not pay attention to, while everyone is focused on the wall, and that is far more dangerous to us all, and the wall becomes a death trap unto itself. So does it matter that Russia has 2 military bases to the south of the US?

How does a wall stop a nuclear missile fired into the USA from the south? Or the West?

And the US cuts off aid to other countries, but then again, what happens when those countries look out for a helping hand, will we be any safer with China moving into the void that is left by the US, to clean up its mess? China has been flexing its military muscles, and expanding its influence, this would be an opportunity to move on in, to start a good will, in exchange for say land or a port for a military base, and maybe more?

And what do you think the reaction is going to be from Mexico, when the US militarizes the boarder? They watch, and do we honestly think that they are going to sit idle? The reality is that they are moving assets into the area and watching. So what will the headlines be, when Mexico decides to move its troops to patrol their side of the boarder, then what?

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Where have you been? All of these questions have been asked and answered along with everything on these first 2 pages. Maybe you don't like the answers. Who cares? The wall is happening. Repeating the same things over and over changes nothing.

There is gonna be a wall. Deal with it.

a reply to: Aazadan

here, have fun with reality

not that well fortified?

originally posted by: Dr UAE
not that well fortified?

Gated communities are not walls in the same sense, they are also not what Trump was referring to, or the fact that his home doesn't have wall around it.

Instead of linking propaganda, try linking actual journalists. Such as this, which really puts it in context.

people.com...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Dr UAE
not that well fortified?

Gated communities are not walls in the same sense, they are also not what Trump was referring to, or the fact that his home doesn't have wall around it.

Instead of linking propaganda, try linking actual journalists. Such as this, which really puts it in context.

people.com...

so those barricades, fences, concrete barriers and police cars that will stop you from even walking within 1000 feet of his house are CGI?

a reply to: Dr UAE

Those walls don't stop you, you can go around or over them if you want. The people around them stop you. And that means a lot of people. I did the calculations for you above. To man the southern border would require a force nearly equal in size to US active duty military. Do you think that is practical? Especially considering that only about 10% of illegal immigration into the US comes through the southern border at a non designated point of entry?

a reply to: Aazadan

This is top picture on drudgereport atm...

originally posted by: WeAreSound
a reply to: jaxnmarko

Shhhhh!
You will upset the natives!

A wall built by Trump is like totally impenetrable and 100% effective some of the time.

They can't stop drugs getting into prisons with about 1 mile of perimeter wall to watch, yet they believe that this steel fence (not a wall) will stop drugs/ people entering into the country for over 2000 miles
/

I would like to know from the people most insistent on a fence (not a wall) being built where they are from, and how immigration comming across the southern border is directly affecting them. Not in the abstract, but how it has reduced the quality of their life personally.

I'm sure those Mexicans are such a darn problem in Iowa and Wyoming!

What is this, a joke??? A trick question??? My insurance costs are thru the roof since every time one of those illegals goes to the emergency room with a toothache, I have to pay for it...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: jaxnmarko

Will building a wall stop desperate people from building up in numbers around the legal entry point, in the hope that they can enter?

So, lets assume the wall is effective in stopping illegal crossings, that the people will continue to flood in, hoping for entry and that the rate exceeds the rate which legal entry can allow.

So you have increasingly large crowds of the desperate building up.

Fairly soon, they will begin to consider ways to get in and will realize that they have the numbers and can arm themselves.

So, you then have an army of hundreds of thousands strategizing ways to breach the wall.

It will occur to them that they don't want to enter just to be tossed out again, so their strategy must encompass defeating the US government's ability to respond.

Now, according to recent estimates, there are between 11 and 12 million migrants who aren't there legally. These guys are already within your borders and they aren't going to be happy that DACA and other schemes have been canned so they have almost no path to becoming legal. Consider them radicalized by the actions of the US government. 12 million deep cover agents ready to act against the government of the US. How might they act? Bombings? Sabotage? Assassinations?

Definitely lots of shootings, because your second amendment allows all of the millions of insurgents to be armed and openly carrying. The very thing that you think defends your liberty could be it's downfall.

My guess is that they will communicate and synchronize their efforts rather than having small and futile skirmishes. It would be all-in, all at once action.

They would aim to cripple the government so the response would be disorganized and ineffective, while simultaneously invading and taking control of cities. Attacks would occur in population centers across the country from the armed deep cover ranks and from the army moving from the border.

The enemy would suddenly be everywhere and would look exactly like everyone else. From there, fighting would be house to house guerilla style warfare (they invented it), spreading from population core to population core. They would target the uniformed, cleanly identified authorities. The armed forces would not be able to respond with most of their weapons due to the civilian collateral.

Sure, the government forces could eventually win and re-take ground. But of course you have to ask, where would South American governments stand? Surely Mexico would love to take back Texas and California. What of other anti-us governments, do you think they will let their opportunity slide by?

My guess is that, strategically, the wall on the Southern border could end the United States government and constitution.

I'm sure Trump knows that (he is, after all a puppet of Russia, allegedly).

I take it you never heard of Profiling and using skin tone to determine someones point of origin huh? no all this would do is cause mass ethnic cleansing of all brown skin dark haired people.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: jaxnmarko

Will building a wall stop desperate people from building up in numbers around the legal entry point, in the hope that they can enter?

So, lets assume the wall is effective in stopping illegal crossings, that the people will continue to flood in, hoping for entry and that the rate exceeds the rate which legal entry can allow.

So you have increasingly large crowds of the desperate building up.

Fairly soon, they will begin to consider ways to get in and will realize that they have the numbers and can arm themselves.

So, you then have an army of hundreds of thousands strategizing ways to breach the wall.

It will occur to them that they don't want to enter just to be tossed out again, so their strategy must encompass defeating the US government's ability to respond.

Now, according to recent estimates, there are between 11 and 12 million migrants who aren't there legally. These guys are already within your borders and they aren't going to be happy that DACA and other schemes have been canned so they have almost no path to becoming legal. Consider them radicalized by the actions of the US government. 12 million deep cover agents ready to act against the government of the US. How might they act? Bombings? Sabotage? Assassinations?

Definitely lots of shootings, because your second amendment allows all of the millions of insurgents to be armed and openly carrying. The very thing that you think defends your liberty could be it's downfall.

My guess is that they will communicate and synchronize their efforts rather than having small and futile skirmishes. It would be all-in, all at once action.

They would aim to cripple the government so the response would be disorganized and ineffective, while simultaneously invading and taking control of cities. Attacks would occur in population centers across the country from the armed deep cover ranks and from the army moving from the border.

The enemy would suddenly be everywhere and would look exactly like everyone else. From there, fighting would be house to house guerilla style warfare (they invented it), spreading from population core to population core. They would target the uniformed, cleanly identified authorities. The armed forces would not be able to respond with most of their weapons due to the civilian collateral.

Sure, the government forces could eventually win and re-take ground. But of course you have to ask, where would South American governments stand? Surely Mexico would love to take back Texas and California. What of other anti-us governments, do you think they will let their opportunity slide by?

My guess is that, strategically, the wall on the Southern border could end the United States government and constitution.

I'm sure Trump knows that (he is, after all a puppet of Russia, allegedly).

I take it you never heard of Profiling and using skin tone to determine someones point of origin huh? no all this would do is cause mass ethnic cleansing of all brown skin dark haired people.

What race is orange?

LOL