Here is an interactive map of the "Wall" with video links to view the entire Southern Border from the air. It was produced by USA Today and their crew who filmed the entire border from a four day helicopter ride.
This site has a wealth of information that you can explore and learn about the Southern Border, including it's topography and environment. Trump and anybody who has an interest in the "wall" needs to sees this map.
1. Click on the link below. This will bring you to the entire map.
2. Click on the Down Arrow enclosed in a circle. This will take you to the Introduction. After the introduction, Click on the Explore the Map Button and follow the prompts to take the helicopter ride from East to West.
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us … 44jdTM5nww
Most interesting! Not sure what you saw, but I saw mile after mile after mile of river with roads not far from either bank, easy access to the river on both sides and a very occasional house (ranch?). Not even a pedestrian fence according to the legend. I was looking in the area of Big Bend State Park - some had high cliffs that appear functionally unclimbable, but a great deal more did not.
This is in line with interviews I've seen with ranchers, pointing out that the only "barrier" is a broken down strand of barbed wire.
Looks to me like the 200 miles or so that Trump wants to start with is needed. Badly.
Wilderness: I don't know what you saw? Did you have the audio on and listen to the narration? Did you see the formidable desert where there are no roads and no human would even attempt to cross into that area?
The reason there are no walls in some spots is because they are either impassable or the cost to benefit ratio is too high because roads would have to be built, so that materials and personnel could be brought in.
My point to all of this is that Trump keeps talking about his wall as if there is nothing there already or that it is ineffective. That is not the case.
The Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have sensors, drones, and radar along the entire river. They have 24/7 surveillance and aircraft and boats to capture people who are in violation of border crossings, including drug runners.
The bulk of drugs are not brought in by fording the river but by airplanes flying over the border and landing in remote places. Here is an article I wrote about the CBP Airborne and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) that I was privileged to visit a few months ago.
https://letterpile.com/personal-essays/ … ur-Borders
"but I saw mile after mile after mile of river with roads not far from either bank, easy access to the river on both sides and a very occasional house (ranch?)"
Go to about the center of the map, turn on aerial, and click the area where it says "Big Bend Ranch State Park". Let it run for 10 minutes or so. There are some areas of canyon (effectively impassable) but lots more just as I described as the movement goes west. I'd take a screenshot, but the motion cannot be stopped without reverting back to the map.
Yes, border patrol has sensors at some places (not 2,000 miles of river). And they have enough people and equipment to get to anywhere on the border...in a couple of hours or so, after border crossers have long gone. The point of the wall, seems to me, is to slow them down enough that sensors can pick them up in enough time to get manpower there to stop them.
Not sure just why you only want to talk of drug crossings; while that is a major problem it seems to me that it is about stopping ALL illegal crossings, not just that tiny percentage carrying drugs. Nor does it make sense to me to insinuate that no drugs come across on the ground; I've watched videos showing otherwise. Either way, though, it's a red herring when it comes to stopping people from entering illegally in order to live here.
Yes. We stop, according to you and I have no reason to disbelieve it, some of the drug traffic. A portion of it.
We also have hundreds of thousands of illegals entering the country every year. We aren't stopping them. It isn't working. And that's a reason NOT to build a wall and increase the security we have? I disagree, that's all.
Terrific link peoplepower73. I have been following its interlinks for a couple hours now, and will probably spend a couple more hours before I have drained them.
But, one of the first links, regarding increased fencing and Border Patrol presence in the California and New Mexico areas has prompted a thought, and I only present it for discussion, not as a position.
The article spoke of the increased deaths, (in the desert terrains), due to the increased security in the mentioned areas pushing illegal immigrants to try the more dangerous hostile terrain areas.
The stronger fencing/barriers were specifically noted as being effective deterrents.
Should that be regarded as a good thing because the fencing/barriers are proving to be effective, (at least in reducing volume)? Or as a bad thing because its success means more lives will be lost trying to cross in the more dangerous desert terrain areas?
Also. From the end point of those particular fences/barriers, it seems some of the adjacent dangerous terrain areas would be logistically amenable to fencing/barriers.
Would that make them good candidates for fencing? Would more difficult access to the dangerous routes reduce deaths, or push illegal immigrants to just move further east to try even more dangerous routes?
At this point, if an opinion was based on that one area example, I think limited additional fencing, (as mentioned), would be a realistic choice.
If we ever get to the point that we slack off of security, leaving open pathways to violate our laws, because it has become so difficult that people are dying in the effort of evading the law, we have lost the battle. Hang up your hat and retreat - it's over.
I think our hats are safe for now bud. It is a sad thing that lives are lost, but I can't imagine that argument being supportable in a debate about the value of more fencing.
In at least one other of the link's related articles, one of the smugglers - called himself a 'pollero' not a cayote,' because he smuggled illegals in over the fences, not through the desert, spoke of not being able to get as many illegals across the border because of the fencing.
For the most part you are correct - it is not (yet) something to be real concerned about. While I've seen a few people advocating pretty much open borders to reduce the death toll, they are a very small minority.
Sure. Saw an article earlier that said the large majority used to come through Arizona, but after the fencing went up the number dropped considerably. While increasing in areas where there was no wall yet. Yet we keep hearing that a wall is useless and does no good...while other countries and our own patrol report just the opposite from real world experience.
Too much focus is being placed on a physical barrier, as opposed to the foundation of illegal immigration. The mass of the people who came to the US illegally are nowhere close to the borders. You would be surprised to know that apart from visitors overstaying their time, employers capitalizing on cheap foreign labors, etc; this illegal immigration is also big business!
"There were 303,916 border apprehensions in the southwest U.S. during fiscal 2017".
Given that there an estimated additional 200,000 that successfully evade apprehension, that's quite a mass.
From the same source:
"The area, known as the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, accounted for 45 percent of all apprehensions in fiscal 2017. From 1998 to 2012, most apprehensions occurred near Tucson, Arizona. Much of Arizona’s southern border is now fenced off. That has significantly reduced crossings there but led to increased crossings further east, in Texas."
It seems that a wall actually does have quite a positive effect on reducing the number of illegal border crossings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … tly-cross/
Mackyl, I'm not surprised at what you said because it should be common knowledge. There are people who just don't want to accept it as truth, and they are the ones who are arguing for Trump's wall: Hang the cost and forget the inefficiency!
By the way, they estimate that the shutdown cost us 40 billion dollars.
Well tell us WHOSE fault that was & it wasn't the POTUS...….
Grace, did you not see him OWN the shutdown with your own eyes and ears? And now you're claiming it wasn't his fault? I suppose it was those on the left in your mind?
Everybody: Trump speaks in generalities, not in specifics. When he talks about the wall, we really don't know what he is talking about. He gives us the impression that he is going to build a big beautiful wall as if there is no wall there now. The Iink I posted shows otherwise and for the most part it is effective as a deterrent.
If he would talk about improving the system of border protection which include staffing, technology, and resources, it would be an easier sell for him, but he campaigned on "Building the "Wall" and he is sticking to it for his supporters, so that he can get re-elected again.
Here is an article that will put the border crossings into perspective.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande … 13339112aa
Illegal border crossings are rising again, up 11% from the prior year. We have over a half million such crossings each year.
Yes, let's put that into perspective. There are as many people crossing the border illegally each year as reside in the state of Wyoming or Vermont. An entire state's population entering illegally, and rising. But it's not a problem if we just "put it into perspective".
Not the POTUS. How can you say that when HE owned it. Are you calling him a liar?
What expenses did those us not involved in the process accrue? And I heard it was around 18 billion,and not 4 times as much as you claim.
Wilderness: Read this:
https://wapo.st/2rlIlXl?tid=ss_tw&u … 9e87a3515f
It's interesting. "But what does it mean to have a secure border? Without a nationally agreed-upon way of measuring border security, we are stuck in a political debate as much about semantics as substance." In other words, it's secure if we say it is, regardless of how many people successfully evade the law and pass on onto the interior.
A border wall would stem the opioid epidemic.[i]. This one is downright stupid, for no one at all believes that it will stop the epidemic. On the other hand, it WILL cut down on the amount of Opioids entering across the border, and that cannot be a bad thing.
[i]For decades, growing border security spending failed to reverse the rising tide of unauthorized immigration. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations report summed up the research at the time, answering the question: “Does increased investment in border enforcement reduce illegal immigration?” with a succinct, “Not really.”' Now this one is interesting, as that is exactly what the Ds are proposing; more of the same, which is not doing the trick according to your article.
All of this means that large flows of migrants over the southern border do not necessarily generate significant terrorism risks. Again, interesting in that the little word necessarily kind of says it all. Of course it is not necessary for terrorists to be in a group of illegals, but it is impossible to know they aren't either - not when they get by Border Patrol. Does that mean we should not be concerned? Only if our head is buried in the sand, for that is one method to get into the country.
And it’s true that Mexico has become an important partner of the United States in managing Central American migration; it gives a growing number of refugee visas and deports large numbers of migrants before they arrive at the U.S. border. I'll pass on making judgement on the strength of Mexican laws, and their enforcement of those laws. Except, of course, to say that they DID allow the caravan to reach our border, in violation of any "strong" laws they might have. They even provided assistance. When we stop getting central/south Americans coming in over the Mexico border I'll believe it a lot more. Of course, that all says nothing about Mexico allowing/encouraging their own citizens from crossing illegally; the President of Mexico even went so far as to tell us that without that escape for Mexicans (and the money they send back) his country would be in trouble.
Wilderness: I'm not trying to imply that our border security is perfect. It is far from it and it needs improvements. But Trump frames it as building a wall that will solve all the border problems.
He is not doing himself any favors by playing to his base with his campaign promise. He needs to define what he means by building a wall. If it means improving the components of border security, then he should outline what he means. But if it just a wall, I don't think he will ever get the funding, because many know a wall isn't going to solve all the problems.
After seeing his rallies and how his people chant about building a wall, it becomes obvious that they have been sold a bill of goods believing Trump's sound bites about the wall.
While there are those of us who want a definition of what he means by building a wall, including the democratic congress. I believe he is not capable of nuance that is necessary to define what improvements need to be made to the border security system. That is why he just says build a wall.
If he shuts down government again, this country will be in deep trouble, including Trump.
"But Trump frames it as building a wall that will solve all the border problems. "
Although the far left does present this as factual, it is not. No one can possible think that a fence, however tall and tough, will instantly solve all our immigration problems. It will not, for instance take care of the DACA problem. It will not solve overstaying of VISAs. It will do nothing about the millions already here. It will do nothing for the problem of hiring illegals. One has to wonder, then, just why it is being said.
If you want detailed plans for what would be constructed, including all security measures, sensors, etc. you are doomed to failure, for that is a sure fire way to destroy any effectiveness. At the same time, most of us understand that a physical barrier, whatever it's construction and shape, is but one portion of the total package.
If we don't want the government shut down again then we need to explain, using simple terms, that it is unacceptable and if our legislators cannot or will not run our country we will find those that will. We can start with the destruction of the extreme partisanship we see growing throughout the Hill - if you can't work together to find solutions we will find those that will.
(We could start by making it clear that spun information such as in your link is worthless and take those people introducing such nonsense to task for it, along with those that introduce it into discussions/debates.)
Wilderness: This is what I'm trying to say.
https://news.yahoo.com/define-wall-keep … soc_trk=tw via @YahooNews
From your link: "But they are open to spending for replacement fencing, levees, bollards, and electronic barriers."
This is obviously false, for Pelosi and others have repeatedly said there will be no wall whatsoever. This has deteriorated into nothing but semantics. I personally find that a "wall" includes ALL of those things, including a "fence" that is 20' tall, 6' underground and made of concrete.
Again, from your link: "...at various times he’s <Trump> said that would be concrete, or could be steel slats, or maybe even based on drones, sensors, and other “smart wall” technology." This is 100% in line with what the D's were said to want, but insistently refuse.
More: "The upshot: The “wall” has become what political scientists call a condensation symbol, something that stands for schism, frustration, fear of immigrants, Trump himself, opposition to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a lengthening list of other positions and feelings."
So the opposition has nothing to do with a wall, but with political partisanship and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with the border. But mostly it's about defying the President of the United States because he's not a Democrat.
But if you wish to be included in the engineering and planning of just what is planned for every foot of the border you should ask to be included in the groups that do such planning. Should your training and experience be valuable you might be hired.
W: So the opposition has nothing to do with a wall, but with political partisanship and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with the border. But mostly it's about defying the President of the United States because he's not a Democrat.
M: It's interesting how two people can read the same article and come to entirely different conclusions.
From the article: "But Trump has also occasionally talked about the wall in a way that seems open to compromise with Democratic positions. He’s talked often about “steel slats” as an alternative to concrete slabs, and mused on occasion about the possibility the wall could include “smart wall” sections of drones and other non-permanent infrastructure."
M: I see that paragraph as an opening gambit for a compromise where both sides win. The problem is that Trump always fancies himself as the winner and the other side as the loser, even when he is losing. So let him win, but let the other side win as well.
W: But if you wish to be included in the engineering and planning of just what is planned for every foot of the border you should ask to be included in the groups that do such planning. Should your training and experience be valuable you might be hired.
M: I know about the capabilities of the Airborne Marine Operations Center (AMOC) and what assets they have and their interaction with all levels of law enforcement, both foreign and domestic. That doesn't mean I'm an expert.
But I do know that if Trump would stop playing to his base and explain in simple, definitive terms what he means by the wall, it would help everybody. I think he went to Laredo Texas saw on opening in the wall and from that he deduced that he was going to build a great big beautiful wall. And now he knows that he can't agree with the other side at the fear of losing his base.
So now he has a new mantra: Build the wall and crime will fall." Where in fact it is falling without him building his wall. Further he wants to frame it as as a national emergency. Emergency connotes immediate urgency, but yet he was willing to shut the government down if he didn't get his way,. How can it be an emergency if he is willing to shut the government down again?
Trump is like a child who is playing with blocks and when asked what the child is making, he says it's a great big, little something.
"It's interesting how two people can read the same article and come to entirely different conclusions. "
Then that must be because you didn't read your own link, for that is exactly what it says. Minus, I admit, the last statement that the primary reason is because of Trump, although that was in there, too.
"So let him win, but let the other side win as well."
No problem with that, for me. For the D's it is unacceptable, thus the demand that not a single dollar be spent on a wall.
"But I do know that if Trump would stop playing to his base and explain in simple, definitive terms what he means by the wall, it would help everybody."
He has. Everything from a concrete barrier to electronic surveillance. You just don't want to acknowledge that. Plus, of course, I highly doubt that there are plans for every inch of every mile of the border, and if there were you are never going to see them any more than every contingency and plan from the TSA is made public.
"How can it be an emergency if he is willing to shut the government down again?"
You may disagree with his methods or his choice of words, and bash him for it, but no reasonable person can possible think that a half million people illegally sneaking across our southern border every year does not constitute an emergency. No reasoning person could look at that caravan, supported and supplied by foreign nations as well as Americans with more heart than brains, and conclude there is no emergency.
"Trump is like a child who is playing with blocks and when asked what the child is making, he says it's a great big, little something."
Perhaps. At least it sounds good to those interested in rhetoric and words rather than events and actions.
But at the same time we have congress on the other end of the seesaw - a congress that has taken no effective action in decades to counteract actions that have cost us trillions of dollars in the last few decades.
You will choose for yourself which is worse - the man that you think is childish and refuse to listen to because of who he is or the congress that refuses to address the needs of the nation. One tries, one does not. Choose, but choose wisely, for the continuance of our nation, our culture and our way of life depend on the one chosen.
"It will not, for instance take care of the DACA problem. It will not solve overstaying of VISAs. It will do nothing about the millions already here. It will do nothing for the problem of hiring illegals"
Agreed. So what exactly is the projected benefit? A 0.1% reduction in illegal crossings? 1%? 10%? 60%? What?
If the projected benefits are significant, surely that would be a selling point. So why haven't any projections been published? If they have, I'd be grateful for a link.
And if you don't know what the projected benefits of the proposed wall, how do you know it's worth the money?
To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design. I know none of those. Do you?
But I DO know that what we're doing isn't working. Something else is required, and so far this is the only thing I've seen. Is there something else, something besides "more of the same thing that isn't working"?
Worth the money - with estimates of 150B per year spent on the problem of illegal aliens (not border crossings, but illegals living in the country) it's really hard to see how any reasonable design of a wall won't produce savings of more than it's cost. It might take a few years, but I think it is inevitable that the cost will be lower than the costs of NOT having effective control.
To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design. I know none of those. Do you?
No, and that's my point.
The public and Congress, must be told the projected benefit of the proposed wall, and how that has been calculated. That information is conspicuous by its absence from the public debate, and raises questions.
If no projected benefit has been calculated, then why not? If it has why hasn't it been published?
I wouldn't buy a car if the manufacturer refused to publish the performance I could expect to get. Yet I'm expected to support a multi-billion dollar project without knowing the projected benefits. That's a dealbreaker.
"But I DO know that what we're doing isn't working"
That's factually incorrect in relation to border crossings. If you'd like me to re-post all of the factual information that shows illegal border crossings have significantly reduced over the last decade, I'd be happy to.
The issue, as you rightly said, is that this will not address "the DACA problem . . . overstaying of VISAs . . . the millions already here . . . the problem of hiring illegals", and of course the massive backlog of immigration cases.
So surely the solution is to start addressing those things.
The DHS will still receive continued appropriations for border security, which it can use for new or replacement border fencing (among other measures) at its discretion, based on operational need. That would be a rational, sensible approach.
If I might ask, did you demand to know the cost, engineering details, performance and projected number of enemy planes shot down of the F35 before it was purchased? Are you qualified to give a useful opinion on any of those?
No? Then why in the world are you doing it now? I don't see any difference. Trump could undoubtedly give projected results, but why? You wouldn't believe anything he says anyway! Plus of course, the 6B for 200 miles of wall is intended only as a start on a much more ambitious project; any projections for this (1/5th of the total border?) would be impossible to give, I would think. How many would be deterred from trying, how many caught trying (of which how many will move over 100 miles and try again) and how many will just go somewhere we haven't built yet?
"That's factually incorrect in relation to border crossings."
If that was even significantly correct we wouldn't have 200,000 people successfully evading capture every year.
So surely the solution is to start addressing those things.
"So surely the solution is to start addressing those things."
Actually, no it isn't. First, it should be addressed concurrently with better border control. But even if we don't do that, it most assuredly makes no sense to work on existing illegals while hundreds of thousands more enter each year. That's an exercise in futility.
Fact: Trump has "trumped" up the national emergency. How can a national emergency take two years to execute and then shutdown the government and many of the institutions to protect us?
Fact: The Southern Border already has walls, fences, and barriers and high tech 24/7 surveillance that is connected with Customs and Border Patrol and law enforcement both domestic and foreign. It's called AMOC and they are part of the law enforcement arm of Homeland Security that people don't even know about.
They have their own air force,drones, boats, and radar. In the valleys where people might get through, they have blimps tethered in place with on board radar to detect and interdict any suspicious activity.
Fact: If I'm going to pay for his wall, I would like to know what I'm paying for and whether it is going to be effective.
Fact: Illegal border crossings have been trending downward for the last several years.
Fact: Trump and Stephen Miller have created crimes against humanity by separating children from their parents, so that they may never be together again in their lifetime.
Fact: Trump shutdown the government based on what Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter told him.
Fact: Illegal immigrants are not stealing jobs from American Workers and driving down wages.
Fact: Border security is not just about illegal crossings on foot or vehicles. It's also about drugs coming into this country by air and marine borne conveyances.
Fact: I can back up all those facts listed here.
This conversation has now deteriorated into the usual political dogfight, but none of you have mentioned the impracticality and expense of trying to fence off the east to central Texas area starting at the Gulf coast and moving west toward El Paso. For hundreds of miles the Rio Grande snakes, sometimes reversing its direction for miles before proceeding in a straight direction again. (The video shows this.) It would be totally insane to try to fence off these peninsular-like areas of the banks of the Rio Grande, nor can the government run the fence as the crow flies across them. That would fence off areas, probably ranch land, belonging to the U.S. or to U.S. citizens. Fully fencing those areas would add thousands of miles to the wall, which would add years of construction and expense to the project, not to mention denying ranchers and farmers access to the water in the Rio Grande. In this long area of the river, it is wide and appears to be somewhat deep, unlike the narrow, arid area farther west. To make my position clear, I do support walls in some areas, but not here. This area is more practically suited to patrolling by drones, satellites and other modern technology than an old-fashioned Hadrian wall.
. . . did you demand to know the cost, engineering details, performance and projected number of enemy planes shot down of the F35 before it was purchased?
That's just "Whataboutism", and it doesn't help your case. One government procurement fiasco doesn't justify or excuse another.
"You wouldn't believe anything he says anyway!"
If the methodology was sound and the assumptions the government made reasonable, no one could reasonably disregard it. That's the advantage of using facts over emotive statements.
If the government was confident there were significant benefits, why wouldn't it publish that information? The most obvious reason is that the government is not confident there are significant benefits, and doesn't want to reveal that because Trump needs this as a political victory.
"If that was even significantly correct we wouldn't have 200,000 people successfully evading capture every year"
A reduction from 1.8 million to 200,000 is significant. Cleary the DHS strategy of using a variety of measures, including investment in new technology as well as replacement border fencing etc. has been working. That is not something you can reasonably deny. That indicates obsessively focussing on only one aspect of border security is not the best approach.
"First, it should be addressed concurrently with better border control."
It would be concurrent because border security is already being addressed. The DHS is already receiving funds for new and replacement border fencing. Since 2016 3.5 billion has been made available. If the government wants significantly more funding, then it needs to make the case in a sensible, rational way.
In the meantime none of the other issues mentioned are being addressed: visa overstays, DACA, illegal immigrants already in the country, the massive backlog of immigration cases etc. Therein lies the problem.
"That's just "Whataboutism", and it doesn't help your case"
It was designed and asked to see if your reaction was because it came from Trump, or if you have done it to ALL govt. procurement. I think you answered it, if only by refusing to answer.
"That indicates obsessively focussing on only one aspect of border security is not the best approach."
Now, where did THAT come from? No one I've heard of is suggesting that the other methods are to be abandoned, or even allowed to stagnate where they are. The fact is that with all that we're currently pouring into border security it is still not doing the job; it seems obvious that we something different and additional to go with what we already have.
"The DHS is already receiving funds for new and replacement border fencing."
That's great! There should be no problem with expanding that a little, as it has been proven effective (or we wouldn't be doing more, right?). As walls ARE effective, but we still see large numbers coming through where there IS no wall, it seems a no-brainer to put a wall where there is none. I did see one report where the large majority were coming through the western side of the border...until we put a wall up, whereupon it dropped drastically and picked back up where there was no wall. Seems a pretty strong indication that walls are effective.
"In the meantime none of the other issues mentioned are being addressed: visa overstays, DACA, illegal immigrants already in the country, the massive backlog of immigration cases etc. Therein lies the problem."
Although all of those need addressed (although the backlog has zero to do with illegal aliens in the country) when you say "therein lies the problem" it is not factual at all, for none of them have anything to do with people crossing illegally. Perhaps we should all be calling for large efforts in enforcing current labor laws, and step up deportations by a 1,000% or so, while doing what we can to stop more people from cancelling our hard work there? (Again, it seems obvious that kicking out a bunch while letting even more back in is futile, although you didn't address that end of it at all.)
"I think you answered it, if only by refusing to answer."
So you think I'm a hypocrite. It still doesn't help your case.
If I were the founding member of the hypocrites appreciation society, did lecture tours extolling the virtues of hypocrisy, and made a video called "how to be hypocritical in 3 easy steps", that still wouldn't change the fact that publishing the projected benefits of the wall is a rational, sensible thing to do. Nor would it change the fact that not doing so increases the public's suspicion that the benefits are being overstated.
"Now, where did [the idea of obsessing over a wall] come from? No one I've heard of is suggesting that the other methods are to be abandoned"
Shutting down the government for the longest period in the history of the country and threatening to declare a national emergency (even though border crossings are at the lowest they have been for years) has all been done in the name of the wall. Here is the list of things that have been done to address VISA overstays, DACA, the backlog of immigration cases etc . . .
I think that's a reasonable indication that Trump is transfixed on the wall. The reason he is so transfixed is because he wants to please his base, i.e. you. If you don't want Trump to be transfixed solely on the wall, then please tell him, so he stops trying to impress you.
"That's great! There should be no problem with expanding that a little, as it has been proven effective (or we wouldn't be doing more, right?)"
Likewise, if the wall is so beneficial, there should be no problem publishing the projected benefit. Surely publishing those benefits would help to make a case for the wall, right?
What's proven effective is a combination of additional border patrol officers, investment in new technology, additional assets and equipment (vehicles etc.) which complement some new and replacement border fencing. That's a smart, holistic approach.
If government wants significantly more founding just for a wall, fine, it can publish the projected benefits and make the case (assuming the government is confident such analysis would show a significant benefit).
The western part of the border is in some highly populated areas with a low "melting point", i.e. the amount of time it takes for someone to "melt" into the background. In the middle of nowhere it's easier to detect and interdict illegal crossers before they can do that (especially with the right technology, personnel, equipment and assets).
But let's face it, amateur research on how effective barriers are, is no substitute for a calculated projected benefit from the government, and an outline of the methodology used and assumptions made. That would either make a case for the wall, or it would be ripped to shreds in a way that demonstrates that the benefits are overstated. I strongly suspect the latter would be the case, though I could be wrong.
Could it be that alarmist statements and exaggerated comments about a "crisis" must serve as a substitute for rational, fact-based decision-making, because the facts don't add up in favor of the proposed wall?
"the backlog has zero to do with illegal aliens in the country"
If there is no decision on an asylum claim within 180 days, the claimant can get authorization to work(1). The average waiting time for immigration cases in 2018 was 1068 days, or 2 years 10 months(2). That's the average waiting time. Please explain how a backlog that forces people to stay and work in the country for more than two years (they must be present in the country to claim asylum) has "zero to do with illegal aliens in the country".
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … lum/asylum
"Likewise, if the wall is so beneficial, there should be no problem publishing the projected benefit."
Look at the rate of illegal crossings before and after the wall construction on the western half. That's a start. Or you can look for results from walls across the world. That's another method.
Or you can sit back in your chair and declare walls don't work because you haven't been handed proof. You can even wait for the study from Trump, declare he's lying and that walls don't work.
"Please explain how a backlog that forces people to stay and work in the country for more than two years (they must be present in the country to claim asylum) has "zero to do with illegal aliens in the country"."
But I didn't say that. Here, let me copy and paste what I DID say:
"Although all of those need addressed (although the backlog has zero to do with illegal aliens in the country) when you say "therein lies the problem" it is not factual at all, for none of them have anything to do with people crossing illegally. "
See the difference? Your twisting of my words says it has nothing to do with illegals in the country while the actual statement says it has nothing to do with crossing the border illegally. The two are very, very different.
Wilderness: The only reason Trump wants a "wall" is because he has branded it as a "wall" to his base and when he gets his "wall", he will go to his base and, hold a fantastic rally and say, See I kept my promise now vote for me for re-election."
The truth is walls work for what they are intended for, but they are not the only solution to border security. El Chapo and many others have made very sophisticated tunnel systems that go underneath walls and pop up in warehouses somewhere on the other side of the border. Aircraft of all types can fly over walls.
This just happened today:
A tractor-trailer was stopped trying to enter the U.S. through the border checkpoint in Nogales, Arizona. It was loaded with 254 pounds of fentanyl and 254 pounds of methamphetamines...so much for the wall!!
Trump talks about drugs coming across the border, well here are some and the walls that are there didn't stop them because they came right through a check point. The fact is a sniffing dog caught them.
There are many factors involved in illegal border crossings. Walls are not the save all solution that he keeps touting. Illegal border crossings include on foot, tunneling, vehicles, boats, and aircraft of all types, including ultra-lights and drones. That's why Pelosi is not giving him funding for his "wall" but wants to fund improvements to the entire border system infrastructure. She also knows that Trump wants his wall to help him get re-elected
In Trump's oval office meeting today, he said, "What good are drones flying overhead, they don't stop anybody?" I know for a fact those drones have on board radar and cameras that are monitored by the Customs and Border Patrol units and they can very quickly communicate with local law enforcement to apprehend violators. They are the same drones the military uses only they are not weaponized. They are not little hobby drones.
If we already have walls, what part of the wall is Trump going to build with his 5.7 billion? Today, he said he is already building the wall and he has funding for it. He gets caught up in his own lies and contradictions, it is hard to keep up with him. I don't even think he can keep track of what he says.
Here is the article about the drug bust at the Nogales border crossing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fe … ry-n965486
"Walls are not the save all solution that he keeps touting. Illegal border crossings include on foot, tunneling, vehicles, boats, and aircraft of all types, including ultra-lights and drones."
Correct. But when you use that fact to declare that we should not put funds into stopping/slowing/hindering the most common, most used of crossing method because there are other, less used, methods it comes apart. At least to me - on the contrary it seems the most reasonable method to attack.
" I know for a fact those drones have on board radar and cameras that are monitored by the Customs and Border Patrol units and they can very quickly communicate with local law enforcement to apprehend violators."
Again correct. And when it takes a couple of hours to get there the illegals are long gone. But with a wall that takes hours to days to weeks to get around/over/under/through they are still there trying to get in, when the patrol shows up. A big difference, seems to me. Plus, of course, any decent wall will deter many from even trying.
"If we already have walls, what part of the wall is Trump going to build with his 5.7 billion?"
You are aware that less than half the border has more than a token strand of barbed wire? That should leave sufficient space to put up another couple of hundred miles.
You said yourself, to know the projected benefits of the wall you would have to know ". . . the status of the border, where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design".
Yet even though you admit you know "none of those", somehow you're certain it's a good idea, and a good way to spend billions of dollars.
Does that seem entirely rational to you wilderness?
I've made many posts on the subject, waiting for proponents of "the wall" to show me the rational argument for it that I must be missing.
But every argument has been either based on inaccurate or false information (border security has gotten worse - it hasn't), an emotional response (illegal immigrants are going to destroy the country - they're not) or plain old propaganda (implying 10 terrorists crossed the southern border - they didn't).
No one, including the government it seems, is able to produce a rational argument, using factual information, in favor of the wall. And that's all I'm really asking for. I don't want "proof". I just want someone, anyone, to show me a rational argument that uses factual information in favor of the wall.
Is that really too much to ask for something that's estimated to cost billions of dollars?
"See the difference? Your twisting of my words . . ."
No wilderness I'm not. I understand fully what you meant. I'm pointing out that illegal immigration and its effects is the main issue, not illegal border crossings. Yet you and others seem narrowly preoccupied with border crossings, and even more narrowly preoccupied with fences that you want everyone to call walls: "Lets just call them WALLS from now on and stop playing political games! A WALL is a WALL!"(2)
For me, and others who care about using the finite resources available wisely to address the main issue (illegal immigration in general), therein lies the problem. I hope that's a bit clearer.
(1) https://solutions.heritage.org/providin … -security/
(2) https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta … 3868213248
"No one, including the government it seems, is able to produce a rational argument, using factual information, in favor of the wall."
Didn't look at illegal crossing rates before and after the wall on the western side, did you? Didn't look at the Israeli wall results or any other anyplace in the world, did you?
Yep - illegal immigration is the problem. And over half of it comes from illegal border crossings on our southern border. Your point? That we should not stop those crossings before we begin deporting - that we should continue to allow hundreds of thousands to cross and take up residence while we deport, thus rendering our efforts ineffective?
Will a wall stop all illegal entry, Dan? Can you guarantee no one can get around, over, or under it? Or will the wall simply be a token representing Trump's lie Mexico would pay for the wall?
"Didn't look at illegal crossing rates before and after the wall on the western side, did you?"
That's a straw man. The question is not: can physical barriers be beneficial? The question is: what are the projected benefits of the wall being proposed, and does it represent value for money?
Looking at a wall that could be in a completely different location and terrain (no one knows - that's the issue) and a wall surrounding an illegally occupied territory in a foreign country, does not answer that question. You already said what you need to answer it:
"To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border, where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design"(1).
I agree. Yet even though we know none of those things, somehow you're certain the wall is a good idea and worth the money. That makes no sense.
"over half of [illegal immigration] comes from illegal border crossings on our southern border"
The most common method of illegal entry by people who have recently joined the undocumented population (as opposed to the total undocumented population which entered the country over many decades), is visa overstays.
There were 416,500 overstays in 2015; 544,676 in 2016; 421,325 in 2017(2)(3)(4). In 2015 and 2016, the total estimated number of successful illegal border crossings was less than 200,000 each year (call it 200,000). There are no figures yet for 2017-2018. So based on the latest data available, visa overstays currently represent around 71% of total illegal entries.
This reinforces all the other data that indicates border security has improved significantly over the last few years. That security continues to improve as old fencing is replaced and new fencing built. In contrast visa overstays continue to bring in around half a million people illegally each year.
Yet you believe focusing on a wall is the best use of the finite funds available, even without knowing enough to determine how effective (or ineffective) the proposed wall would even be.
Again, wilderness in what way is that rational decision-making?
Is a rational decision, based on factual information, too much to ask for when it comes to border security and illegal immigration?
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.7)
(3) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … pdf#page=5 (p.5)
(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf(p.iv)
(5) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.19)
"The question is: what are the projected benefits of the [i]wall being proposed[i], and does it represent value for money? "
Describe the wall being proposed, in detail. Electronics, size, shape, materials, location, etc. Then your question could perhaps be answered.
"The most common method of illegal entry by people who have recently joined the undocumented population (as opposed to the total undocumented population which entered the country over many decades), is visa overstays."
So we obviously need not worry about the 200,000 or so that snuck in across the border? We just need to deport those already here, presumably so that those sneaking in will have a job to work at? I would disagree.
"This reinforces all the other data that indicates border security has improved significantly over the last few years."
So we continue to build and improve walls where existing ones are not either insufficient from the get go or in bad need of repair. And yet we don't need walls because they are not effective? Not following the logic here.
"Yet you believe focusing on a wall is the best use of the finite funds available, even without knowing enough to determine how effective (or ineffective) the proposed wall would even be. "
I believe a wall is an integral part of border security. Perhaps the most important, perhaps not, but is absolutely needed as part of the total package. You on the other hand appear to have decided that it doesn't matter, is not useful (though that "straw man" of the western wall being very effective is still there) and should not be built.
"Is a rational decision, based on factual information, too much to ask for when it comes to border security and illegal immigration?"
Apparently. Every wall we know of (here or in other countries) has been useful and effective, but that fact is to be set aside so a Trump project can be denied. We continue to build walls because they work, but then deny they are useful. So yes, it appears to be too much to ask.
"Describe the wall being proposed, in detail. Electronics, size, shape, materials, location, etc. Then your question could perhaps be answered".
Exactly. You and I would never have access to that level of information (rightly so as it could compromise operational security). The government does though (I hope). That's why it's up to the government to outline the projected benefits, the methodology it has used to derive those benefits, and any assumptions it has made.
Right now we have no clear idea, which raises the question: why are you so certain the wall is a good idea and worth the money? What factual information do you know that I don't?
"So we obviously need not worry about the 200,000 or so that snuck in across the border?"
That implies the choice is either construct Trump's vanity wall, or continue to let 200,000 people a year sneak across the border illegally. That's a false choice.
The DHS continues to receive funding for border security, including the construction of new and replacement border fencing, whatever happens. So the more accurate choice is:
1. continue funding, at current or higher levels, a holistic approach to border security (building and replacing physical barriers, more personnel, new technology and other assets) which we know, as a matter of fact, works; or 2. spend a massively disproportionate amount of a finite budget on one single element, with no clear idea how effective (or ineffective) it will be.
The first choice provides greater opportunity to invest additional resources into addressing some of the other areas we know are causing problems, like the backlog of immigration cases (which causes claimants to stay in the country for more than two years on average while waiting for a decision) or visa overstays, which is the most common method of illegal immigration used by recent illegal immigrants.
The second choice allows Donald Trump to say he built a wall. That's as much as we can say about it.
Again wilderness, can you explain how the second choice can be considered rational decision-making? If not, you may have to face the possibility that it simply isn't rational decision making.
Disagree. The accurate choice is:
1. Double, triple or quadruple current spending and maintain the holistic approach forever with no real hope of reducing costs. An approach that we know, [as a matter of fact[/i] does not work to the extent needed at current spending levels.
2. spend half of the cost of supporting current illegal aliens for just one year to build a wall across the country in the hopes that border security costs could then be cut considerably because, as we know, walls help reduce illegal crossings.
The first allows proponents of open borders to attempt each and every year to cut funding in the hopes of more crossings, and don't even try to suggest that those people do not exist. If they didn't we wouldn't have the problem we do.
The second choice offers a reasonable hope of significantly reducing illegal entry and, because of that, clearing out the illegals already here (not all, certainly, but a large percentage). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Donald Trump (except in the minds of liberals and Democrats); notice that it has been approved before AND that we already have a wall over many miles.
Can you explain any reason at all to continue with the first option, given that it raises costs significantly with no end or reduction of those costs in sight?
Can you guarantee the new wall will stop all of the illegal entries? Or most of them? Of course you cannot. You don't have a clue where, and what sort of wall, is to be constructed. And neither does Trump...
Talking 'bout a pig in a poke!
By your method we would never do or find anything new, because it can never be guaranteed until after we know if it works.
Thank goodness the Wright Brothers didn't use that method! Or Edison or even our founding fathers.
(Has it occurred to you that if funding was voted in and set we might find out where it would go, what sort of wall, etc.? That without that crucial bit of information as to how much we have to spend not much else can be determined?)
Yes it has occurred to me, but apparently it hasn't occurred to your role model, Dan. Have you seen any projected plans for his wall? Almost 6 billion and no proper plans to assess? Do you buy anything without knowing what you receive for your money?
"Double, triple or quadruple current spending and maintain the holistic approach forever with no real hope of reducing costs . . ."
That's not a sensible argument. Almost anything with a financial value will cost twice or quadruple as much at some point between now and "forever". You'd need to narrow down the time-frame to make it meaningful.
And what factual information are you using to predict the downward trend in illegal crossings will stop at 200,000?
Also, if we restrict your bleak outlook to a timeframe that's (hopefully) within all our lifetimes, it doesn't align with previous trends. Between 2010 and 2014 the CBP budget increased from $11.4 billion to $12.9 billion (an increase of $1.5 billion)(1)(2). In the same period, estimated total successful illegal border crossings were reduced 50%(3).
". . . An approach that we know, as a matter of fact does not work to the extent needed at current spending levels"
What is the extent needed wilderness? If we even-out the 89% reduction over the last 19 years to a uniform rate (achieved without a Trump vanity wall) it equates to a reduction of around 94,000 crossings per year. Can you explain why that doesn't "work to the extend needed"?
And when do we claim victory? Zero crossings per year? No more than 500? 10,000? Over what period of time is the "needed extent" meant to be achieved? Does the government know what extent is needed? If not, how is it measuring whether it has achieved its goals (other than Donald Trump can say he built a wall)? How are you measuring it?
"spend half of the cost of supporting current illegal aliens for just one year to build a wall across the country in the hopes that border security costs could then be cut considerably . . ."
So your rational argument in favor of the wall is a desire to build it "in the hopes" it will cut costs? Not the firm expectation it will, based on analysis that uses the most up to date factual information (or any sensible way of projecting the benefit). Merely "in the hopes that" it will be beneficial.
Do you simply not recognize that this isn't rational decision-making? Or do you recognize it, but just don't care for some reason? I can't figure it out.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/bud … fy2010.pdf
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 284%29.pdf
(3) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf
"That's not a sensible argument. Almost anything with a financial value will cost twice or quadruple as much at some point between now and "forever". "
I didn't make it clear, perhaps; that double or triple is per year, not a total paid over an unspecified amount of time.
"And what factual information are you using to predict the downward trend in illegal crossings will stop at 200,000?"
The same you are using to declare it won't climb to 500,000. ie nothing at all. Although the huge decrease in unemployment might be considered, as should the spread of "sanctuary" cities and states. Perhaps the unrest in some of South/Central America should be looked at with an eye to producing more people willing to try. All are a massive inducement that wasn't there a few years ago and could reasonably be expected to produce more crossings.
"Between 2010 and 2014 the CBP budget increased from $11.4 billion to $12.9 billion (an increase of $1.5 billion)(1)(2). In the same period, estimated total successful illegal border crossings were reduced 50%"
You forgot to include adjustments in the falling crossing numbers due to a bad economy (even though improving) and a low number of jobs available. It will be interesting to see what the estimates are (if we can get honest ones) now that there are lots of jobs. It is also possible that just having Trump in the oval office is paying dividends here. Either way it might be instructive to look at the percentage of successful vs unsuccessful illegal crossings are made. Are our efforts actually catching a higher percentage or are there just not as many trying right now?
"And when do we claim victory?"
Oh, I would probably say we won at less than a few thousand. 5,000 perhaps. Coupled with deporting at least 90% of those already here and those overstaying their VISA's in the future. Not that I can reasonably expect such a "victory" at ANY time or with ANY effort - 10,000 per year is probably a more realistic figure.
"Not the firm expectation it will, based on analysis that uses the most up to date factual information (or any sensible way of projecting the benefit)."
"Sensible", to me, means looking at the results of our current wall and at the results of walls in other countries. Both are rousing successes: what is your definition of "sensible"? Making guesses based on the desire for or against a wall?
"I didn't make it clear, perhaps; that double or triple is per year, not a total paid over an unspecified amount of time."
I like facts wilderness. Here is all the funding the CBP has received back to 2004 (the Department was created in 2003)(1).
2018 $16 billion
2017 $13.9 billion
2016 $13.5 billion
2015 $13 billion
2014 $12.9 billion
2013 $11.9 billion
2012 $11.8 billion
2011 $11.1 billion
2010 $11.4 billion
2009 $10.9 billion
2008 $10.1 billion
2007 $7.8 billion
2006 $6.7 billion
2005 $6.1 billion
2004 $18 billion
Based on this factual information, we can see there is no year in the history of the CBP that its budget has ever tripled or doubled on the previous year. In fact 2010/2011 saw a decrease (I won't count the decrease in 2004/2005 as that $18 billion was likely part of the cost of establishing the department).
So exactly what factual information are you using to suggest the CBP's budget would need to double or triple annually to reduce successful unlawful entries further than they have been?
". . . what factual information are you using to predict the downward trend in illegal crossings will stop at 200,000?"
"The same you are using to declare it won't climb to 500,000. ie nothing at all."
I didn't make that claim, and don't need to. Of course the number of crossings might go up or stay level in the short term. E.g. crossings rose sharply in 2003/2004 and again (less sharply) in 2004/2005 etc. Nevertheless the trend over the last 19 years has been downard(3). That's not "nothing" wilderness, it's factual information.
Again, on what factual information are you basing your claim that this 19 year downward trend can't continue without Trump's vanity wall?
"it might be instructive to look at the percentage of successful vs unsuccessful illegal crossings are made"
It might. It might also be instructive to look at what factual information you have to support the claim that 1. the CBP budget would need to double/ triple/ quadruple each year to make further reductions in illegal crossings; 2. the long-term downward trend in illegal crossings can't continue without Trump's wall. So how about it?
If you aren't able to provide any, it reinforces the point I've been making that no rational, fact-based arguments have been presented in favor of the wall. So where is the rational-decision making behind the public policy, and where is the rational-decision making behind your support for it?
""Sensible",To me, means looking at the results of our current wall and at the results of walls in other countries. Both are rousing successes:"
Again, what's sensible is knowing the projected benefits of the proposed wall, not walls in general, and certainly not walls in completely different countries. They may be part of the consideration, but not the sole part.
I remind you of what you said you need to project the benefits of the wall: "To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border, where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design"(4).
Using that information to project the benefits of the proposed wall would be sensible. Devising public policy (and supporting it) solely based on information about walls in other places, not so much.
(1) All DHS budgets publicly available. Search "DHS budget [year]"
(2)(3) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.19)
"So exactly what factual information are you using to suggest the CBP's budget would need to double or triple annually to reduce successful unlawful entries further than they have been? "
Hiring a single additional border patrolman will reduce the influx of illegals, and presumably do so by more than 1 per year. That would satisfy your "further than they have been", but it would not satisfy me at all. To get that 200,000 number down to 10,000 or fewer is going to take a lot more than that, and in most things in life as we approach the endpoint the cost skyrockets. Doubling or tripling current expenditures thus seems likely to be necessary to get more than a token reduction. Do you disagree?
"Nevertheless the trend over the last 19 years has been downard(3). That's not "nothing" wilderness, it's factual information. "
Factual information, is it? Apprehensions (from a graph, so numbers may be off a little):
That's quite a "trend" going on there, isn't it? There are many reasons for illegal aliens to want into our country, from drug cartels to failing economies, to wanting a better life. To say that all of those reasons are dropping, and will produce ever lower limits of illegal crossings has no basis in reality. There is absolutely no reason to think that illegal crossings are going to dwindle and die in the next 10 or 20 or 50 years.
"2. the long-term downward trend in illegal crossings can't continue without Trump's wall."
How about proof it WILL continue to drop without a wall or massive additional monies? You're the one making the claim - can you back it up? Personally, I do not see much in the way of world changes happening that will reduce it, but I DO see a lot happening that will increase it (such as Venezuela).
"Again, what's sensible is knowing the projected benefits of the proposed wall, not walls in general"
Great! What shall we use to make those projections? The success of the walls we already have (the success of other countries and their walls is apparently inadmissible for some reason), or simply the desire not to build more or approve anything from the President? I did check on the Presidents claim that our walls are quite effective where they exist; he's right. They are. Shall we also ignore that too, under theory that any new wall won't go where an old already exists and therefore experience cannot be used to project onto other locations (like foreign walls)?
This whole argument reminds me of the Arizona governor; a liberal who has pulled the national guard from her borders because they aren't needed as illegal crossings are very low. Then moved them to specific counties because those areas are being overrun with illegals that crossed but need humanitarian help to continue.
It also reminds me that we have given amnesty to illegal aliens multiple times in the past under the assumption that the problem would die out by itself if we just inform the world we don't care about our laws any more.
We've waited for decades for an effective solution to the problem while liberals everywhere cry out that there IS not problem with harboring and supporting tens of millions of illegal aliens within our borders. No one tries, no one makes any serious effort to address it, just grant amnesty. Time to end the nonsense and control our borders as we should.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/the-s … ehensions/
Wilderness: Many people have cited Israel's walls as the model for Trump's wall. However the purpose and use of Israel's walls are different than what Trump wants to accomplish. It keeps out what Israel defines as terrorists; however,the Palestinians don't see it that way. Israel's walls are highly patrolled by their military for one thing. Should we do that as well?
Here is the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/worl … -bank.html
As you say (minus the spin), Israel's walls do exactly what ours do; keep out those people that are not welcome in the country. Label them as "terrorists" or "illegal aliens", the end result is the same; keeping those people we don't want in, out. (I'll even point out that many illegals think they have a natural born right to go and to live wherever they wish. They have said so, and so have some misguided Americans.)
If necessary we can use military grade force at the border. It is an option that may become necessary, but hopefully a wall will curtail that. I doubt that many illegals have the resources that the terrorists do.
"To get that 200,000 number down to 10,000 or fewer is going to take a lot more than that, and in most things in life as we approach the endpoint the cost skyrockets. Doubling or tripling current expenditures thus seems likely to be necessary to get more than a token reduction."
I'm not sure 10,000 or fewer is a realistic goal (without going to extremes). Besides that though I asked what factual information you're using to support your claim that the CBP budget would have to double/triple/quadruple each year to significantly reduce illegal crossings further. You've only repeated the claim with more supposition. That isn't factual information wilderness.
Your inability to provide a factual basis for this claim reinforces my wider point. All arguments I have seen in favor of the wall are based on speculation, or inaccurate/misleading/false information. That leads me to conclude the idea of the wall (and support for it) isn't based on rational, fact-based decision-making. That's a poor way to make public policy decisions.
That's quite a "trend" going on there, isn't it?"
These short-term increases do not reflect the long-term trend wilderness. That's another example of misleading information. Here is the whole dataset for 2000 - 2016 (the red dotted line is a trendline added so you can more easily see the long-term trend)(1).
It's also worth pointing out the total number of apprehensions is not the best way to measure illegal flow across the border. The DHS has developed an apprehension rate, which considers the number of apprehensions in relation to the number of attempted crossings. So a higher rate is better. There are two different methodologies used to calculate the rate (one uses data only available from 2003 onwards). I've plotted the trends for both over the same time period(2):
As you can see, despite some years where the rate decreased in the short-term, the long-term trend is upward.
So yes, wilderness it really is some trend.
"How about proof it WILL continue to drop without a wall or massive additional monies?"
I'm not asking for "proof" wilderness. I'm asking what factual information your support for the wall is based on. I've outlined the factual information my views are based on. I'm simply asking you to reciprocate. So far you have only offered misleading information, and suppositions.
"What shall we use to make those projections? . . . "
If the government does not have access to that information, something is very wrong.
"Shall we also ignore that too, under theory that any new wall won't go where an old already exists and therefore experience cannot be used to project onto other locations (like foreign walls)?"
Which part of "That may be part of the consideration, but not the sole part" is unclear?
But if you want to make public policy decisions based solely on the fact that something works in another country, great. Universal health care has been beneficial in lots of other countries. Let's immediately adopt it solely on that basis. Anything wrong with that approach?
In terms of border security, I hear the border between North and South Korea is very effective too. Which state should we start laying mines in first? Again, see any issues with making policy decisions based solely on what other countries do?
(1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.13)
The voice of commonsense and reason from MzBejabbers, as always.
Randy, considering the vast majority of undocumented individuals bypass our borders and FLY into our airports, and the vast majority of narcotics are transported through entry ways, the true answer is NO, a useless 2,000 pile of concrete will never stop much of anything especially hard working human beings who prior to Bozo Trump's inauguration, had made this country great by performing all the back breaking and less than fabulous jobs nobody else wants to do and they do it for less money which means you as an American consumer pay less for goods and services they produce and I like that:
The BIG LIE and Hypocrisy just like everything else this oval office weirdo says, is that properties with his name on them according to reports, HIRE Undocumented WORKERS and much of his low end product line as reported is produced by foreign labor in China etc so the JOKE continues to be on his OWN FOLLOWERS:
Jake, I believe even his followers are beginning to understand just what Donnie represents......himself!
Jake: Could it be that Trump and his followers are so ill informed, they don't even know they are ill informed? This condition is known as the Dunning-Kruger-Effect. If you stop and think about it, Trump just contradicted his intelligence people who gave a report to congress about the middle east. When he found out he was wrong, he blamed the media for misconstruing what he said.
It could be the same thing with the wall. That's why he is not able to give any specifics about the wall. While on the other hand Pelosi outlined what she would spend the funding on. Also it could be the same thing with global warming. He first said it was a hoax perpetrated by China and now he says he wants global warming to come back, while it has never gone away. He doesn't know the difference between climate and weather...ill informed. Here is the article that explains the effect.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ect-213904
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Trump mentioned that border control and the building of a wall is a crucial matter.Yes, he is right.It is a matter of justice. The nation does not owe the citizens of other countries ANYTHING. On the contrary it owes it's citizens EVERYTHING. And illegals are TAKING everything:Resources, tax money,...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
Do you think this is a good idea?Is it legal under ourlaws?Is the border situation getting better or worse?How should the US deal with the convoy of migrants coming our way?Do you think building the wall is only long term solution?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Donald Trump has said on many occasions that he will do X (build the wall) "with or without Congress"Question - why aren't Republicans going apocalyptic?
by IslandBites 2 years ago
Senate passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declarationThe Senate delivered a high-profile rebuke to President Donald Trump over his signature agenda issue Thursday when 12 Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the President's national emergency border declaration.The vote...
by PrettyPanther 2 years ago
Calling it "a great thing to do," President Trump declared a national emergency on Friday in order to help finance a long-promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a highly unusual move from an unconventional president.In circuitous remarks in the Rose Garden, Trump said he was...
by fishskinfreak2008 12 years ago
OK, the question now becomes not "if" swine flu will strike, but "when" and 'how severe will the outbreak be?'
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|