50,000 border arrest in May - might be best to build the wall?

[Mountainmanbob]

Have truly seen no figures of how much this is costing us but, to detain 50,000 people in one month must be very expensive. And we need to take into consideration the recent Caravan one of many more heading up here. There will be more and more if we don't find a solution to this problem.

There will also probably be future stampedes On the Border. We have already seen some small stampedes here in San Diego -- they are kind of testing the waters.
M-Bob

Border arrests exceed 50,000 for third month in a row

DHS took 51,912 migrants into custody in May, nearly three times the number detained in May 2017, a period when illegal immigration plunged following Trump’s inauguration.
Arrests at the border this spring have jumped to their highest levels since Trump took office, and the reversal has left the president furious at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other aides who he believes aren’t doing enough to stop the trend.

 

[High Fidelity]

To the poll, the answer is of course no. But a wall really isn't going to change much, if anything, and that money could be put to better use.

You can't put a bandaid on a gaping chest wound and expect it to solve everything.

 

[Desk trauma]

I reiterate that Betteridge's law applies to thread titles as well.

That said, no, initiating the largest construction project in the country and creating a largely ineffective billion dollar upkeep boondoggle is not cheaper then having the boarder patrol keep doing their job.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

not cheaper then having the boarder patrol keep doing their job.

Well I guess the Border issue is a job creator? For the way it's looking we're going to need thousands and thousands more border patrol hired.

Just makes me wonder because we have seen this done on a small scale in San Diego -- what happens if a half a million people come to the border at one time and all decide to bum rush the gate or lack of fence?

Here in San Diego we had about a thousand try that a while back as they were throwing rocks and things at our border patrol and screaming at us that they were coming over -- it was rather scary.

M-Bob

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually, what might be best would be to entertain the bipartisan bill that allocated significant funding that would allow for both putting structures in key places (instead of the entire southern border) and hiring thousands of new border patrol agents.

...much more effective than some 30-foot high conspicuous display of virtue signaling on the topic of immigration. Especially considering that the wall idea is based on a completely false premise pertaining to just how most of the illegal immigrants got in, in the first place.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have truly seen no figures of how much this is costing us but, to detain 50,000 people in one month must be very expensive.

Imagine how much worse it was in the past! Current numbers are pretty tiny, historically. But propaganda can blind our eyes to the facts.

OK, now that we've dispensed with one baseless fear, let's tackle another.

Nobody in any position of authority in politics is advocating for open borders.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nobody in any position of authority in politics is advocating for open borders.

That could change with one election.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Nobody in any position of authority in politics is advocating for open borders.

Pelosi’s hinting that Congress must “remove all doubt” that the U.S. is humane could come in the form of House and Senate Democrats’ plan to end all immigration enforcement across the nation, including the abolishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

 

[Desk trauma]

Actually, what might be best would be to entertain the bipartisan bill that allocated significant funding that would allow for both putting structures in key places (instead of the entire southern border) and hiring thousands of new border patrol agents.

I would not oppose anything in that as I am not against the boarder wall boondoggle because of an opposition to securing the boarder but because it's the most expensive and least effective option on the table. However, the solution I have been wanting for years is one that would end up cheaper then that or a beefed up boarder patrol, removal of the economic motivation behind illegal immigration. A system of more effective national ID required for employment and significant fines on those who employ illegal labor would remove the motivation to come here to work while causing those already here illegally to leave of their own accord under their own power.

I have zero hope of seeing that happen as it hits on far too many things that leave it DOA. Paranoia about federal tracking, mark of the beast, and the real killer an end of cheap easily exploitable labor for various business interests who have become dependent on it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Arrests at the border this spring have jumped to their highest levels since Trump took office, and the reversal has left the president furious at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other aides who he believes aren’t doing enough to stop the trend.

That's his fault for insisting on a 'wall' instead of an inexpensive patrolled fence. Not everything has to be 'gold plated'.

Also, the minute an issue is 'politicized' gridlock sets in and little to nothing gets done.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

That's his fault for insisting on a 'wall' instead of an inexpensive patrolled fence. Not everything has to be 'gold plated'.

Problem is you can cut through a fence in less than five minutes a large enough hole to drive a truck through.

Can't Patrol every square inch and that is what will be needed in the future as more and more by the thousands and thousands come north.
M-Bob

 

[sfs]

That could change with one election.

How? Who's running for office that proposes abolishing all control of the border?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Problem is you can cut through a fence in less than five minutes a large enough hole to drive a truck through.

Can't Patrol every square inch and that is what will be needed in the future as more and more by the thousands and thousands come north.
M-Bob

You can patrol every square inch. Just put enough 'eyes' on it.

Recall the sharp decline in illegal entry when Trump was elected. They thought the 'wall' would go up immediately.

So if we do build an effective barrier they will likely be discouraged; "If we build it, they will not come."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How? Who's running for office that proposes abolishing all control of the border?

"Control" isn't intended to keep people out. It just lets them in in an orderly fashion. In the hands of the Dems millions would enjoy a 'controlled' entry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have truly seen no figures of how much this is costing us but, to detain 50,000 people in one month must be very expensive. And we need to take into consideration the recent Caravan one of many more heading up here. There will be more and more if we don't find a solution to this problem.

There will also probably be future stampedes On the Border. We have already seen some small stampedes here in San Diego -- they are kind of testing the waters.
M-Bob

Border arrests exceed 50,000 for third month in a row

DHS took 51,912 migrants into custody in May, nearly three times the number detained in May 2017, a period when illegal immigration plunged following Trump’s inauguration.
Arrests at the border this spring have jumped to their highest levels since Trump took office, and the reversal has left the president furious at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other aides who he believes aren’t doing enough to stop the trend.

If we had sensible immigration laws--the President has done all he can to encourage sensible immigration laws--probably a wall would not be necessary because so few would dare to break our immigration laws. And we could then probably handle the remaining few who do. But we have had a series of gutless feckless congresses who won't pass the laws we need.

Mexico has sensible immigration laws--you break them at great peril--but unfortunately their people do not respect our laws at all because they are so often unenforced.

Because we have been so namby pamby and wishy washy in enforcement of the laws and each new administration has entertained some form of amnesty, it is like America has this huge neon flashing sign over it: YA'LL COME AND IF YOU LAY LOW FOR AWHILE, THEY'LL LET YOU STAY!!! Worse, those who break the law the longest are the ones most considered for amnesty.

A policy like that is akin to giving an offense of involuntary manslaughter life imprisonment or the electric chair while the serial killer gets probation.

In addition to border enforcement we need:
--It is illegal and includes severe penalties to hire illegals
--No social services of any kind other than immediate humanitarian aid for illegals.
--A change in the Constitution that you must have one citizen parent to have automatic U.S. citizenship
--New immigrants will be admitted on merit.
--No chain migration. You won't be able to bring in your parents, grandparents, grown kids, uncles, aunts, cousins once you are here legally.

If we religiously enforced that, we might not need the wall. But the wall wouldn't hurt and might at least slow down the flow of drugs and lawlessness into our country.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

In the hands of the Dems millions would enjoy a 'controlled' entry.

And we don't need them here. Take note of their native Flags they carry with them. They don't carry American flags. They want to change our country. Let's help them rebuild their own countries. Why just let the problems come here?
M-Bob

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And we don't need them here. Take note of their native Flags they carry with them. They don't carry American flags. They want to change our country. Let's help them rebuild their own countries. Why just let the problems come here?
M-Bob

Add to the problem is that many Mexicans believe we stole the southwest from them and they want it back.

Does Mexico Really Own the US Southwest?

 

[Foxfyre]

<<<<first part of post snipped>>>>

. . .OK, now that we've dispensed with one baseless fear, let's tackle another.

Nobody in any position of authority in politics is advocating for open borders.

I wonder though. What they say and how they vote or what they promise to the illegals leaves the question open as to how many really want to stop illegal immigration. When it comes to politicians, reading between the lines is a pretty good thing to do.

And there are a number of people--including one in my own state--who are running for Congress who are openly running on an open borders agenda. It is pretty scary.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pelosi’s hinting that Congress must “remove all doubt” that the U.S. is humane could come in the form of House and Senate Democrats’ plan to end all immigration enforcement across the nation, including the abolishment of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Pelosi is objecting to Trump's inhumane separation of families. As everyone should.

“On immigration, Democrats are for securing our borders, protecting Dreamers, opposing the Trump Administration’s family separation policy and passing bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform,” said Pelosi in her statement."

Obama was the Deporter in Chief. The Democratic line is to prioritize deporting the bad hombres, and deprioritize deporting children. It is decidedly not open borders.