Jump to content

Border Wall Prototypes Are So Effective Even US Commandos Can't Best Them


Ryusei the Morning Star

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

that about does it for the useless portion (still, that assumes a complete wall) as for the oppressive, that's exactly what's needed. if you wish to come over, do so legally, and if you choose not to do so legally, then do not do so at all. if that slows down overall immigration, then all the more time to fix the inside of the country.

 

It doesn't, and your answers are very oversimplified. It's absolutely going to be ineffective against preventing illegal immigrants.

 

The thing with overseas travel is that your argument for why it doesn't work is because... you get caught when you're busted? And you need people to be willing to do it? I mean, do you really think nobody in Mexico or the US is going to set something up for them to make it over? Cartels already get some of their drugs from Mexico to the States via water, both above and under it. Yeah, the cartels make their own submarines. They're dangerous and shitty, but they do that. That's not impossible, and they'd absolutely find other ways of getting them in through the water if they need to.

 

Also, they get them across the border by tunnels already. Border guards have trouble dealing with them, because even as they find the tunnels they know another one is being built elsewhere. Also, the deal with "Tunnel Detection" is that... it's not a thing. Well, not practically. The technology exists, in a way, but not in any way that's actually suited for a border patrol's needs. Again, this is another way that they get drugs into the States, and it's worked.

 

As mentioned, there's the issue of upkeep, because you still need people to patrol these areas or else the wall is going be even more obviously ineffective, and a lot of legal groundwork with shared seasonal rainwater, flooding, damage from storms or natural events (even with current fences, something that should be quicker and easier to upkeep than a wall, a large hole made from a storm can remain open for months).

 

Also, there have already been attempts at making stronger border security in the past. Not specifically a wall, but increases in personnel and fences to the point that crossing would be impossible. And there was success!! For that area only as the crossers moved to different routes. Or, in the majority of cases, people would enter the country legally and then remain illegally. Even if the wall is successful in making illegal land-crossings largely impossible for almost all illegal immigrants, this isn't going to stop them. People that want to get into the States that badly are already willing to do so illegally, and there's a myriad of alternatives to doing so. Covering all of them, making illegal immigration impossible, is such a monumental task that the government would have to go far and beyond just a wall, to a point where so much money is being poured into this one aspect of running a nation, not to mention the changes to policy needed to do so, that it would severely damage the rest of the country along with its foreign relations.

 

It's just not worth it, especially the cost for building and upkeep. The wall is going to be a huge waste of time and money, and it won't accomplish anything. People will find other ways, and more likely than not it's going to be crossing legally to stay illegally rather than not crossing at all. It's definitely going to be useless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I have some facts for you

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/

 

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says

 

We rate it Mostly True.

 

There are other factors, but literally no one is denying is helped a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't, and your answers are very oversimplified. It's absolutely going to be ineffective against preventing illegal immigrants.

 

The thing with overseas travel is that your argument for why it doesn't work is because... you get caught when you're busted? And you need people to be willing to do it? I mean, do you really think nobody in Mexico or the US is going to set something up for them to make it over? Cartels already get some of their drugs from Mexico to the States via water, both above and under it. Yeah, the cartels make their own submarines. They're dangerous and shitty, but they do that. That's not impossible, and they'd absolutely find other ways of getting them in through the water if they need to.

 

Also, they get them across the border by tunnels already. Border guards have trouble dealing with them, because even as they find the tunnels they know another one is being built elsewhere. Also, the deal with "Tunnel Detection" is that... it's not a thing. Well, not practically. The technology exists, in a way, but not in any way that's actually suited for a border patrol's needs. Again, this is another way that they get drugs into the States, and it's worked.

 

As mentioned, there's the issue of upkeep, because you still need people to patrol these areas or else the wall is going be even more obviously ineffective, and a lot of legal groundwork with shared seasonal rainwater, flooding, damage from storms or natural events (even with current fences, something that should be quicker and easier to upkeep than a wall, a large hole made from a storm can remain open for months).

 

Also, there have already been attempts at making stronger border security in the past. Not specifically a wall, but increases in personnel and fences to the point that crossing would be impossible. And there was success!! For that area only as the crossers moved to different routes. Or, in the majority of cases, people would enter the country legally and then remain illegally. Even if the wall is successful in making illegal land-crossings largely impossible for almost all illegal immigrants, this isn't going to stop them. People that want to get into the States that badly are already willing to do so illegally, and there's a myriad of alternatives to doing so. Covering all of them, making illegal immigration impossible, is such a monumental task that the government would have to go far and beyond just a wall, to a point where so much money is being poured into this one aspect of running a nation, not to mention the changes to policy needed to do so, that it would severely damage the rest of the country along with its foreign relations.

 

It's just not worth it, especially the cost for building and upkeep. The wall is going to be a huge waste of time and money, and it won't accomplish anything. People will find other ways, and more likely than not it's going to be crossing legally to stay illegally rather than not crossing at all. It's definitely going to be useless.  

 

they're simplified because they boil down to the same thing in either case. 

 

your argument is that if you don't get caught, you're in the clear, an obvious fact. what you are ignoring is the fact that my argument, before ever appearing, came with the additional context of having the walls built already, assuming the walls exist (which current testing implies that if completed, or if even near completion, will be rather effective at staunching above ground travel) the demand for boats and tunnels, is going to skyrocket. you can only take so many people on a boat, and unlike before, where resources were heavily diverted to the land, water and underground will be more expected than ever. also yeah, i know cartels have subs, i was one of the main people discussing it a while back. now you tell me, what cartel is going to risk their subs for people who want to leave mexico? especially when they have more to gain by packing that would-be people space with coke instead. trust me, if they're thinking money, not too many would even attempt it. as for boats, again, unlike above ground, it takes time to make boats, and under increased demand for overseas cover, and the fact that you can, and likely will lose your boat getting busted (remember, increased pressure on overseas and underground) the risk will be larger than ever. unlike drugs, people are harder to hide. does that mean you can't? no, but it does mean you're not bringing even a quarter of the number of illegals over that once would have been attempting it. you don't have to have the number hit zero, that would be a foolish endeavor, but i guarantee you that the difference between the number of illegal immigrants post wall, vs the number of illegal immigrants prior, will be significant. you don't have to stop 100%. you just have to make the risk outweigh the reward.

 

 

again, my argument was under the context of a complete, or near complete wall, under said context, underground and overseas are the only ways, meaning you are now sharing those tunnels with immigrants, and one disgruntled immigrant might be able to snitch away a whole tunnel, you don't have to find all the tunnels, but with the increase in traffic, your job of finding them, becomes that much easier. you've made this mistake twice, and i believe it's the one mistake that's holding you back from understanding our point of view the most, we aren't aiming to 100% end illegal immigration. well we are aiming for that, but our goal at the moment is not that. it is the heavy reduction of illegal immigration, the reduction of trafficking (any kind) and the resecuring of our borders. right now, it's an open door, open windows, and open basement. if you close the door (the largest source of the problem), you don't have to place as much focus on it, and can then proceed to secure the windows and basement more effectively. it's only logical that if you can reduce stress on the biggest problem area, you will have more time for the other areas. you are objecting, from what i can see, on the stance that preventive measures won't completely end the problem. we are supporting said measures, not because we expect a perfect solution, but because it's better to properly address the problem than it is to act like you can do nothing about it. cartels need time and money to dig tunnels, they need time and money to upkeep their subs, you cut into that, you place pressure upon all avenues, and take away their easy cashflow, and you will see bigger results than if you simply do nothing. unless of course, you have a 100% guaranteed perfect solution?

 

i agree. if you recall, i mentioned upkeep a few posts back, and said trump had best get people working on that before the wall even starts. but it's not just trump who wants the wall, many citizens would be happy to provide upkeep to the parts that they can, but the problem of upkeep does not negate the fact that a wall, is at least a presence, an obstacle that deters the attempt. upkeep cost does not negate the gains, until upkeep is required, and assuming even moderate upkeep and proper patrol (which would be far easier with a wall than without one, owing to having an actual zone that you can patrol) you would have enough of a barrier to cut down above ground immigration drastically. 

 

personnel and fences are different from the current attempt. using merely personnel and fences, especially over less than half the border, has a lower yield than actually placing a physical wall over the area. personnel can be seen coming for miles on many areas of the border, fences are easier to cut than stone or specialized reinforcement like this wall is intended to be. and the other ways will be managed far easier than walking over miles of open land. we have a procedure for removing people who overstay their visa, we simply don't use it, placing warrants and rewards out for said people if they knowingly overstay their visas, making it easier to come in legally, these are all things that many republicans want to work towards, in addition to the wall.

 

 

you have continuously used "alternate methods" as your argument against the wall, but you seem to not realize that a wall forces those other methods to be used. to make an analogy, if i lock you out of your most powerful play in yugioh, and you have another play available to you, does that mean it wasn't worth locking you out of the most powerful one? no. because i have forced an alternate route, and i can then plan for said alternates with less worry of the stronger plays blowing me out. it's called removing the options, one by one, making each one yield less and less in return for the attempt. it's not a single stroke to end the game, but a slow and methodical breakdown of what to hit, how to hit it, and what to look out for once shutting out that avenue. will it be expensive? yes, but if we're hiring americans to build and upkeep that wall, then that money will not be wasted. like it or not, very few won't say nobody think the wall will solve everything, what it will do though, is reduce the above ground traffic, it will force the alternatives to take on the weight, it will allow for less overall wasted time when patrolling borders, it will grant jobs to people on the border, who with to keep the border unblurred, and it will shut that wide open door. cartels can dig and sub all they like, those routes cost money, and without the above ground route backing them up, they'll be taking a heavier hit to their wallets as well with each sub and tunnel destroyed. slowly, you whittle down what they have to use, and if the people can't leave mexico as easily anymore, then their options become reform, or accept mexico as it is. i want mexicans to reform their country, i want them to deal with the problems plaguing mexico, i don't want them running over here, leaving the next mexican to even worse poverty, i want them to improve mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wall means the reverse will be true.  They're gonna get brought in more by air and ship.  This is really simple.  Also, flying drugs from Mexico decreased in the late 90s so some of this seems off.

true, but if the graph and source are even half true, cutting off the land portion will be devastating to profits, making even the attempt less lucrative. planes, like boats, offer less places to escape, and far fewer ways to hide. it's the same boat issues all over again, just in the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you consider these drug lords can very well control the TSA it's not that big of a deal.  Pablo Escobar ran the airports, the employees in them, monitoring who comes to and from their cities.  With the technology we have it's not difficult to believe that they have just as much if not more control.  Plus, masking coke isn't that hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you consider these drug lords can very well control the TSA it's not that big of a deal.  Pablo Escobar ran the airports, the employees in them, monitoring who comes to and from their cities.  With the technology we have it's not difficult to believe that they have just as much if not more control.  Plus, masking coke isn't that hard.

i agree, and that's part of why i support either clearing out or completely relocating both the TSA, and the border patrol staff (and any politicians on the border too, just for good measure) rebuilding it from scratch, and making sure to clean it out regularly anytime you suspect corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, but if the graph and source are even half true, cutting off the land portion will be devastating to profits, making even the attempt less lucrative. planes, like boats, offer less places to escape, and far fewer ways to hide. it's the same boat issues all over again, just in the sky.

It's from the DoJ. It's an official document 

 

if it's falsified...a lot people are going to jail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, and that's part of why i support either clearing out or completely relocating both the TSA, and the border patrol staff (and any politicians on the border too, just for good measure) rebuilding it from scratch, and making sure to clean it out regularly anytime you suspect corruption.

 

Border patrol should be working with TSA more than they are.  It would help alleviate the opioid crisis partially (though a lot of it is from the east).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

about those seismic tunnel detectors, what's gonna happen when they detect a tunnel?

 

They send border patrol to close the tunnel probably.  You would think they then collpase the tunnel with strategic charges, but you risk structural damage to the wall.  If they just "close it off" it just gets opened back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They send border patrol to close the tunnel probably.  You would think they then collpase the tunnel with strategic charges, but you risk structural damage to the wall.  If they just "close it off" it just gets opened back up.

you can collapse the parts that are at a distance and fill in anything nearby with enough matter (likely either a compound like cement, or just dirt) it's not really time consuming or expensive to collapse them, and filling them in can be done pretty easily, though it would take a bit more time. not to mention, if they are connected to the power griid via solar panels like white says, messing with the walls (digging tunnels under them and such) will mess with the local power supply if done incorrectly, adding another dimension of security, in that people will not appreciate the cartels raising their energy bills via faulty digging.

 

winter, flooding will not work., it would soften the ground and potentially even the wall, too much over time. using something more solid would be the better plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re not “invading”, White. Some people are just trying to escape violence. We should be accepting them with open arms, not spending all this time and money trying to shut them out. And immigrants aren’t always low-skilled workers and don’t necessarily harm the economy.

I agree with Lord CowCow; at this point we can’t afford to make other countries mad at us (even more than they already are). Everyone’s got nukes now, if WWIII starts we may not even be here to end it.

Anyway, “our sovereignty”? What do you mean by that, exactly? That America can do what it wants ‘cause ‘MURICA?

 

This belongs in Debates, it didn’t take long to devolve into an immigration debate.

 

 

"They’re not “invading”, White. Some people are just trying to escape violence. We should be accepting them with open arms, not spending all this time and money trying to shut them out."

 

And just WHO are YOU good sir to say that WE must be responsible for rectifying all wrongs and ills in the world? We have every right to shut people out I don't care what they're fleeing. Just because you're getting a bad case of the feels for these people WE ALL need to pay the heavy price for you to assuage your conscience? Are you really so arrogant as to assume that people need to give up the freedoms and blessings they enjoy just so you can look at yourself in the mirror? If you feel so badly for these people you should be getting up and moving to their terrible violence-stricken countries under the Red Cross or something to help them. It is not OUR responsibility to make you feel better about yourself it is YOURS.

 

So unless you're willing to stop morally grandstanding and virtue signalling in your plush computer chair and go to some 3rd world country to act upon your supposed "compassion", you can stop preaching. Because nobody wants to listen to a hypocrite tell them what they should and shouldn't be doing. Good day sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. This could easily funk up relationships with a lot of countries if we do something like this

Random tangent for a second...

 

Why the funk is it always that countries are allowed to either A. sheet talk us. or B. Out right be pissed off at us.

 

Heaven forbid they be pissed at us for the 70 billionth time. I can afford Mexico's vitriol, other than the fact that Mexico's government has been spewing hatred at us for a decade now.

 

Also

 

[spoiler=Obligatory. Warning: Some minor mature images]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...