Why do we not just have millitary up and down the border.
cuz we don't want to prevent you from leaving.
brilliant, original idea, nobody's though of it, and your implementation details and costs are very reasonable, which I'm sure you're willing to pay for
Wow who is the chunky little kid? You watch some weird Edward.
To keep a terror cell out of American it is worth it.
ROFL.....
Ok, that was golden.
So original the jokes on here. Never ever been used.
Why do we not just have millitary up and down the border.
smh
Very.
Simple.
Math.
1,933
+
1,538
=
3,531
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf
3,531*5280= 18,643,680
18.6 million feet long.
Divide that by roughly 100,000 actual combat troops+ military police, assume that only 1/4th of that can actually be on duty at any one time, we only have troop committments on our borders..
One troop every 780-1000, under the most optimistic, unrealistic scenario.
Don't even get started on the coastline.
THe answer to your question is: cost.
Not worth the bother, IMO.
Boondoggle of epic proportions to even try, but that won't keep the xenophobic wing of our electorate from making it a priority.
Hey, it was new to me, even though I'm sure it is an old one.
Ok, but what about a giant wall.
3,561 mile wall...
Charitable.. $100,000 per mile = $356 million, plus maintenance, plus labor to defend against the lawsuits, and maintain it.
Stupid idea from a logistical/maintenance standpoint. But $356 million is chump change.
I believe the government should get the word out and run a national campaign using TV, radio, internet, print, billboards, direct mail, etc for the next year reminding everyone that is in the USA their is laws against entering and staying in our country. I believe this is the place to start. A simple message that wont offend many people. God bless
ok, what about giant signs that say "keep out" in Spanish.
Problem solved.
Guaranteed to stop any and all illegals who don't know how to play "rojo rover".
Immigration Reform Border Deal Reached
A deal will be announced on Thursday for a border security amendment that would up the cost and requirements for enforcement of immigration law in the "gang of eight" immigration reform bill, aides said. The agreement gives a boost to an effort led by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) to win over more Republicans.
The bill mandates that significant increases to border requirements be met before undo ented immigrants can move from provisional status to legal permanent residency. Given those increases, it's likely to be expensive: aides said they expect a cost of $30 billion for 40,000 border agents, rather than the 21,000 agents in the original bill. The deal would also require 700 miles of fencing and more funding for aerial drones to watch the U.S.-Mexico border.
Gang of eight senators and the amendment's authors hope the measure will help win over skeptical Republican senators so the bill passes with significant margins, giving it more momentum when it goes to the House.
"For people who are concerned about border security, once they see what's in this bill, it's almost overkill," Corker said on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown" Thursday morning, before the deal was announced.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tent=NewsEntry
Senate is wasting its time. House tea baggers will block any and all immigration reform.
The Senate Is Pushing For Millions Of Dollars Of Unneeded Border Security
The agreement, which is expected to push Senate support for the bill over 70 Senators, will require 20,000 new border patrol agents and the completion of 700 miles of fence along the southern border. Funding the patrol agents would cost $30 billion over ten years, and estimates show the fence could cost up to $6.5 million per mile.
The push for high-cost border security measures is surprising coming from Republicans who have stressed the importance of an immigration reform bill that lowers deficits and boosts the economy. The underlying Senate bill already has strong border security measures: It requires 100 percent “persistent surveillance” at the border with the goal of stopping at least 90 percent of illegal border crossings. It also creates a board dedicated to monitoring the progress of border security, and funds an additional 3,500 border agents by the end of 2013. On top of all of that, it sets up the most comprehensive entry and exit tracking system the country has ever seen, and E-Verify, an enforcement mechanism in and of itself, since it establishes a massive system to check the legal status of employees.
In reality, even without the Senate’s bill passing as-is, the border is more secure than ever before. In fact, it’s even more secure than the failed 2007 immigration reform effort would have required, with the last few years seeing huge increases in boots on the ground, mobile surveillance, air craft stations with manned- and unmanned-surveilance, and a total of 651 miles of fencing. Should the border security agreement come through and make its way into law, there would be far more agents at the border than there are troops stationed in Afghanistan.
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration...rity-spending/
militarizing the border falls in the category of shutting the barn door after the horses get away. sometime after 2005, the flow of immigration reversed:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz28j8ynkPD
http://www.aei.org/article/society-a...n-from-mexico/
The recent spate of violence has shifted that back to positive, I think. I dimly remember reading something about it. Anecdotally I know if at least one RL family that has fled Mexico. Family had enough money to send their kid to some prep school, but now he has thrown his lot in with a lot of much poorer prior immigrants. Teenage boy, so it is tough on him to adjust.
Good bit on the economist recently.
"Secure enough: the ideas to secure the border would cost too much" or somethign similar.
They did reiterate that mexico and centrals america's production of the young men that would actually cross the border will fall markedly, starting in 2015.
Spending a vast amount of money on a fence to keep fewer and fewer people out seems dumb.
By the time we get around to building it, the need for it would evaporate.
"Secure the border" is stupid, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
"Spending a vast amount of money on a fence to keep fewer and fewer people out seems dumb."
Repug amendment to Senate imm bill does just that, doubles the border patrol troops from 20K to 40K, adds drones, radar, PIR, etc, etc, as the Repugs pander to racists and xenophobes that dominate their base.
The Canadian boarder too right?
Because America has to spread democracy and the American way of life overseas. We don't have the money to secure our own borders. We have to go to other countries and tell them how they should operate. If they refuse or are hostile, we kill them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
