Yes, it is a serious problem. Yes I meant border, I'm not sure how that a got in there.

BFett wrote:Which means open boarders between Canada and Mexico where citizens of those countries can come and go as they please, just as it is in Europe. While this might not be a problem with the Canadians, the Mexicans do have a drug problem and they'd use that open boarder to smuggle drugs into the US. Besides that, people from other countries are already entering Mexico and then entering through the southern boarder into the US. This flow of undocumented individuals needs to stop.

More secure boarders, for any country, is generally a good thing. (as in the only people who get across are known by both sides)

I don't think it's the universal answer to all problems as some have made out to be however. As already stated, America has a ton of it's own home grown crime already.

Also, America already spends a ton of resources on boarder security. $90 billion from 2000 to 2010 for the Mexican. The only way to make it better would be to toss more money it's way.

I'm pretty liberal on many things, but believe that there should be a real effort (by all countries) to remove people who entered illegally. At the same time there needs to be realistic ways for people to enter and become citizens legally. (though not a free for all of course)

Zanteogo wrote:More secure boarders, for any country, is generally a good thing. (as in the only people who get across are known by both sides)

I don't think it's the universal answer to all problems as some have made out to be however. As already stated, America has a ton of it's own home grown crime already.

Also, America already spends a ton of resources on boarder security. $90 billion from 2000 to 2010 for the Mexican. The only way to make it better would be to toss more money it's way.

I'm pretty liberal on many things, but believe that there should be a real effort (by all countries) to remove people who entered illegally. At the same time there needs to be realistic ways for people to enter and become citizens legally. (though not a free for all of course)

This. Plus, trying to close the border would be pretty much impossible and the cost would easily outstrip any potential benefits. The border with Mexico ishuge. Completely closing a total of almost 2,000 miles of border would be difficult even if a large part wasn't an inhospitable desert. I doubt even deploying the whole US Army would do the job- there's just too much to patrol effectively.

cuisinart8 wrote:an inhospitable desert.

Please don't insult my home. How can I be living here if it's inhospitable?
Yay modern technology like air conditioners and running water. This spot is darn near inhospitable, actually.

--IronDuke

cuisinart8 wrote:trying to close the border would be pretty much impossible and the cost would easily outstrip any potential benefits. The border with Mexico ishuge. Completely closing a total of almost 2,000 miles of border would be difficult even if a large part wasn't an inhospitable desert. I doubt even deploying the whole US Army would do the job- there's just too much to patrol effectively.

Not to argue one way or the other, but just for reference, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System currently spans 46,876 miles.

That, just by itself, is enough to span the U.S-Mexico border over 23 times.

In terms of time: the EIHS was substantially complete after 30 years. I suspect there's enough unallocated workforce in the U.S. today to finish a full wall in five years. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that some 90,000,000 people aren't working or aren't looking for work. 70 million of those are between the ages of 16-17 and older than 65, as well as those in two- and four-year colleges, leaving 20 million. If half of those are male (assuming we'd only want burlymen building a wall), that's roughly 10 million men available for construction work.

Let's further assume that 2 million of those are physically unable to work, leaving a total of 8,000,000 workers. With a U.S.-Mexico border length of 1,989 miles, if all 8 million men could be allocated to wall-building, that comes to over 4,000 men per mile.

You could probably build anything pretty quickly with that kind of labor, including a functional wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border. (For comparison, approximately 15,000,000 U.S. men served in WW II.) You probably wouldn't need anything like that many workers, though.

Of course all this is just back-of-the-envelope calculation; it ignores the impossibility of actually getting millions of men shipped to the southern border to build anything.

But I think it does show that, if America actually wanted to build a southern wall, it absolutely has the capability to do so.

Again, I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it could.

I only wonder why there is no "Squirrel" option in that poll. I thought that was customary.

Flatfingers wrote:long but good argument

Yes, but a wall, even a well-engineered one, would likely not be enough. People would find ways around it, if they were desperate enough- and people have proven themselves pretty desperate to cross the border. For instance, despite the ridiculous amount of fortifications at the Berlin Wall, it was still breached by multiple people, even with barbed wire fences, an actual wall, and guards ordered to shoot on sight. I don't disagree that it would be possible to build a wall all along the border, but it would cost a lot as well, for likely mediocre effects.

but wall

...a wall...one would think that humanity is able to come up with better solutions this day and age. History, I think, should have learned us a lesson or two on what walls do to society.

plillevold wrote:...a wall...one would think that humanity is able to come up with better solutions this day and age. History, I think, should have learned us a lesson or two on what walls do to society.

So, a mine field perhaps? Because most people in their right mind would not walk through a mine field.

BFett wrote:So, a mine field perhaps? Because most people in their right mind would not walk through a mine field.

That would be one hell of a deterrent, I think! Still, not quite the best solution. I'm not really sure what could be done to realistically make the border more difficult to cross while not costing an arm and a leg. If you want to stop illegal immigration that badly, then a wall could help at least. But there's no way to reliably curb it, not on a border that large. People will find ways around whatever we put up.

cuisinart8 wrote:

BFett wrote:So, a mine field perhaps? Because most people in their right mind would not walk through a mine field.

That would be one hell of a deterrent, I think! Still, not quite the best solution. I'm not really sure what could be done to realistically make the border more difficult to cross while not costing an arm and a leg. If you want to stop illegal immigration that badly, then a wall could help at least. But there's no way to reliably curb it, not on a border that large. People will find ways around whatever we put up.

Yep, I agree, the point is to deter as many as possible so my solution while super extreme, might actually be the best for substantially slowing down those who wish to cross the boarder. Though to be honest, it was a joke and I don't expect anyone to ever actually put mines between the two countries. Perhaps a 20 foot wall would provide enough of a deterrent that people might think twice before trying to scale it. I don't mind if we have some double digit number of people entering the US over the wall. I just don't want that number to be larger than that annually.

Also, I came here to inform those in other countries that we have had some really bad violent protests in the larger cities in the US over the past 4 days. People are angry that Trump is president elect and are doing really stupid things like burning the American flag and smashing windows of store fronts. They are also physically beating those who support Trump. I don't know about you guys, but I'd say these "progressives" aren't very forward thinking about how their actions look to the rest of us. I'd say they've regressed instead of progressed.

If they wanted to get expensive with the border control stuff, they could always use the same tech and techniques they use to secure Area 51....Nobody gets in there

Anyone for some history? A wall all by itself wasn't effective for the GDR.

They employed mines, barbed wire, of course, snipers on watch towers, and auto turrets.
That's what it takes to seal a border. (and some still got through)
You need something similar for a considerable distance up the coast.

So unless american border patrol officers or soldiers are willing to gun down wannabe immigrants in a kill zone (because freedom or somesuch), The Great Wall won't be much beyond election talk.

BFett wrote: Also, I came here to inform those in other countries that we have had some really bad violent protests in the larger cities in the US over the past 4 days. People are angry that Trump is president elect and are doing really stupid things like burning the American flag and smashing windows of store fronts. They are also physically beating those who support Trump. I don't know about you guys, but I'd say these "progressives" aren't very forward thinking about how their actions look to the rest of us. I'd say they've regressed instead of progressed.

And on the other side of the coin, Trump supporters are harassing racial minorities, urging them to kill themselves or leave the country before their president throws them out, or just apply his lovely advice for handling women and attempting to grab their private parts.
Lovely country you guys have