Originally Posted by spence (Post 1162411)

This is pretty convoluted,

What's so convoluted about "First, how is it known that most come by air and sea? Is that a supposedly educated guess? If actual deliveries have been known to be happening, then they all should have been stopped. If the smuggling has been successful (undetected), as it apparently was, then how has it been determined which way it came?"

Three simple and related questions. One straightforward statement. No convolution. Sometimes, I think you just like to use certain words. Like "convoluted."

it's the same argument Stephen Miller tried to use when Wallace embarrassed him yesterday morning. How about the pineapple smuggling along the Rio Grande? What, never heard of it??? Exactly the point.

Now, here you are skirting the borders of convolution, becoming "extremely complex and difficult to follow." Is there some scuttlebutt about whether pineapples are smuggled here more by air and sea than by land? I'm not following your comparison. Exactly what point are you referring to?

How about a really simple answer, the experts at the DEA have studied the issue in depth.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1162418)

And here's what the head of the BP union had to say...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-patrol-union/

And here, a union survey of 600 agent sin two of the southern border's busiest areas, 89% support the wall.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-survey-finds/

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1162424)

Have these "experts" explained how they arrived at their conclusion? That shouldn't be difficult to lay out in order to convince us that their figures are correct. Oh . . . have the experts actually discovered some numbers/ratios about how much comes across the border and how much comes by air and sea? Can you point out what numbers they came up with?

Or do you just take their word, and, as Jim in CT pointed out, do you dismiss the words of other "experts."

And, if the smuggling of narcotics by the air/sea combination is stopped, would that mean that "the most" would then be by land? Or would it mean that no more illegal narcotics would be delivered here from south of the border, not even by land? What is the relevant point being made by claiming one method smuggles more than another?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162428)

Border Patrol and DEA seize about 775 tons of illegal drugs on the southern border and they say the great majority come thru ports of entry. I assume they know what they are talking about at least about where they apprehend the traffickers.
Assuming a human can carry 15 kilos which is a heavy load and likely means they could carry no water or food, it would take 60 people to carry each ton and a large number would be apprehended if any significant amount was moved that way. Border patrol and DEA would certainly be able to determine if that was happening, would they not?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162426)

And when the current head of the BP union got elected he immediately cozied up to Trump and changed the BP union position on the wall. (Jim, I thought you disliked unions) I posted the link to that previously.
Here is the text
The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

Walls and fences are only a speed bump. People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.
Now show me the survey, not some reporters opinion of what it said.
Surveys are all about the question, not the number of yes or no answers.
I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1162426)

The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States. However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens).

I don't know the numbers, but a whole lot of illegals create their own communities and jobs. And they are magnets as places for more to come and find a place to settle. I suspect that the "problem" is more than employers hiring illegals. But, as the NBPC said, for the time being we have to focus on and treat the "symptoms" and build fences and walls which are essential.

Walls and fences are only a speed bump.

Speed bumps work, even though they only treat the symptoms.

People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under, and around the walls and fences that are constructed.

So are those women and children, who supposedly comprise the majority of illegal immigrants, coming here for employment?

Walls and fences will undoubtedly result in an increase in fraudulent documents and smuggling through the Ports of Entry.

That's only because walls between Ports would stop them.

Walls and fences do not solve the issue of people entering the country legally and staying beyond the date they are required to leave the country, a problem which will undoubtedly increase as more walls and fences are constructed.

The legal problem would increase because the illegal problem would be lessened. So should we, as I sarcastically said in my reply to your original posting of this article "better not solve the issue of people entering illegally because it will increase the problem of them coming legally."

The NBPC position regarding walls and fences is not due to a concern of losing our jobs if fences and walls are built. On the contrary, the NBPC realizes that walls and fences require just as much manpower to protect them. Border Patrol Agents witness what happens to walls and fences when there are not enough Border Patrol agents to protect them.

I believe the question was wall a barrier help yes or no
The BPs position prior to the election of a Trump ally as head was manpower was the #1 deterrent. A wall without manpower becomes holes with wall between them.

Yup, walls and more agents are PART of the essential solution.

We have barriers at all populated areas, so a better question would be to pick 2 out of 3 for unpopulated areas
Manpower
Barrier
Electronic devices
That would be a far more interesting question than do you think walls help.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1163416)

More "migrants" are crossing the border now:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mo...mage=BBOwDsq|1

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1163419)

March 1, 2019

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has reportedly hired a twice-arrested illegal alien as his deputy national secretary.


they probably heard democrats are hiring for the campaign :hihi:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1163426)

Noise, I’d be more concerned that .....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1163417)

The majority know to request asylum at the border, either at an official port of entry or when they surrender to border agents shortly after sneaking into the country from Mexico.

Yeah, they know the trick. Wonder how they learned that. Was that part of their public or catholic school education?

Whether they sneak into the country in remote areas or enter the country through a port of entry, most migrants are trying to petition for asylum.

And the great majority of those who actually do later show up at court and go through the process are denied asylum because they don't have valid reasons to get it. But they know the trick. Ask for Asylum. Then don't report to court and settle somewhere in America.

Congress has provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border, but the Administration has hardly spent any of that money, and the projects it has undertaken have ballooned in cost. So far, only six percent of those funds have been spent. Six.”

Sounds like a typical government program. They usually cost more than projected and take longer than expected.

So Trumps only spent 6% to build or replacing Has sent the national guard several times Trump administration paid a private company $13.6 million to recruit thousands of Border Patrol agents, and they've hired 2 so far congress gave him another including $1.375 billion in the shut down bill Yet we are expected to believe he needs 8 billion more to stop .. his inmangary invasion or infiltration of migrants most who are seeking Asylum...

It's not imaginary. It's real. And the numbers invading are going up. Even the NYT says so.

If those countries weren't so f uped ( Thanks the our involvement in the 80s ) they'd have no reason to leave ... unintentional consequences.... and No wall can fix that epic failure

So if U.S intervention f's a country up, better that we don't intervene. Stay out of their countries and stop giving them money. I think Trump has proposed doing that. Those countries can embrace socialism and f themselves up quite well without our help or intervention.

That doesn't mean we must mea culpa take millions of unqualfied immigrants from those countries. In a very material way, transferring millions of their dissatisfied citizens to here would be interfering with the ability of the masses from those countries to exercise their necessary revolution. "You have nothing to lose but your chains" doesn't mean moving to the U.S. It means actual revolution. If they all wish to become Cuba or Venezuela, they should be allowed to do so. Now better than later. They can create their socialist paradises without our help. Even better without our help.

Curious, how does it help those countries by taking away huge portions of their population--especially those who are reputed to be the more industrious and willing to work, even for low wages?

And People who dont support this wall are not the open border supporters that Trump loves to claim we are We are just see things for what they are a stunt for his base not the country another scam .. no different them him Hugging the Flag .... all an act ... But his base
think he is authentic .. ya ok

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1163457)

Spend the money already allocated for quite some time and yes both parties need to somehow get the immigration loop holes addressed with bipartisan legislation, which has been absolutely impossible with the never budging demand for the wall money Trump wants. I will grant the economy is still strong, but the deficit is out of control, trade deficit is at an all time high, lots of trouble in the Middle East being handled by a family rookie, Trump claims NK isn’t a nuclear threat yet two days after the summit; photos were released proving they are building long range missile sites. While I’m not sure I buy into the full on new green deal, this administration has its head in the sand when it comes to climate change and the long range costs to address the consequences of inaction will make the current deficit pale in comparison. If your vision is only two or even six years out, then I can see why you are so comfortable and secure.

The Russians, Chinese and others are constantly looking for ways to influence our elections, hack our utilities and our military, yet Trump will have no issue pulling money from efforts to keep us safe from those efforts to build his fing wall. I’m about to turn 66 and have lived through a bunch of presidencies, the good, the bad and now it’s the ugly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1163460)

must be hard to sleep at night :spin: