Trump team offers amnesty to DACA residents in exchange for border wall

[TitanTiger 20,479]

I have to admit it's a shrewd move politically.  It allows him to offer amnesty to a deserving group of people, which would normally piss off his anti-immigrant base to no end.  But by tying it to funding for a border wall, he deflects that criticism and also puts the Democrats and other DACA supporters in a tough spot.  It's also a pretty good smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that the border wall that "Mexico will pay for" will instead come out of the pockets of US taxpayers to the tune of $25 Billion, plus ongoing maintenance and patrolling costs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/experience/food-and-wine/news-festivals-events/2018/01/25/trump-team-unveils-new-immigration-framework-path-citizenship-dreamers/1066980001/

[AUDub 11,147]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I have to admit it's a shrewd move politically.  It allows him to offer amnesty to a deserving group of people, which would normally piss off his anti-immigrant base to no end.  But by tying it to funding for a border wall, he deflects that criticism and also puts the Democrats and other DACA supporters in a tough spot.  It's also a pretty good smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that the border wall that "Mexico will pay for" will not come out of the pockets of US taxpayers to the tune of $25 Billion, plus ongoing maintenance and patrolling costs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/experience/food-and-wine/news-festivals-events/2018/01/25/trump-team-unveils-new-immigration-framework-path-citizenship-dreamers/1066980001/

I'd be all for this bit of quid pro quo - amnesty for tougher border security - but for the fact that a wall is $25b of security theater.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I'd be all for this bit of quid pro quo - amnesty for tougher border security - but for the fact that a wall is $25b of security theater.

Right.  It's a classic move to look like you're "doing something" when the net effect will be not that great in the end.  All for a paltry $25B.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

36 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I'd be all for this bit of quid pro quo - amnesty for tougher border security - but for the fact that a wall is $25b of security theater.

Seconded.  It's too much money out of our pockets to pay for something that will have little effect on the issue and is also an entity that Mexico was going to pay for (according to POTUS).  Of course, anyone with half a brain understood during the election that Mexico would never pay for this.  Now, if we want to talk about adding some border patrol agents, maybe drone monitoring, etc, then heck yes, let's have that conversation.

[homersapien 11,370]

It's totally absurd that border security is being equated with a literal, physical "wall" in the first place.  

Like dub said, it's pure political theater.

[TexasTiger 12,848]

The bigger issue is his insistence on slashing legal immigration in half and changing the criteria.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Or perhaps society, including the media, has an elementary understanding (if any) of the amount of compromise that necessarily must accompany the internal operations of our government. I created a thread earlier where I discussed legislative compromise in the legislative process. I think this is capable of settling in the same vein. 

[homersapien 11,370]

Considered in the context of what Trump's tax law will cost us, $25B is not even worth discussion. 

[17-16 21]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:57 AM, homersapien said:

It's totally absurd that border security is being equated with a literal, physical "wall" in the first place.  

Like dub said, it's pure political theater.

I have heard MANY comment that the border cannot be completely secure and a barrier is useless. I challenge you to climb or dig under the fence/wall at the Redstone Arsenal, and send us all a selfie in front of an experimental lab. THEN I will believe America does not have the ability to secure our border.

[AUDub 11,147]

13 minutes ago, 17-16 said:

I have heard MANY comment that the border cannot be completely secure and a barrier is useless. I challenge you to climb or dig under the fence/wall at the Redstone Arsenal, and send us all a selfie in front of an experimental lab. THEN I will believe America does not have the ability to secure our border.

Securing a 2500 mile border is a whole different animal. 

[17-16 21]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 8:04 AM, AUDub said:

Securing a 2500 mile border is a whole different animal. 

The restricted space or , "Groom box", around Area 51 is 23mi x 25mi. Or 575 linear miles.  That's getting on up there. I wonder about the security budget. I am not being facetious at all. I think common sense is, by in large, absent in DC. And I am tired of being taken as a fool by ALL of the svengalies.

[homersapien 11,370]

On 1/31/2018 at 9:04 AM, AUDub said:

Securing a 2500 mile border is a whole different animal. 

Not to mention it won't encircle the entire country.

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, 17-16 said:

The restricted space or , "Groom box", around Area 51 is 23mi x 25mi. Or 575 linear miles.  That's getting on up there. I wonder about the security budget. I am not being facetious at all. I think common sense is, by in large, absent in DC. And I am tired of being taken as a fool by ALL of the svengalies.

May I suggest some background reading:

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-impractical-expensive-ineffective-plan

 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

May I suggest some background reading:

https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-impractical-expensive-ineffective-plan

I'm not sure how much more detailed of an analysis you could put together while still making it understandable to the average person. 

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not sure how much more detailed of an analysis you could put together while still making it understandable to the average person. 

Yes that Cato article is excellent. 

[homersapien 11,370]

I found this thought-provoking (from the Cato piece):

"As the image above shows, the illegal population continued to rise in parallel with the growth in agents until the housing bubble burst in 2007. Growth in the fence length is also correlated to a lesser extent with increases in the illegal population over this period. Massey estimates that 5.3 million fewer people would be here illegally had enforcement not been changed and argues that a large guest worker program that mimicked the earlier illegal traffic would eliminate illegal immigration as well as lower the total immigrant population in the United States. Donald Trump has repeatedly promised doors in his wall to expedite legal immigration into the United States, so it is possible that he could follow through on this proposal, but his more specific positions on legal immigration have been targeted to decrease legal admissions, not increase them."

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 hours ago, 17-16 said:

The restricted space or , "Groom box", around Area 51 is 23mi x 25mi. Or 575 linear miles.  That's getting on up there. I wonder about the security budget. I am not being facetious at all. I think common sense is, by in large, absent in DC. And I am tired of being taken as a fool by ALL of the svengalies.

 

Securing a military research/testing facility and securing a long national border are different concepts, facing different threats.  For example, there is a lot of money to be made by smuggling people and/or narcotics into the United States, while the things happening inside Area 51 are of real value only to foreign powers and possibly terrorist organizations.  More importantly, an intruder has to cross a lot of open terrain after breaching the perimeter to then access Area 51's facilities, and then has to defeat whatever security is employed by those facilities.  Penetrating Area 51 would be a very high risk, low reward operation, as an intruder will likely be caught before they could leave with or even obtain anything worth penetrating the facility for in the first place.  On television, three operatives with boltcutters, a laptop, breaching charges, and submachine guns could do it on a daily basis.  In the real world, foreign powers have better uses for such personne.  If Area 51 ever faced determined intruders on a regular basis, it is more likely that the military would simply relocate or reduce its operations than build walls, deploy a massive network of sensors, and/or drastically increase security personnel.

The question has never really been "can the border be secured?", it is "how much does it cost, and is it worth it?".  Securing a national border that includes large stretches of frontier against intruders determined to profit from smuggling or simply improve their life will always be a matter of "how much can we realistically afford?", as the intruders have repeatedly demonstrated an ability and willingness to be creative and resourceful in accomplishing their goals.  The threat varies from illegal immigrants on foot or in the bed of a pickup to sophisticated tunnels, and everything in between.  There is also plenty of legitimate traffic crossing the area to be secured, on a daily basis.  Security against such quantities of threats is a very expensive and ongoing case of mouse versus mouse trap.

If there was such profit to be made AND sustained by penetrating Area 51 or Redstone Arsenal, they would quickly be facing the same consideration.  If either facility faced the caliber and quantity of threats devoted to smuggling, they would be penetrated numerous times, on a daily basis.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Also consider this with the Area 51 comparison.  It's essentially a 23x25 mile box.  In other words, you are never more than 33 miles from the furthest away part of the border (one corner to the opposite corner, diagonally).  If personnel are in the center, they're no more than 16.5 miles from the furthest reach.

Now take that linear mileage and lay it out in a straight line.  You could be as far as 98 miles away from one end to the other.  You're going to need a lot more people stationed at various intervals to keep an eye on that border than you would a rectangular one.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1) DACA for the Wall is almost bewilderingly shrewd by the Trump Team. It is almost too good for Trump to pull off. But at least something is getting done. That alone means something.

2) The Economy is doing well. Maybe too well. The Obama Era 0% Should have been gas on the fire. Odd, it is just showing up now tho...

3) Whether it will do any good or not, I think it will have some deterrent effect and boost the economy as well, the Wall is going to be a YUGE campaign promise delivery. You can almost hear the White Supremacists going nutz...You may also hear Blue Collar Labor going wild as well.

4) There is story after story out there now that point to the NE Corporate Dems being boxed in. They are alienating the middle class AND the Liberal Side of their base. This is not good. 

[homersapien 11,370]

I'd like to know what Trump intends to do about these people if nothing happens legislatively.

His position is not as strong as some think. 

 

[homersapien 11,370]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Also consider this with the Area 51 comparison.  It's essentially a 23x25 mile box.  In other words, you are never more than 33 miles from the furthest away part of the border (one corner to the opposite corner, diagonally).  If personnel are in the center, they're no more than 16.5 miles from the furthest reach.

Now take that linear mileage and lay it out in a straight line.  You could be as far as 98 miles away from one end to the other.  You're going to need a lot more people stationed at various intervals to keep an eye on that border than you would a rectangular one.

The advantage of "interior lines".