A Stupid Shutdown

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The gov't shutdown will likely be the longest in history. Some interesting observations:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-this-is-the-stupidest-government-shutdown-in-us-history-when-will-dems-get-smart-about-it

 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I can't put this current issue on the Democrats (yes I do know they supported the idea 5 years ago). Trump has bragged for months about shutting down the government over a wall. I feel this one is as much about Trump's ego and trying to build a legacy as it is policy.

I support controlling immigration but I don't support a wall. I do not believe it will as useful as individuals think. We are not going to have standing kill orders and boobie traps that have made other walls successful. So I stand with many of my fellow Texans that live on the border in saying no.

It is a stupid shutdown. We have a young friend that recently started a new job who we bought groceries for last night due to this.

[japantiger 4,051]

So if we had non-lethal means to subdue intruders; with a wall; you would be ok?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

40 minutes ago, japantiger said:

So if we had non-lethal means to subdue intruders; with a wall; you would be ok?

No. I don't believe the wall will be effective period. People have pointed to walls in Berlin and Korea. Their effectiveness was based off death and fear. It is already well documented that in places with walls along our border individuals are going over or under. Put the money elsewhere.

Again. I am for increasing presence on the border and reducing illegal immigration and they are hiring. Course not currently getting paid with the threat of not being paid for sometime, but they are hiring.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=3xk5XNSAAsOwtQX0k5_gBQ&q=border+patrol+jobs&oq=border+patrol+jobs&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.567.4188..4365...0.0..0.163.1264.17j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.qvVR5nN38hI&ibp=htl;jobs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMp7fa5ObfAhUNiqwKHZOkA4oQp4wCMAF6BAgAEBk#htidocid=USRq8lSpKpMsIAAEAAAAAA%3D%3D

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

No. I don't believe the wall will be effective period. People have pointed to walls in Berlin and Korea. Their effectiveness was based off death and fear. It is already well documented that in places with walls along our border individuals are going over or under. Put the money elsewhere.

Again. I am for increasing presence on the border and reducing illegal immigration and they are hiring. Course not currently getting paid with the threat of not being paid for sometime, but they are hiring.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=3xk5XNSAAsOwtQX0k5_gBQ&q=border+patrol+jobs&oq=border+patrol+jobs&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.567.4188..4365...0.0..0.163.1264.17j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.qvVR5nN38hI&ibp=htl;jobs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMp7fa5ObfAhUNiqwKHZOkA4oQp4wCMAF6BAgAEBk#htidocid=USRq8lSpKpMsIAAEAAAAAA%3D%3D

So you dismiss the words of our border agents. OK. Your choice.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So you dismiss the words of our border agents. OK. Your choice.

Listened very well actually. In their meeting with Trump they showed him exactly how individuals were tunneling under current walls. They also admitted that the majority of their captures and all that stockpile in front of him were captured at legal ports of entry. One or maybe two items were from outside ports of entry.

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol-agents-in-texas-showed-trump-why-his-wall-wont-work/

I also have listened and read the words of politicians and citizens that live in these border areas:

http://www.kut.org/post/mcallen-mayor-says-wall-wont-solve-realities-texas-border-problems

Even listened to smugglers that play the game:

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/25/texas-smugglers-say-trumps-border-wall-wouldnt-stop-immigrants-drugs-p/

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 hour ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Listened very well actually. In their meeting with Trump they showed him exactly how individuals were tunneling under current walls. They also admitted that the majority of their captures and all that stockpile in front of him were captured at legal ports of entry. One or maybe two items were from outside ports of entry.

https://qz.com/1520651/border-patrol-agents-in-texas-showed-trump-why-his-wall-wont-work/

I also have listened and read the words of politicians and citizens that live in these border areas:

http://www.kut.org/post/mcallen-mayor-says-wall-wont-solve-realities-texas-border-problems

Even listened to smugglers that play the game:

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/25/texas-smugglers-say-trumps-border-wall-wouldnt-stop-immigrants-drugs-p/

 

Well.......

Border Patrol agents say they can’t be much clearer: They want more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants.

Agents also said they need the government to change the “catch and release” policy. They often have to immediately release illegal border crossers they arrest, giving them the chance to disappear into the shadows with the 11 million other illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The findings, shared with The Washington Times, appear to undercut the argument of congressional Democrats, who released a report last month concluding that line agents didn’t support Mr. Trump’s plans for a wall. The report was based on an internal tool used by Homeland Security to evaluate security gaps.

The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well.......

Border Patrol agents say they can’t be much clearer: They want more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants.

Agents also said they need the government to change the “catch and release” policy. They often have to immediately release illegal border crossers they arrest, giving them the chance to disappear into the shadows with the 11 million other illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The findings, shared with The Washington Times, appear to undercut the argument of congressional Democrats, who released a report last month concluding that line agents didn’t support Mr. Trump’s plans for a wall. The report was based on an internal tool used by Homeland Security to evaluate security gaps.

The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

A key word in that article. "In strategic locations". That is different than a 2000 mile wall.

I would agree with certain locations btw. I have seen the same said by individuals that live there. My GF's brothers best friend is also a BPA.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 minute ago, Texan4Auburn said:

A key word in that article. "In strategic locations". That is different than a 2000 mile wall.

True. In key places it will be effective. And I'm sure you know this already, but the plan also includes funding for ports of entry, advanced technology, medical facilities, etc. It is not simply a wall as portrayed by many with an agenda.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I respect the different opinions here and among others but I still think the Dem leadership is just being stubborn and not willing to let Trump keep his promise. After all they both supported a wall in the past.

[homersapien 11,361]

6 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I respect the different opinions here and among others but I still think the Dem leadership is just being stubborn and not willing to let Trump keep his promise. After all they both supported a wall in the past.

As I recall, his promise was to have Mexico pay for it. And he had two years of a Congressional majority to get it done. 

Democrats don't owe Trump anything, much less something that is stupid and the people whom they represent don't want.

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As I recall, his promise was to have Mexico pay for it. And he had two years of a house and senate majority to get it down. 

Democrats don't owe Trump anything, much less something that is stupid and the people whom they represent don't want.

Wasn't Mitch McConnell's whole reason for existence from 2009-2016 to make sure Obama didn't get anything done he wanted to? 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

50 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Wasn't Mitch McConnell's whole reason for existence from 2009-2016 to make sure Obama didn't get anything done he wanted to? 

Mostly true. It was and is obstruction. IMO, if the media would simply be honest and admit the wall works, but this isn't really about a wall. It is about Trump and preventing him a victory. At least then we could have a real and honest conversation.

[japantiger 4,051]

Some pretty ******* stupid arguments in this whole thing .... so because some will tunnel under it; let's not do the obvious thing that will keep 95% of those coming illegally out...yeah; really strong argument....and saying walls don't work is equally stupid.  Having spent 6 months as a young Force Reconnaissance Marine during the cold war trying to figure out how to breach walled systems, fortifications and layers of defenses (walls, layers of walls, seismic sensors, guards, etc.); I can tell you they work.  And they will keep out all but the very best funded and most determined.... And even for them they make it a risky effort that will likely result in failure and ultimate detection.  And for those few, you use other means and layers of defense....but for the 95 - 99% the wall keeps them out.  

The plan as presented; builds ~600 more miles of wall (to go with the existing ~600 miles of wall) where it make sense to build a wall; adds people, surveillance (ground and aerial) and beefs up the courts/enforcement portion of current security measures; aimed at all points of entry; above and below the ground.   I wonder when some of you are going to start calling for tearing down the existing 600 miles of effective wall?

Current policies result in the deaths of innocent Americans...thousands of innocent Americans...23% of every Federal prison inmate (higher % in state and local) is an illegal immigrant that walked across the border; that alone makes this worth it.   Those that enforce the laws understand...that is why they recommend the wall and other memes.  We spend ~$130b annual supporting illegals.  I could care less if a border mayor wants the wall or not.  Ronil Singh was killed just East of San Francisco (500 miles from the border).  Mollie Tibbets was killed in Iowa City, Iowa (1400 miles from the nearest Mexican city).  15 Americans are murdered every day by illegals.  But I guess some of you think it makes more sense to spend $50b annually to stay in Syria and protect Syrians; instead of spending a pittance in America to save Americans....some of you with acute TDS will argue anything....

 

 

 

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

39 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Mostly true. It was and is obstruction. IMO, if the media would simply be honest and admit the wall works, but this isn't really about a wall. It is about Trump and preventing him a victory. At least then we could have a real and honest conversation.

I don't want the wall because it seems like a logistical nightmare, it's more work than it's worth, because it's not going to lower illegal immigration enough to justify it's price, it isn't supported by enough people to justify doing it, and Trump lied about who was going to pay for it. But mostly, I don't think we should build a wall, because Trump only wants it to boost his ego and be able to tell his base that he stuck it to the Democrats. He doesn't care about illegal immigration. He doesn't care about anything or anyone but himself. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

True. In key places it will be effective. And I'm sure you know this already, but the plan also includes funding for ports of entry, advanced technology, medical facilities, etc. It is not simply a wall as portrayed by many with an agenda.

This is on Trump's team too though.  They have done an absolutely crappy job of articulating this argument.  Trump keeps saying "wall" and it obscures his overall argument, which if it were to be along the lines you have mentioned above, would likely garner more support.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

9 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I respect the different opinions here and among others but I still think the Dem leadership is just being stubborn and not willing to let Trump keep his promise. After all they both supported a wall in the past.

No issue with that. I'm always good with civil differing opinions.

[SaltyTiger 7,782]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

would likely garner more support.

Good stuff Brad. Doubt there is anything the "Trump team" could throw out that his opposition would agree with. 

One thing for sure is that his opposition has wanted him impeached since pre inauguration and labeled those that for voted for man. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

20 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I don't want the wall because it seems like a logistical nightmare, it's more work than it's worth, because it's not going to lower illegal immigration enough to justify it's price, it isn't supported by enough people to justify doing it, and Trump lied about who was going to pay for it. But mostly, I don't think we should build a wall, because Trump only wants it to boost his ego and be able to tell his base that he stuck it to the Democrats. He doesn't care about illegal immigration. He doesn't care about anything or anyone but himself. 

• Border agents overwhelmingly support the wall because it works.
• MSM tries to paint a narrative and it appears you sort of bought it,  but then admit this is really about Trump. 

These statements speak volumes. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424971-trump-is-right-walls-work-on-the-southern-border

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

18 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is on Trump's team too though.  They have done an absolutely crappy job of articulating this argument.  Trump keeps saying "wall" and it obscures his overall argument, which if it were to be along the lines you have mentioned above, would likely garner more support.

Agree

[HVAU 673]

Pompeo was on Face the Nation this morning.  One thing stick me, it may just be that I'm slow, but his attention on the wall argument centered on the national threat posed by terrorists, definitely a security that merits concern.  I think it's safe to assume that terrorist refers to Islamic fundamentalists/jihadists.  

From my visits to the Great White North I recall a large Muslim population.  The number as of 2011 was 1.05 million, or 3.2%.  I don't recall such a population from my time south of the border.  Mexico's Muslim population as 2010 was 2500, or .01%.

When those numbers are considered along with the data recently discussed, that which Trump's dishonesty about terror threat listees crossing the border illegally, and the actual numbers, does Pompeo's argument for a southern border wall hold up?

Personally, I don't believe it does.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

44 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Pompeo was on Face the Nation this morning.  One thing stick me, it may just be that I'm slow, but his attention on the wall argument centered on the national threat posed by terrorists, definitely a security that merits concern.  I think it's safe to assume that terrorist refers to Islamic fundamentalists/jihadists.  

From my visits to the Great White North I recall a large Muslim population.  The number as of 2011 was 1.05 million, or 3.2%.  I don't recall such a population from my time south of the border.  Mexico's Muslim population as 2010 was 2500, or .01%.

When those numbers are considered along with the data recently discussed, that which Trump's dishonesty about terror threat listees crossing the border illegally, and the actual numbers, does Pompeo's argument for a southern border wall hold up?

Personally, I don't believe it does.

The argument was largely debunked last week by Fox News's Chris Wallace.  Sarah Sanders tried to make a similar claim about terrorists crossing the southern border amd Wallace fact checked her on the air.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424068-fox-newss-chris-wallace-shuts-down-sarah-sanders-on-claims-about-terrorists-at
 

[HVAU 673]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The argument was largely debunked last week by Fox News's Chris Wallace.  Sarah Sanders tried to make a similar claim about terrorists crossing the southern border amd Wallace fact checked her on the air.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424068-fox-newss-chris-wallace-shuts-down-sarah-sanders-on-claims-about-terrorists-at
 

I would like to see the arguments shift to an honest focus of what's needed at the border.  The leadership in the GOP and the Democrats need to drop the game of political optics.  They aren't good at it, and it's detrimental to the good of the nation.

Do we need more funds for border security?  In my opinion, yes.

Do we need a physical barrier spanning the entirety of the border?  In my opinion, no.

Are there places where placing physical barriers is strategically reasonable?  Absolutely.

Are there more effective strategies and technologies that make strategic sense in places, as opposed to a physical barrier?  In my opinion, yes.

I would like to hear the Democrats offer something along these lines: "We had an agreement for 1.6 billion in funding for physical barriers on Dec. 19, we being the President, the GOP leadership and the Democrat leadership.  We would like to re-extend that offer, but would like to commit to additional, future funding to be determined by analyses of the efficacy of the physical barrier strategy permitted by the initial investment.  With the agreement the US government can be reopened and border security projects can begin immediately."

I can't say that a similar offering hasn't been made.  Maybe greater public scrutiny of the negotiations would be beneficial.  Do away with the backroom meetings.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, HVAU said:

I would like to see the arguments shift to an honest focus of what's needed at the border.  The leadership in the GOP and the Democrats need to drop the game of political optics.  They aren't good at it, and it's detrimental to the good of the nation.

Do we need more funds for border security?  In my opinion, yes.

Do we need a physical barrier spanning the entirety of the border?  In my opinion, no.

Are there places where placing physical barriers is strategically reasonable?  Absolutely.

Are there more effective strategies and technologies that make strategic sense in places, as opposed to a physical barrier?  In my opinion, yes.

I would like to here the Democrats offer something along these lines: "We had an agreement for 1.6 billion in funding for physical barriers on Dec. 19, we being the President, the GOP leadership and the Democrat leadership.  We would like to re-extend that offer, but would like to commit to additional, future funding to be determined by analyses of the efficacy of the physical barrier strategy permitted by the initial investment.  With the agreement the US government can be reopened and border security projects can begin immediately."

I can't say that a similar offering hasn't been made.  Maybe greater public scrutiny of the negotiations would be beneficial.  Do away with the backroom meetings.

 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

5 hours ago, HVAU said:

I would like to see the arguments shift to an honest focus of what's needed at the border.  The leadership in the GOP and the Democrats need to drop the game of political optics.  They aren't good at it, and it's detrimental to the good of the nation.

Do we need more funds for border security?  In my opinion, yes.

Do we need a physical barrier spanning the entirety of the border?  In my opinion, no.

Are there places where placing physical barriers is strategically reasonable?  Absolutely.

Are there more effective strategies and technologies that make strategic sense in places, as opposed to a physical barrier?  In my opinion, yes.

I would like to hear the Democrats offer something along these lines: "We had an agreement for 1.6 billion in funding for physical barriers on Dec. 19, we being the President, the GOP leadership and the Democrat leadership.  We would like to re-extend that offer, but would like to commit to additional, future funding to be determined by analyses of the efficacy of the physical barrier strategy permitted by the initial investment.  With the agreement the US government can be reopened and border security projects can begin immediately."

I can't say that a similar offering hasn't been made.  Maybe greater public scrutiny of the negotiations would be beneficial.  Do away with the backroom meetings.

 

Your points 2 and 3 are contradictory.  The last detail I read was for ~600 additional miles of barrier....so if your point is "we don't need a wall everywhere; and what we need is a wall where it makes sense"...then that is what the Trump admin already has on the table...as well as for ground (seismic),  aerial and additional personnel.  So you are really saying you are for what Trump admin has proposed.   What am i missing?....everything on the table today is a Google away.  

 

"Do we need more funds for border security?  In my opinion, yes.

Do we need a physical barrier spanning the entirety of the border?  In my opinion, no.

Are there places where placing physical barriers is strategically reasonable?  Absolutely.

Are there more effective strategies and technologies that make strategic sense in places, as opposed to a physical barrier?  In my opinion, yes."