U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2019, 04:39 PM
 
12,405 posts, read 5,943,196 times
Reputation: 10367

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Clearly doing a bang-up job in El Paso. We should spend a few billion more on such an effective solution, especially when it requires the seizure of land from citizens.
:shrug: Land gets "seized" all the time. If that's what it takes to secure the border, then so be it. If any landowner wants to fight it, then they pay the consequences---meaning, they will have a steady stream of illegals passing through their property. Or are you saying that the border should remain wide open?

Do some research and read about ranchers who live along the border. They are tired of the steady streams of illegals on their properties and welcome having a secure barrier.

The BP is doing the best they can at El Paso. They are seriously understaffed. What more do you want from them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2019, 05:28 PM
 
34,804 posts, read 15,695,717 times
Reputation: 9282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Clearly doing a bang-up job in El Paso. We should spend a few billion more on such an effective solution, especially when it requires the seizure of land from citizens.
Yes the walls along the El Paso border have been very effective and Trump has plans to make more improvements along the El Paso border.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/13/we-alr...-and-it-works/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,325 posts, read 10,789,815 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD View Post
:shrug: Land gets "seized" all the time. If that's what it takes to secure the border, then so be it. If any landowner wants to fight it, then they pay the consequences---meaning, they will have a steady stream of illegals passing through their property. Or are you saying that the border should remain wide open?

Do some research and read about ranchers who live along the border. They are tired of the steady streams of illegals on their properties and welcome having a secure barrier.
From the 2006 Secure Fence act over 300 farmers and ranchers filed lawsuits against the government for seizure of their land. Over 60 of those are still outstanding. That's thirteen years later. Clearly they're more concerned about the loss of their rights over the "streams" of illegals. That was for 600 or so miles of fence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:17 PM
 
12,405 posts, read 5,943,196 times
Reputation: 10367
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
From the 2006 Secure Fence act over 300 farmers and ranchers filed lawsuits against the government for seizure of their land. Over 60 of those are still outstanding. That's thirteen years later. Clearly they're more concerned about the loss of their rights over the "streams" of illegals. That was for 600 or so miles of fence.
Really?

https://www.drovers.com/article/ariz...order-security

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/...ug-trafficking

There's more if you don't like those links.

As I said previously --- the ranchers who don't want a barrier will have to deal with the consequences---meaning, word will get out that their property isn't secured and they will be seeing more and more illegals. If they don't mind having their property vandalized and having their livestock die, then let them have at it.

Walls do work. Once again, for proof of that --- the wall that Bill Clinton had built on the San Diego/Tijuana border has drastically cut down on crime and illegal crossings. You can't deny that
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:37 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
12,905 posts, read 8,144,699 times
Reputation: 18731
Build The Wall.
"We have to build it to see if it will work"........ Nancy Pelosi (almost)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,325 posts, read 10,789,815 times
Reputation: 9889
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD View Post
Really?

https://www.drovers.com/article/ariz...order-security

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/...ug-trafficking

There's more if you don't like those links.

As I said previously --- the ranchers who don't want a barrier will have to deal with the consequences---meaning, word will get out that their property isn't secured and they will be seeing more and more illegals. If they don't mind having their property vandalized and having their livestock die, then let them have at it.

Walls do work. Once again, for proof of that --- the wall that Bill Clinton had built on the San Diego/Tijuana border has drastically cut down on crime and illegal crossings. You can't deny that
Walls have their place, and absolutely work, but they are not a panacea, and they are one small part of overall comprehensive immigration reform. I prefer being diligent and examining all of the options, of which barriers, whether they be walls, fence, moat or minefields may be the best choice (not really minefields) and also where it's most cost effective to do absolutely nothing except technology or manpower, combined with a way to address the volume, and process people more expediently. Rather than just throwing billions at walls because that was promised, I'd gladly support some sober thought and put some towards courts and processing, some towards proper detention facilities so that the choices aren't release or tents, and some towards physical barriers when needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:15 PM
 
12,405 posts, read 5,943,196 times
Reputation: 10367
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Walls have their place, and absolutely work, but they are not a panacea, and they are one small part of overall comprehensive immigration reform. I prefer being diligent and examining all of the options, of which barriers, whether they be walls, fence, moat or minefields may be the best choice (not really minefields) and also where it's most cost effective to do absolutely nothing except technology or manpower, combined with a way to address the volume, and process people more expediently. Rather than just throwing billions at walls because that was promised, I'd gladly support some sober thought and put some towards courts and processing, some towards proper detention facilities so that the choices aren't release or tents, and some towards physical barriers when needed.
No one ever said that there will be a continuous wall from San Diego to Brownsville. The wall will cover about 700 miles.

In many areas, a wall/barrier isn't necessary because the terrain is impossible to navigate.

Technology only goes so far. In some areas, there are cameras but no BP. They can only watch remotely as illegals pour across the border. In those areas, a wall is necessary ---especially since the BP is undermanned. You seem to think that the border is chock-a-block with BP agents. It's not. Once again, I will talk about what happened when our daughter and son-in-law went to a BP hiring fair. The agent they talked to didn't mince words. They were told that if they were hired they would be on the graveyard shift and be the only agent around for 70 miles. If they needed back-up, none would be coming anytime soon.

Recently, WaPo had an article that backs this^^^^up. A BP agent was on duty in a remote location, and he was the only agent around for miles. A large group of so-called asylum seekers showed up demanding asylum. Among the group, were several sick kids. The agent called for back-up but none showed up until well after daylight. All he could do is hand out mylar blankets to the group. The agent is very fortunate that he wasn't attacked and/or killed.

For these reasons, a wall is necessary, no matter how much you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to insist otherwise.

While some laws need to be changed, for example, asylum laws plus doing away with anchor babies and freebies. E-verify needs to be made the law of the land --- none of that will put a stop to illegal immigration. It's naive to think otherwise. Not all illegals are sneaking in for work. Many are coming here to do harm. Thus, a wall in porous areas is a must.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,325 posts, read 10,789,815 times
Reputation: 9889
We agree on the same things. Just the methods to get it done in the most efficient/cost efficient manner is what the disagreement is on.


You can say it was lucky that the CBP officer wasn't harmed, and I agree, but it's also lucky that there wasn't a wall and a stack of dead people beside it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:51 PM
 
34,804 posts, read 15,695,717 times
Reputation: 9282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Walls have their place, and absolutely work, but they are not a panacea, and they are one small part of overall comprehensive immigration reform. I prefer being diligent and examining all of the options, of which barriers, whether they be walls, fence, moat or minefields may be the best choice (not really minefields) and also where it's most cost effective to do absolutely nothing except technology or manpower, combined with a way to address the volume, and process people more expediently. Rather than just throwing billions at walls because that was promised, I'd gladly support some sober thought and put some towards courts and processing, some towards proper detention facilities so that the choices aren't release or tents, and some towards physical barriers when needed.
Immigration reform? What does having protective barriers on our border have to do with any reform? We already have them on the border they just need to be completed where needed.

We can't process people more expediently while still building good barriers to stop more from getting into our country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:23 PM
 
12,405 posts, read 5,943,196 times
Reputation: 10367
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
We agree on the same things. Just the methods to get it done in the most efficient/cost efficient manner is what the disagreement is on.


You can say it was lucky that the CBP officer wasn't harmed, and I agree, but it's also lucky that there wasn't a wall and a stack of dead people beside it.
Per the second paragraph --- Ummm...what?

"A stack of dead people" on what side of the wall? In Mexico? Not our problem, it's Mexico's.

On our side? Why would there be "a stack of dead people"?

I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to 700 miles of the border having a wall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top