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.
Over two thirds of the present illegal aliens arrive by airplane or boat. And more than half of the illegal alien population is now believed to be overstayers.
Why not build a cheap wall in Nebraska. Won't keep anyone out but neither will a wall on the border. And we could build it there for half the cost and give Trump the monument he desires.
Yawn. Nope. We hate it because its ineffective, and the maintenance alone will outweigh the benefit. Any more nonsense you want to attribute to the left?
You mean like the US Census? Which is essentially an interview with no collaborating verification of the answers given. And yet, we based spending of Trillions of dollars on that.
Think of how many studies are based on statistical projections of interviews on a sample. Are you sure you want to throw them all out? Interviews are recognized as a tried and true qualitative research method. https://www.nature.com/articles/bdj.2008.192
Whatever the verification processes and associated difficulties may be with the US Census, what I would not do is base a multi-billion dollar US infrastructure on one university study - particularly when its results ARE contradicted both by US government data and other university studies.
The study is based on representative samples of Mexican households that are then interviewed. If only because the interview process is labor intensive the sample size most likely is relatively small. THAT impacts the reliability of population parameters that are estimated from the sample results.
Interviews are a valuable qualitative research method. Response bias is, however, a known issue. While the interviewers may use best-practice ethnographic fieldwork techniques, that questioning Mexican households on this topic might bias results has to be a consideration.
Again, would I tear up the Rio Grande Valley based on these data? No way.
Existing data appear to indicate that a substantial portion of border-crossers already are apprehended with no doubt higher numbers to come with the needed infrastructure improvements that already are underway.
Yet not efective in keeping illegals out, along with other security.
Liberalism is truly is a mental disorder
Walls are a deterrent. By themselves, no, they’re no effective at all.
The wall around your house isn’t solely what keeps people from breaking in. They’re there to deter, to delay, to hassle the would be robber. Ultimately it’s a combination of the rule of law, other systems you might have that deter the robber. If I wanted to get into your home bad enough, a wall means nothing.
The same applies to the border. I bet if you had one hundred acres you wouldn’t fence in the whole thing. You’d fence in the important part, and maybe setup cameras to monitor the rest.
This is why these decisions s should be left to professionals. Which included border patrol until relatively recently when their tune on the wall “mysteriously” changed...
You guys are so out of it you think abortion is moral
Since forever unless you want armed to the teeth guards every 10 ft. To give you a good scenario / they have prison breaks in the highest guarded places - wall are a deterrent but not fail proof— the tunnels proved that.
Existing data appear to indicate that a substantial portion of border-crossers already are apprehended with no doubt higher numbers to come with the needed infrastructure improvements that already are underway.
But the fact still remains that apprehending them on US soil yields a far different outcome than preventing them from reaching US soil, especially since most are now surrendering and asking for asylum as you pointed out.
If apprehending illegal entrants resulted in those illegals not being released into the country, maybe a wall would not be needed. However, Democrats oppose both barriers to prevent them from reaching US soil and measures that would prevent those apprehended from being released into the country. What possible valid reason do they give for wanting to limit the number of beds for detentions?
Hilarious that in spite of all the links myself and others have posted proving that the good physical barriers have been very effective including the same remarks from the Border Patrol but they still remain in denial along with their silly ridiculing of Trump and his supporters for wanting good physical barriers on our border where they are feasible.
Hilarious that in spite of all the links myself and others have posted proving that the good physical barriers have been very effective including the same remarks from the Border Patrol but they still remain in denial along with their silly ridiculing of Trump and his supporters for wanting good physical barriers on our border where they are feasible.
The only CBP spokesman is the union guy and those at the top. All political folks. Not the boots on the ground
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.
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.
So far the good barriers haven't been tunneled under or scaled over successfully. Try again.