Thread: border securty, aye

Please stay on topic, folks. Thanks.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Philbert,

thank ye fer yer response. runnin' against pork be now fashionable, so i don't think that either party will have a problem cuttin' pork that it doesn't like.

so basically ye would redirect funds other government programs (NASA, Medicare, Military) and just keep doin' so 'till the fence and the military personnel that shall man this 2000 mile fence were paid fer, aye?

ok, thats a mighty start, matey.

do ye have any idea at all how much this shall cost, though? im talkin' about actual dollar figures...one million dollars? ten million dollars? one hundred million dollars? one billion dollars?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

So, would the border need to address terrorism issues? Things can be done cheaper, without the wall, with the exception of terrorists, which would have to address Canada.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20039031.shtml

Link to gunrunner

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Philbert,

thank ye fer yer response. runnin' against pork be now fashionable, so i don't think that either party will have a problem cuttin' pork that it doesn't like.

so basically ye would redirect funds other government programs (NASA, Medicare, Military) and just keep doin' so 'till the fence and the military personnel that shall man this 2000 mile fence were paid fer, aye?

ok, thats a mighty start, matey.

do ye have any idea at all how much this shall cost, though? im talkin' about actual dollar figures...one million dollars? ten million dollars? one hundred million dollars? one billion dollars?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

No one could give an actual figure outside of various fantasy estimations already existing...there are many people whose sole occupation is cost estimations.
Once the serious experts actually put together a set program of steps needed to seal the majority of the border, the costs would be assimilated into the existing budgets for Border Patrol, the INS as a whole, and other gov't entities (like Fedearl Marshals, ICE, etc) who already participate in overlapping activities.
Obviously a "new" structure would need to exist to direct the efforts and assign the activities to the various agencies already tasked with security and enforcement.
The amount of cost would be determined by what activities would be added, which would be cut, personnel needed in which agency and not any longer in others...As in, the Post Office is a mandate of the Fed Gov't, they are to provide this form of national contact by law.
So is border security and maintaining the sovereignty and border integrity of the US of A.
Security and Sovereignty are cheaper than societal breakdown, successful Twin Towers type events, and wealth fleeing to other fiscal structures ( like different currencies eclipsing the Dollar).
I can't tell you the cost of this, any more than a contractor of a Skyscraper can give an exact cost estimate before the structure is 3/4 completed.
It needs to be done, therefore when enough motivation is given it will be; a way will be found.
And hopefully they will be able to buy a pre-assembled wall at WalMart or even at HomeDespot! (Where all absolute rulers can get what they need to build something!)

Walls seem so antiquated. Why not something more high-tech? Cameras with night vision, remote surveillance, etc. I would think that one watchman could keep an eye on several surveillance screens, covering hundreds of miles.

I think this type of technology is already in use in some areas along the border, but perhaps it's not as efficient as I'd like to believe it is. But a wall, all by itself, obviously isn't going to keep people out.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Walls seem so antiquated. Why not something more high-tech? Cameras with night vision, remote surveillance, etc. I would think that one watchman could keep an eye on several surveillance screens, covering hundreds of miles.

I think this type of technology is already in use in some areas along the border, but perhaps it's not as efficient as I'd like to believe it is. But a wall, all by itself, obviously isn't going to keep people out.

ahoy Jefe,

i hafta agree here....thar be somethin' so rustic about the idear 'o a fence, or a wall.

i'd add though that the kinda technology yer talkin' about would probably be more expensive than a wall. certainly more than one watchman would have to monitor 2000 miles 'o wall or fence or virtual fence, aye?

think, fer instance, 'bout think 'bout how many guards might guard a nuclear power plant. the perimeter 'o a nuclear 1000 megawatt nuclear plant averages 'round a mile or so, and it takes 20 guards or so to protect and monitor it.

now, just extrapolate this times 2000....and add in the fact that border crossin' attempts are probably far more frequent than attempts to penetrate a nuclear power plant, and that some 'o these folks crossin' the border be drug cartels armed with military grade weapons...

i see far more than one night watchman bein' necessary, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Jefe,

i hafta agree here....thar be somethin' so rustic about the idear 'o a fence, or a wall.

i'd add though that the kinda technology yer talkin' about would probably be more expensive than a wall. certainly more than one watchman would have to monitor 2000 miles 'o wall or fence or virtual fence, aye?

think, fer instance, 'bout how many guards and how much security might guard a nuclear power plant. the perimeter 'o a nuclear 1000 megawatt nuclear plant averages 'round a mile or so, and it takes 20 guards or so to protect and monitor it.

now, just extrapolate this times 2000....and add in the fact that border crossin' attempts are probably far more frequent than attempts to penetrate a nuclear power plant, and that some 'o these folks crossin' the border be drug cartels armed with military grade weapons...

i see far more than one night watchman bein' necessary, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Well, I'm thinking one watchman per 100 miles or so. So say around 20 watchmen. They would be aided by motion detection technology that would be able to differentiate between humans and coyotes or tumbleweeds. These folks would just be for detection, they would send law enforcement to catch anyone crossing illegally. The law enforcement personel could number in the hundreds, at least.

This stuff may or may not be more expensive than a wall, I don't know. I don't think constructing a huge wall is exactly cheap, though. And in the end, I'm thinking that the wall would need the high-tech surveillance anyway, so why bother with the wall? Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Walls seem so antiquated. Why not something more high-tech? Cameras with night vision, remote surveillance, etc. I would think that one watchman could keep an eye on several surveillance screens, covering hundreds of miles.

I think this type of technology is already in use in some areas along the border, but perhaps it's not as efficient as I'd like to believe it is. But a wall, all by itself, obviously isn't going to keep people out.

I don't see how you can keep your eyes closed on this one...a wall is very effective, and once built is selfmaintaining in that it doesn't have to be built again. Israel has had a lot of success with their wall, and monitoring the built wall is a lot easier than monitoring an open area monitored by hi-tech stuff...they can easily move on and be hard to find after passing the monitors that alerted the monitors...
A wall is a serious impedance to forward motion, and anyone trying to destroy a wall is gonna be there a while, assuring their apprehension or failure to pass.
Walls are very effective...and I'll settle for 75-85% success rate with a wall, coupled with sensors, drones, foot and vehicle patrols, all reduced in size and number due to the big-ass wall stopping most folks from getting over it.

Yea wall! Build, baby, build!

Originally Posted by Jefe

Well, I'm thinking one watchman per 100 miles or so. So say around 20 watchmen. They would be aided by motion detection technology that would be able to differentiate between humans and coyotes or tumbleweeds. These folks would just be for detection, they would send law enforcement to catch anyone crossing illegally. The law enforcement personel could number in the hundreds, at least.

This stuff may or may not be more expensive than a wall, I don't know. I don't think constructing a huge wall is exactly cheap, though. And in the end, I'm thinking that the wall would need the high-tech surveillance anyway, so why bother with the wall? Just my 2 cents.

hail Jefe,

i agree that a wall without bein' festooned with the latest electronic gadgetry would be useless...and aye, havin' hundreds 'o law enforcement ready to be deployed twentyfour hours a day, 365 days a year would be necessary, no arguement from me.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by michael h

I was attempting to separate issues, drugs, work, ... the reason being our border would still accessible to terrorism from Canada, so unless we address it as a whole ... it would go beyond the border issue at the Mexican border.

2 walls is a whole other can of worms.

I agree but it is all still very much worthy of note. 2 walls is an important discussion to have and comes with many concerns. From a perceived weakness point of view the border between Mexico and the US is something to exploit for any reason really. It is known, it is done, it is undenyable. Drugs, terrorism, immigration issues, etc. all fall into the topic when looking at present conditions at the border between the US and Mexico. It is not because of how open or not the border is with Canada (granted that is an important point) but rather just because of how easy it is to come in from Mexico. Something very well known. Still makes me lean towards border security being most important factor to consider even though that puts me in the minority here at USPOL, in opposition to all those looking for open borders, and in opposition to the past 4 (if not more) Presidents. In my view, "border security" is just not something being looked at with any real seriousness instead falling trap to just political interests.

Hey, I'm just trying to think of a more cost effective way to seal our border with Mexico. Sometimes technology offers a cheaper solution, and sometimes the old tried and true methods (like a wall) end up being the most cost effective way to do things.

I highly doubt anything will ever come of this. No one seems to have the political willpower to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I agree but it is all still very much worthy of note. 2 walls is an important discussion to have and comes with many concerns. From a perceived weakness point of view the border between Mexico and the US is something to exploit for any reason really. It is known, it is done, it is undenyable. Drugs, terrorism, immigration issues, etc. all fall into the topic when looking at present conditions at the border between the US and Mexico. It is not because of how open or not the border is with Canada (granted that is an important point) but rather just because of how easy it is to come in from Mexico. Something very well known. Still makes me lean towards border security being most important factor to consider even though that puts me in the minority here at USPOL, in opposition to all those looking for open borders, and in opposition to the past 4 (if not more) Presidents. In my view, "border security" is just not something being looked at with any real seriousness instead falling trap to just political interests.

Remembering terrorists were supposedly to have come through the north border, was why I tossed that in. Terrorists can be just as easily recruited from the US. I'm not a firm believer terrorists can be walled out.

South of the border I think we could eliminate most of the problem without a huge cost. Many good suggestions have been made. I tend to look at the issue of troubleshooting a problem. "Look for the path of least resistance". You don't expend a huge amount of money, before attempting less costly measures.

We do it at home all the time. If your washing machine isn't working, you don't call a repairman. You check the plug or check the breaker. I think government should do the same.

Originally Posted by michael h

Remembering terrorists were supposedly to have come through the north border, was why I tossed that in. Terrorists can be just as easily recruited from the US. I'm not a firm believer terrorists can be walled out.

South of the border I think we could eliminate most of the problem without a huge cost. Many good suggestions have been made. I tend to look at the issue of troubleshooting a problem. "Look for the path of least resistance". You don't expend a huge amount of money, before attempting less costly measures.

We do it at home all the time. If your washing machine isn't working, you don't call a repairman. You check the plug or check the breaker. I think government should do the same.

It appears that for the most part we agree.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Hey, I'm just trying to think of a more cost effective way to seal our border with Mexico. Sometimes technology offers a cheaper solution, and sometimes the old tried and true methods (like a wall) end up being the most cost effective way to do things.

I highly doubt anything will ever come of this. No one seems to have the political willpower to do anything about it.

The real solution is to create an environment where the desire to come to the US is minimal. We don't have problems with 12 million Canadians coming here. Why not? Why do they choose to stay on that frozen tundra they call Oh Canada?

In other words, NAFTA. We have to make NAFTA work the way it was intended to work. It would take time, and the politics get in the way, but that is the end solution. The great thing about making the NAFTA solution work is that for many of the 12 million here illegally now many of them would self-deport if they could earn a modest and improving living back home.

Making NAFTA actually work for North America work would be a whole lot cheaper than building a wall and manning it year after year.

Also, with a decent economy in Mexico the drug trade would die down.