The Immigration Debate

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Madsci » Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:22 pm

Investment into clean energy, education, and medical facilities along the border would be a much better way to invest this money in my opinion.

Paleo2
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Paleo2 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:30 pm

gargantua wrote:My opposition to the Wall is, as originally envisioned by Trump,
1. Won't be paid for by Mexico like he promised
2. Would be enormously expensive and environmentally harmful
3. Wouldn't really keep everybody out anyway, and
4. Trump's racist base supports it.

I admit that 4 is a big motivator for me. When I think about a Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, angry, old, ignorant white male supported monument to bigotry and fear, it isn't hard to pick the other side of the argument. I do support a lawful immigration system that includes e-verify and protection for the Dreamers. I would happily support measures that are humane, and will actually work.


I don’t know if a better wall would work or not. In some areas, a better wall combined with better border enforcement has made a difference.

Many people see international drug trafficking and human trafficking as victimless crimes. They are not, although our War on Drugs probably made things much worse.

Mexico has become a much more violent country with powerful and deadly gangs due to trafficking.
Some of the casualties?
The border patrol estimates they save the lives of thousands of illegal immigrants every year who are sick and dehydrated and often left to die by the gangs.
Hundreds of people are known to die every year in the border areas.
A large percentage of the women and girls are raped by the gangs. Some are forced into prostitution. Many illegal aliens are forced into slavery or “indentured servitude” to pay their debts to the traffickers.
Gangs with many illegal aliens are become more widespread and violent in the US.
The influx of poor people puts an enormous burden on our infrastructure. Many hospitals along the border have simply shut down their ERs. Many schools are cutting arts and sports programs to pay for school lunches and ESL.
Wages and working conditions are much worse in many professions, such as meat packing, construction and agriculture, with large numbers of illegal immigrants.
Housing costs are up.

What is the best way to solve these problems?
If e-verify would work, I’m in favor of e-verify. If a wall would help, I’m in favor of a better walk and more border security.

Right now the Democratic leadership has shown no inclination to do anything at all about this problem. In fact, they have called any efforts to solve the problem “immoral” and “white supremicist”.

Studies have shown that the biggest flips from Obama voters to Trump voters were in counties that had a large increase in illegal immigration. If Democrats had faced the issues of illegal immigration and loss of jobs due to automation and offshoring, Hillary Clinton would be president now.

Trump boxed himself into a corner. He can’t end the government shutdown unless the Democrats make a deal on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, the Democrats show no signs of making a deal.

Trump should be easy to beat in 2020. The only ones who could defeat the Democratic Party are its leaders.

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 11178
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby gargantua » Tue Jan 01, 2019 3:46 pm

Can you tell me the names of the Democratic leaders who have called "any efforts" to control immigration "immoral" and "white supremacist"? Please don't forget the "any efforts" part of the quote. I don't recall hearing that from the congressional leadership, but I may have missed it.

Paleo2
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Paleo2 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:54 pm

Nancy Pelosi called the wall “immoral”.
Diane Feinstein called a proposed change in immigration laws “white supremicist”, saying the changes would not have protected Jews from the Czar.

And those were milder than comments made about the Muslim ban.

So far those have been the main proposals. I can’t think of any proposal that was NOT criticized by leading Democrats

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Cadfael » Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:21 pm

I think the wall is immoral on a whole lot of levels. For one thing it's kind of immoral to delude a group of people into thinking it's even possible to build one. And convince them it will secure anything. And not mention that it will still need to be patrolled if it's going to have any effect at all.

I've got a few others but what the hell. This particular cycle of "build the wall" is only here because he still needs to distract us from that phony bone spur diagnosis.

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 11178
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby gargantua » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm

Paleo2 wrote:Nancy Pelosi called the wall “immoral”.
Diane Feinstein called a proposed change in immigration laws “white supremicist”, saying the changes would not have protected Jews from the Czar.

And those were milder than comments made about the Muslim ban.

So far those have been the main proposals. I can’t think of any proposal that was NOT criticized by leading Democrats

The Democrats actually had a deal with Trump for immigration restrictions in exchange for protection for the Dreamers. Then hard-right House Republicans got to Trump and changed his mind. On this issue, there are extremists on both sides who are able to prevent anything meaningful from being done.

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Cadfael » Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:39 pm

I have to ask this again: are the two of you operating under the assumption that if we can only get the Democrats to compromise on the wall, the Republicans will begin compromising?

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 11178
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby gargantua » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:05 pm

Cadfael wrote:I have to ask this again: are the two of you operating under the assumption that if we can only get the Democrats to compromise on the wall, the Republicans will begin compromising?

Not me. Here is my position: Trump, you promised that Mexico would pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall, there will be no wall.

Paleo2
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Paleo2 » Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:02 pm

Cadfael wrote:I have to ask this again: are the two of you operating under the assumption that if we can only get the Democrats to compromise on the wall, the Republicans will begin compromising?


No. I cannot assume Trump will ever negotiate in good faith.

However, if the Democrats refuse to compromise, there cannot be a compromise. Similarly for the Republicans.

My earlier point is that both sides seem to be painting themselves into a corner for which compromise is impossible, and neither side wants to give the other side a victory.

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Cadfael » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:19 pm

My point is that compromise with Republicans is impossible because they have already proven they never compromise.

Therefore to speak of compromise with them is fruitless conjecture. There will not be compromise. We should accept this as fact and work from there. We are treating the Republican party as if they were interested in the welfare of the country.

The only way to work with them is to throw their asses out. Their current leadership and most of their base will never work for the common good.

The Dems have been in a corner for a long time. The Republicans, so far, have been really good at just walking out of corners they paint themselves into, with pretty much zero consequences.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 27942
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:21 am

Six people on the terrorism watch list have tried to cross through our southern border last year. More than that attempted to come through our northern border. Does that mean we need a wall to separate us from Canada?


jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7951
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:56 pm

The impracticality of the wall...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.eng ... 17599.html

"Writing on the Wall: Report Suggests Border Project Is Off-Track and Over Budget"

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7951
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:58 pm

Amy Patrick~ Howdy.

To recap: I’m a licensed structural and civil engineer with a MS in structural engineering from the top program in the nation and over a decade of experience on high-performance projects, and particularly of cleaning up design disasters where the factors weren’t properly accounted for, and I’m an adjunct professor of structural analysis and design at UH-Downtown. I have previously been deposed as an expert witness in matters regarding proper construction of walls and the various factors associated therein, and my testimony has passed Daubert.

Am I a wall expert? I am. I am literally a court-accepted expert on walls.

Structurally and civil engineering-wise, the border wall is not a feasible project. Trump did not hire engineers to design the thing. He solicited bids from contractors, not engineers. This means it’s not been designed by professionals. It’s a disaster of numerous types waiting to happen.

What disasters?

Off the top of my head...
1) It will mess with our ability to drain land in flash flooding. Anything impeding the ability of water to get where it needs to go (doesn’t matter if there are holes in the wall or whatever) is going to dramatically increase the risk of flooding.
2) Messes with all kind of stuff ecologically. For all other projects, we have to do an Environmental Site Assessment, which is arduous. They’re either planning to circumvent all this, or they haven’t accounted for it yet, because that’s part of the design process, and this thing hasn’t been designed.
3) The prototypes they came up with are nearly impossible to build or don’t actually do the job. This article explains more:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.eng ... 17599.html

And so on.

The estimates provided for the cost are arrived at unreasonably. You can look for yourself at the two-year-old estimate that you see everyone citing.

http://fronterasdesk.org/sites/default/ ... 20Wall.pdf

It does not account for rework, complexities beyond the prototype design, factors to prevent flood and environmental hazard creation, engineering redesign... It’s going to be higher than $50bn. The contractors will hit the government with near CONSTANT change orders. “Cost overrun” will be the name of the game. It will not be completed in Trump’s lifetime.

I’m a structural forensicist, which means I’m called in when things go wrong. This is a project that WILL go wrong. When projects go wrong, the original estimates are just *obliterated*. And when that happens, good luck getting it fixed, because there aren’t that many forensicists out there to right the ship, particularly not that are willing to work on a border wall project— a large quotient of us are immigrants, and besides, we can’t afford to bid on jobs that are this political. We’re small firms, and we’re already busy, and we don’t gamble our reputations on political footballs. So you’d end up with a revolving door of contractors making a giant, uncoordinated muddle of things, and it’d generally be a mess. Good money after bad. The GAO agrees with me.

And it won’t be effective. I could, right now, purchase a 32 foot extension ladder and weld a cheap custom saddle for the top of the proposed wall so that I can get over it. I don’t know who they talked to about the wall design and its efficacy, but it sure as heck wasn’t anybody with any engineering imagination.

Another thing: we are not far from the day where inexpensive drones will be able to pick up and carry someone. This will happen in the next ten years, and it’s folly to think that the coyotes who ferry people over the border won’t purchase or create them. They’re low enough, quiet enough, and small enough to quickly zip people over any wall we could build undetected with our current monitoring setup.

Let’s have border security, by all means, but let’s be smart about it. This is not smart. It’s not effective. It’s NOT cheap. The returns will be diminishing as technology advances, too. This is a ridiculous idea that will never be successfully executed and, as such, would be a monumental waste of money.

Paleo2
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:45 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Paleo2 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:49 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:Amy Patrick~ Howdy.

To recap: I’m a licensed structural and civil engineer with a MS in structural engineering from the top program in the nation and over a decade of experience on high-performance projects, and particularly of cleaning up design disasters where the factors weren’t properly accounted for, and I’m an adjunct professor of structural analysis and design at UH-Downtown. I have previously been deposed as an expert witness in matters regarding proper construction of walls and the various factors associated therein, and my testimony has passed Daubert.

Am I a wall expert? I am. I am literally a court-accepted expert on walls.

Structurally and civil engineering-wise, the border wall is not a feasible project. Trump did not hire engineers to design the thing. He solicited bids from contractors, not engineers. This means it’s not been designed by professionals. It’s a disaster of numerous types waiting to happen.

What disasters?

Off the top of my head...

SNIP



Okay, this is the sort of thing I have been looking for.

Someone treating this as an engineering issue rather that giving The Wall or lack thereof an almost religious significance.

Cadfael
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 am

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Cadfael » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:02 pm

Image
Citizens of Nogales, Arizona, are saying this isn't the sort of wall they were expecting.
Nogales, a city of about 20,000 people, is a fraction of the size of its Mexican counterpart, but its economy is largely reliant on Mexican shoppers and cross-border trade. Illegal crossings in that area have dropped steeply in the past several years.

Mr. Garino said he was most concerned that children and others could be injured now that it reaches the ground. The downtown area is also residential, and there are homes that stand a few feet from the border fence.

"Aesthetically pleasing – it's not. It's very bad. It's not good for business, it's not good for what we're trying to create, a business-friendly community here in Nogales," Garino told the AP.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests