Don't fence me in

[Fubar512 1,350]

They still haven't stopped the ones coming over to FL by boats and rafts, are they going to build a fence there too? Should it be on the beach or out in the water?

 

I'm opposed to spending billions to mitigate a problem by a few percent. If the "cure" costs more than the problem, it's not a cure!

 

 

It won't mitigate a few percent...it will all but eliminate it. The last few percent (>2%) would be waterborne traffic.

 

Current estimates placed illegal border crossing at between 500,000 and 1,000,000 per year, since the end of the 1990s. Arizona allegedly accounted for a majority of that traffic, so one can easily understand their position on it.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

there are about 400000 plus illegals in Arizona,the costs in healthcare education and the legal system are stagering.Also the crime rate has skyrocketed.Arizona is the Kidnap capitol of the USA now.it's not the illegals that are the main issue it's also the flow of drugs and the flow of weapons that are out of control.Also from a security standpoind,if you can get a truckload of people or drugs across you can do the same for bombs or WMDs.there is a false sence that these people are just taking jobs that Americans don't want,well the truth is that is not the case.teens that usual get summer jobs or people wanting to suplimate their income with a second job are unable to because the usual places that hire are full up of under the table illegal workers.It will only get worse as the healthcare crap kicks in.it will be better for buisnesses to have less workers on the books and the ilegal imigrant is the prime one hired in those situations.I do not think a fence by itself will do anything but combined with tougher laws and penalties for the illegal and the person who hires or helps them coupled with an ACTUAL WILLINGNESS to enforce the laws will help alot.nothing will ever shut the door but if you can close it to the point that the few that get in is small enough then things can start to stabilize.the funny thing is that Mexico has the gall to complain about our laws when they have tougher imigration laws their well that is if their corupt goverment and lawenforcement ever enforced them.

Edited May 12, 2010 by whiteknight06604

[+Gunrunner 314]

Fubar, it won't eliminate it; it will severely limit it, that is a certainty, but it also means that the few crossing will be either the utterly desperate or the criminal elements, meaning the only result will be filtering out the less threatening elements of illegal immigration while helping fund the criminal elements by making the recourse to border-crossing networks unavoidable.

And you still won't be able to arrest any mexican-looking people on sight without resistance, as quite a few of them will still be legal immigrants anyway.

Also keep in mind that if landborne traffic becomes impossible, waterborne traffic will rise.

 

Illegal immigration in the States doesn't weigh as much on public finances as it does in Europe, it doesn't really take away many jobs (most immigrants take jobs and salaries no one else would take, helping some parts of the economy find manpower and lower their costs; the salary and work condition dumping it creates on low wages job is more a problem for legal immigrants than US citizens; however most studies conclude on a beneficial economic impact (none factor the cost of criminality and few factor loss of taxes though)).

The most real "risks" are criminality, but by definition, since the money and the consumers are in the US, it will always be a problem as the rewards justify the increased risk and costs, and cultural assimilation, as there is a far lower chance of "americanization" of illegal immigrants than legal ones (even though the melting-pot assimilation model of the US tolerates this more easily than most European models based on "true" cultural assimilation).

 

The fence seems like a very expensive solution to get rid of the few benefits of illegal immigration while keeping the worse parts, but hey, it's your tax money...

 

WhiteKnight, so, you have a business, you have the choice between an illegal immigrant, who will cost you less in taxes and wages, will show up reliably, will work his ass off with little complaints, or a teen who will take any excuse to slack off, won't show on time or at all half the time and cost twice as much; does it really take that long to chose ?

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gunrunner

[eraser_tr 29]

[column5 63]

LOL, leave it to the lib to post the first stupid sh*t in an otherwise good discussion. So brainwashed...

[+Gunrunner 314]

C5, because warning against PLA soldiers disguising themselves as mexican workers to invade the US doesn't rate as "stupid sh*t" ?

[column5 63]

C5, because warning against PLA soldiers disguising themselves as mexican workers to invade the US doesn't rate as "stupid sh*t" ?

 

Well...just to put it in perspective...the border is so out of control that anyone who wanted to enter the country to engage in espionage or terrorism could do so pretty easily be they PLA or not. Ironically, I think it would actually be harder for them to get into Mexico in the first place than it would be to get from Mexico to the US due to Mexico's much more stringent immigration enforcement.

[eraser_tr 29]

So trying to inject some popular humor from the 'net is brainwashed and stupid s**t....yeah.

[column5 63]

So trying to inject some popular humor from the 'net is brainwashed and stupid s**t....yeah.

 

Yeah.

[+Gunrunner 314]

C5, on the other hand, the Canadian border is secure, even SF writers get beaten up so they don't contaminate the US with their unamerican ideas... ah, hyperboles and exaggerations...

What's so surprising is that with a border being such a sieve you don't have more problems than that...

Anyway, we agree on the basic problem, especially since it's not only a US problem (in Europe we also have a large (il)legal immigration problem, especially since some EU members are laxer than others), I'm just not sure the "solution" is an efficient one and fixes the real problem.

[+Erik 1,812]

It's always about money I don't care how you cut it.

 

If I can't work at home to feed my family I will do what it takes to work somewhere so my family can survive.

 

If I can make thousands shipping illegal drugs into a country to fill a market demand, why not?

 

If I can extort money from a country or it's people by any means that I otherwise couldn't do from home, why not?

 

and the list can go on and on.

 

Sure there are always a few in any circumstances where they are fleeing their country because of personal reasons, prosecution, or conditions political or economical. I will concede that not all solutions fit every need BUT building a fence is not the answer to any of these problems.

[column5 63]

Anyway, we agree on the basic problem, especially since it's not only a US problem (in Europe we also have a large (il)legal immigration problem, especially since some EU members are laxer than others), I'm just not sure the "solution" is an efficient one and fixes the real problem.

 

I think the fence is a poor solution for a number of reasons. If I had the power, I would do the following:

 

1. Require a form of national ID in order to vote in Federal elections. The primary reason that leftist politicians have ignored the issue is that they want the illegals as a voting block. The ultimate goal of the left is amnesty which they believe will secure them anywhere from 16 to 20 million new Democrat voters. The Republicans have failed to act on the matter due to their general cowardice and belief that the legal Hispanic community will turn on them if they take a strong stand on the issue (the left would play the race card of course). Taking the illegal vote off of the table would clean this part of the issue up.

 

2. Assign National Guard units to the border to interdict the drug trade. Declare an operational zone that extends 20 miles into Mexico and dare the Federales to oppose us. The Guard units would not be there to stop immigration, but would obviously be able to notify the border patrol of any activity they observe.

 

3. Expand and equip the border patrol to do their job effectively. Create clear and reasonable guidelines on when and how agents can use force to defend themselves or apprehend illegals.

 

4. Finally, impose strict fines and possibly prison sentences for people and companys that employ illegal immigrants. Make the cost of employing illegals so high that American labor looks like a better deal. Cut off all government services to illegals except for emergency medical treatment and food and water during their deportation--basically deincentivize them.

[shotdown 8]

2. Assign National Guard units to the border to interdict the drug trade. Declare an operational zone that extends 20 miles into Mexico and dare the Federales to oppose us. The Guard units would not be there to stop immigration, but would obviously be able to notify the border patrol of any activity they observe.

 

 

 

Well, if you are willing to send your troops illegally in a foreign country, then you have no right to complain about illegal inmigration.

Aren't those troops of your plan entering illegally in another country? I thought you didn't like it.

Edited May 12, 2010 by shotdown

[column5 63]

Well, if you are willing to send your troops illegally in a foreign country, then you have no right to complain about illegal inmigration.

Aren't those troops of your plan entering illegally in another country? I thought you didn't like it.

 

You fail to understand the issue. The entire border region with Mexico is a de facto haven for drug cartels and other groups operating outside of any governmental jurisdiction. In other words, there is no government there whose territory we would be invading. On top of that, the Mexican government actively facilitates the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the US, to the extent that they actual publish official government pamphlets instructing Mexicans on how to enter the US illegally. Think of the Barbary pirate states in relation to Spain and you'll have a better idea of what is going on.

[macelena 1,070]

The best way to deal with the cartels would be for the US and Mexican authorities to coordinate "aggresive" operations on the drug dealing industry. Along the US Mexican border, firearms go down to Mexico and drugs up to the States. If there is a decisive action by both governments, i would expect a significant decrease of the criminal activities of those thugs.

 

 

 

The situation in the US-Mex border that C5 describes is simmilar to that with Lebanon and Israel. If the sovereign state fails to control a part of his soil, from wich illegal harm is caused against a third party, the third party can exercise the right to self-defence and proceed with the point use of force to counter such threat. It is like RAF bombing the crap out of V1 sites on the Netherlands. However, it is still a point in the wich the US should perform joint ops with the Mexicans (no, not all of them work for the Cartels...yet) as it is not exactly such an "aggresion" and such a "failure to control"

 

 

About the illegal inmigration issue, it is a different problem to the gangsters. It is just a way the real bad guys use to get money illegally from desperate people. Get the bad guys, the dealers. You wan´t to legallize drugs to some extent? Ok, might have some effect on a severe cost, but the key are the "Dons". Waste them, make em see that this business is not profitable, that drug dealing is a job with worse future expectations than suicide bombing.

 

 

You ever thought of "The world was safer before all those reds started bitching, we need an iron fist like in the old times"? It is not about being hard. It´s been since drugs entered massively the western society. About the 90% of the people imprisoned in the western world has charges related to drugs. A really serious program by the UN (don´t laugh at it) to clean the drugs dealing would make this world as safe as in those ages. Not as many inmigrants, not as dangerous once here is the first world. Don´t say just no to drugs. Talk with the good guys and go waste the bad ones

 

 

 

 

 

[+Gunrunner 314]

Well, under the Talibans Afghanistan produced (and exported) very little opium (compared to pre-Talibani levels, both as global market proportion and absolute numbers).

The western intervention in Afghanistan put opium back as the primary agricultural product in Afghanistan as local warlords were back to production, the Talibans themselves got involved in order to get funding and increased instability meant that in some regions only high revenue crops were worth the risks.

So far programs to fight poppy culture in Afghanistan have proved unable to really reverse the trend, but the present situation makes things difficult.

 

On the other hand, in South America, programs encouraging alternative cultures by protecting farmers and guaranteeing minimum prices have proved successful in reducing coca production, which gives hope for that particular product in this region and for opium should the same steps be initiated.

 

Now we are left with cannabis (and to a lesser extent other natural products), which unfortunately is far easier to grow and transform than coca and opium poppy, making a solution far more difficult to engineer.

In the best case scenario you may end up eliminating large scale production, but you probably won't get rid of personal/local/boutique production.

Fortunately such an outcome would make little place for organized crime (the profit opportunity being too low) and would severely limit distribution.

If the goal is to control the quality of the product for public safety reason, to avoid organized crime to profit by it, to lower criminality by eliminating traffic, then legalization and government control may be the best way to procede (the Netherlands experience is not a perfect reference, as the lack of direct government involvement doesn't get rid of most problems).

If, however, this is done on moral/policy grounds, then I fear that particular fight is hopeless.

 

Next are synthetic products and these are and will be the most difficult to get rid of.

 

Also, keep in mind that you won't get rid of the problem, at all, but mostly report it on other substances, especially those you can't get rid of because of their medicinal use, you run the risk of seeing an increase on violence against hospitals, stock management errors in hospital pharmacies or at plants.

You can't get rid of the need for drugs in part of the population, cutting production will only mean there is an unsatisfied need, and someone WILL find a way to satisfy this need and get filthy rich in the process.

 

The war on drugs is hopeless, however you could manipulate things so you can vaguely control which ones are produced, who produces them and how they are distributed, it is a choice of settling on the lesser evils, or just losing the war.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gunrunner

[eraser_tr 29]

Well said.

 

Didn't we have a long discussion a while ago about legalizing marijuana? Making it legal gets rid of the whole cannabis end, leaving just the synthetics to combat, which are the real dangerous drugs.