Building the Border Fence - A Public/Private Partnership

[FA_Q2]

Hence all th4e points that have been ignored about the massive cost of such an endeavor. You could essentially accomplish the same without the fence at all but with the guards.

What points were ignored? 10 times as many border guards are required without a fence than with a fence. The fence makes guarding the border cheaper. All those against building a fence are actually against sealing the border. They support illegal immigration.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Why are 10 times as many guards needed?

A fence would have little impact on the number of people required to seal the border.

1/10th the guards are needed. The fence reduces the number of personnel needed to control the border. Only lying pieces of shit would claim otherwise.

Based on?

You are making bald faced statements without a single shred of logic or evidence to back it up and then claling people 'lying pieces of shit.' That does not make a reasonable argument at all. Simply stating it does not make it fact.

FACT: you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

Now ask yourself this:if it takes two people to patrol X feet/miles of open terrain with sensor nets telling you exactly where they are, what - PRECISELY - does the fence change? Why can one person now patrol 2X land where the sensor net only allows X?

The answer is, of course, nothing. The fence essentially fills two roles on the border - slows them down while they are cutting through it/climbing over it and places a clear line where they are not supposed to go. You still require the same number of personnel to go and actually apprehend those crossing. Without those personnel, people will cross with little to no hindrance.

We may need to fill in gaps in the sensor network (I do not believe that it is complete) but it would be irrelevant to do so (or build a fence) without the proper personnel manning the fence to apprehend those that are crossing over.

Note: and the orders to do so. Manning the fence is useless when their orders are to help people cross.

You have contended this many times. Link that the border patrol has been ordered to assist illegal's crossing rather than detain them.

 

[RKMBrown]

What points were ignored? 10 times as many border guards are required without a fence than with a fence. The fence makes guarding the border cheaper. All those against building a fence are actually against sealing the border. They support illegal immigration.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Why are 10 times as many guards needed?

A fence would have little impact on the number of people required to seal the border.

1/10th the guards are needed. The fence reduces the number of personnel needed to control the border. Only lying pieces of shit would claim otherwise.

Based on?

You are making bald faced statements without a single shred of logic or evidence to back it up and then claling people 'lying pieces of shit.' That does not make a reasonable argument at all. Simply stating it does not make it fact.

FACT: you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

Now ask yourself this:if it takes two people to patrol X feet/miles of open terrain with sensor nets telling you exactly where they are, what - PRECISELY - does the fence change? Why can one person now patrol 2X land where the sensor net only allows X?

The answer is, of course, nothing. The fence essentially fills two roles on the border - slows them down while they are cutting through it/climbing over it and places a clear line where they are not supposed to go. You still require the same number of personnel to go and actually apprehend those crossing. Without those personnel, people will cross with little to no hindrance.

We may need to fill in gaps in the sensor network (I do not believe that it is complete) but it would be irrelevant to do so (or build a fence) without the proper personnel manning the fence to apprehend those that are crossing over.

Note: and the orders to do so. Manning the fence is useless when their orders are to help people cross.

You have contended this many times. Link that the border patrol has been ordered to assist illegal's crossing rather than detain them.

Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children - Federal Business Opportunities Opportunities


Thousands Of Illegal Immigrants Given Bus Tickets To Cities Across America - TexasSparkle
Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Bused Across U.S. into Cities - Breitbart
Obama vows urgent action as children make perilous illegal journey into U.S. - CNN.com
Feds No We Won t Stop Dropping Off Illegal Immigrants in Arizona - Katie Pavlich
Feds say no end in sight for policy of dumping illegal immigrants in Arizona Gov. Brewer says Fox News
More American children die from polio-like virus spread by Obama administration busing illegal immigrants throughout country - NaturalNews.com
Obama administration imports more voters dumps illegals on military bases - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Google
Underage Illegals Crash the Border
Homeland Security drops off busloads of undocumented immigrants at Phoenix bus station WashingtonExaminer.com
Obama s Flood of Illegals in Texas is to turn it into a Blue State - Freedom Outpost

 

[bripat9643]

Why are 10 times as many guards needed?

A fence would have little impact on the number of people required to seal the border.

A fence would stop illegal crossings, but not illegal immigration , as 40% of the illegals cross the border through the regular channels with a work visa or a tourist visa.

No, it would not. As already pointed out, you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

And you need more people to stop those people from accepting bribes to open the fence gates and let them walk right in.

And most importantly you need a president who is not FORCING his border police to act as bus drivers to AID illegals in entering the country ILLEGALLY.

So why bother having anything on the border at all? Can't border guards take bribes without the fence? Fences don't take bribes, and there won't be any gates in it accept at established entry points.

You can't make a fence that, left unguarded, will hold out humans for more than a few seconds. Remember the french Maginot line? The only real purpose for the fence is to make people like you think your government is doing something about the problem.

Who ever proposed leaving it unguarded? What kind of a major dumbfuck are you?

No need to answer the question. It's purely rhetorical.

 

[RKMBrown]

A fence would stop illegal crossings, but not illegal immigration , as 40% of the illegals cross the border through the regular channels with a work visa or a tourist visa.

No, it would not. As already pointed out, you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

And you need more people to stop those people from accepting bribes to open the fence gates and let them walk right in.

And most importantly you need a president who is not FORCING his border police to act as bus drivers to AID illegals in entering the country ILLEGALLY.

So why bother having anything on the border at all? Can't border guards take bribes without the fence? Fences don't take bribes, and there won't be any gates in it accept at established entry points.

You can't make a fence that, left unguarded, will hold out humans for more than a few seconds. Remember the french Maginot line? The only real purpose for the fence is to make people like you think your government is doing something about the problem.

Who ever proposed leaving it unguarded? What kind of a major dumbfuck are you?

No need to answer the question. It's purely rhetorical.

The guards we have on the border are PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO NOT GUARD OUR BORDER. PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTINUE.

When the law is a joke, when the law is the criminal... giving them more resources is insane.

 

[bripat9643]

Hence all th4e points that have been ignored about the massive cost of such an endeavor. You could essentially accomplish the same without the fence at all but with the guards.

What points were ignored? 10 times as many border guards are required without a fence than with a fence. The fence makes guarding the border cheaper. All those against building a fence are actually against sealing the border. They support illegal immigration.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Why are 10 times as many guards needed?

A fence would have little impact on the number of people required to seal the border.

1/10th the guards are needed. The fence reduces the number of personnel needed to control the border. Only lying pieces of shit would claim otherwise.

Based on?

You are making bald faced statements without a single shred of logic or evidence to back it up and then claling people 'lying pieces of shit.' That does not make a reasonable argument at all. Simply stating it does not make it fact.

FACT: you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

Now ask yourself this:if it takes two people to patrol X feet/miles of open terrain with sensor nets telling you exactly where they are, what - PRECISELY - does the fence change? Why can one person now patrol 2X land where the sensor net only allows X?

The answer is, of course, nothing. The fence essentially fills two roles on the border - slows them down while they are cutting through it/climbing over it and places a clear line where they are not supposed to go. You still require the same number of personnel to go and actually apprehend those crossing. Without those personnel, people will cross with little to no hindrance.

We may need to fill in gaps in the sensor network (I do not believe that it is complete) but it would be irrelevant to do so (or build a fence) without the proper personnel manning the fence to apprehend those that are crossing over.

Note: and the orders to do so. Manning the fence is useless when their orders are to help people cross.

That's true enough. So far you have posted no evidence that anyone has been so ordered.

 

[FA_Q2]

What points were ignored? 10 times as many border guards are required without a fence than with a fence. The fence makes guarding the border cheaper. All those against building a fence are actually against sealing the border. They support illegal immigration.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Why are 10 times as many guards needed?

A fence would have little impact on the number of people required to seal the border.

1/10th the guards are needed. The fence reduces the number of personnel needed to control the border. Only lying pieces of shit would claim otherwise.

Based on?

You are making bald faced statements without a single shred of logic or evidence to back it up and then claling people 'lying pieces of shit.' That does not make a reasonable argument at all. Simply stating it does not make it fact.

FACT: you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

Now ask yourself this:if it takes two people to patrol X feet/miles of open terrain with sensor nets telling you exactly where they are, what - PRECISELY - does the fence change? Why can one person now patrol 2X land where the sensor net only allows X?

The answer is, of course, nothing. The fence essentially fills two roles on the border - slows them down while they are cutting through it/climbing over it and places a clear line where they are not supposed to go. You still require the same number of personnel to go and actually apprehend those crossing. Without those personnel, people will cross with little to no hindrance.

We may need to fill in gaps in the sensor network (I do not believe that it is complete) but it would be irrelevant to do so (or build a fence) without the proper personnel manning the fence to apprehend those that are crossing over.

Note: and the orders to do so. Manning the fence is useless when their orders are to help people cross.

That's true enough. So far you have posted no evidence that anyone has been so ordered.

Post 204. He did post some sources.

Most are rather sketch though - info wars and the like - and do not necessarily sate a direct order as such (nor do I think that it would ever be that obvious) but it does make you think. There are certainly some shady things going on at the border.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it would not. As already pointed out, you need people at the fence to stop those climbing over, cutting through or digging under.

And you need more people to stop those people from accepting bribes to open the fence gates and let them walk right in.

And most importantly you need a president who is not FORCING his border police to act as bus drivers to AID illegals in entering the country ILLEGALLY.

So why bother having anything on the border at all? Can't border guards take bribes without the fence? Fences don't take bribes, and there won't be any gates in it accept at established entry points.

You can't make a fence that, left unguarded, will hold out humans for more than a few seconds. Remember the french Maginot line? The only real purpose for the fence is to make people like you think your government is doing something about the problem.

Who ever proposed leaving it unguarded? What kind of a major dumbfuck are you?

No need to answer the question. It's purely rhetorical.

The guards we have on the border are PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO NOT GUARD OUR BORDER. PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTINUE.

When the law is a joke, when the law is the criminal... giving them more resources is insane.

Of course they are forcing US citizens to stay out of law enforcement at the border - they are not law enforcement. They have no right to determine that an individual is illegal and impede them in any fashion whatsoever.

It would be different if those people were crossing onto their private property but on public property the average US citizen DOES NOT have the right to enforce laws that are not presenting a direct threat to another or anthers property. I cannot take you down because I think you are jaywalking...

 

[RKMBrown]

From the "horse's mouth."

FACT SHEET Immigration Accountability Executive Action The White House

"Protecting victims of crime and human trafficking as well as workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) is expanding and strengthening immigration options for victims of crimes (U visas) and trafficking (T visas) who cooperate in government investigations. An interagency working group will also explore ways to ensure that workers can avail themselves of their labor and employment rights without fear of retaliation.

DEPORTING FELONS, NOT FAMILIES

By setting priorities and focusing its enforcement resources, the Obama Administration has already increased the removal of criminals by more than 80%. These actions build on that strong record by:

• Focusing on the removal of national security, border security, and public safety threats. To better focus on the priorities that matter, Secretary Johnson is issuing a new DHS-wide memorandum that makes clear that the government’s enforcement activity should be focused on national security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers. DHS will direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing these highest priorities for removal.
• Implementing a new Priority Enforcement Program. Effectively identifying and removing criminals in state and local jails is a critical goal but it must be done in a way that sustains the community’s trust. To address concerns from Governors, Mayors, law enforcement and community leaders which have undermined cooperation with DHS, Secretary Johnson is replacing the existing Secure Communities program with a new Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) to remove those convicted of criminal offenses. DHS will continue to rely on biometric data to verify individuals who are enforcement priorities, and they will also work with DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons to identify and remove federal criminals serving time as soon as possible.

Translation: open THE GD GATES and LET THEM IN

 

[RKMBrown]

And you need more people to stop those people from accepting bribes to open the fence gates and let them walk right in.

And most importantly you need a president who is not FORCING his border police to act as bus drivers to AID illegals in entering the country ILLEGALLY.

So why bother having anything on the border at all? Can't border guards take bribes without the fence? Fences don't take bribes, and there won't be any gates in it accept at established entry points.

You can't make a fence that, left unguarded, will hold out humans for more than a few seconds. Remember the french Maginot line? The only real purpose for the fence is to make people like you think your government is doing something about the problem.

Who ever proposed leaving it unguarded? What kind of a major dumbfuck are you?

No need to answer the question. It's purely rhetorical.

The guards we have on the border are PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO NOT GUARD OUR BORDER. PHYSICALLY FORCING AMERICANS TO LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTINUE.

When the law is a joke, when the law is the criminal... giving them more resources is insane.

Of course they are forcing US citizens to stay out of law enforcement at the border - they are not law enforcement. They have no right to determine that an individual is illegal and impede them in any fashion whatsoever.

It would be different if those people were crossing onto their private property but on public property the average US citizen DOES NOT have the right to enforce laws that are not presenting a direct threat to another or anthers property. I cannot take you down because I think you are jaywalking...

Citizen's arrest is now illegal?

 

[haissem123]

This idea should make liberal heads explode, the main reason being that it would obviously work:

US-Mexico Border Tighter Border Security Requires Mexico s Cooperation

To quickly secure our Southern Border, open the construction of the border fence to public and private sponsorship. Crowd source it.

If individuals, private organizations, and state or local governments with jurisdiction were allowed to finance construction of one mile segments, build out would occur quickly, leaving only a subset for the Federal Government to finance.

What do you think of this as a "power down" solution for a future Republican Administration?​

don't ask me for money to build it. they will just tunnel under it stupid. so give yourself the finger. you can't solve problems by putting up fences with your neighbors. that good fences make for good neighbors is a muth

 

[Siete]

simpletons think simple.

Fence is a 5 letter word. Enforcement has too many letters and confuses them.

 

[bripat9643]

simpletons think simple.

Fence is a 5 letter word. Enforcement has too many letters and confuses them.

Those who oppose a fence don't want the law enforced. They have made that quite obvious.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[danielpalos]

Those who want the cost center of merely a fence, don't want to faithfully execute our Commerce Clause.

 

[FA_Q2]

simpletons think simple.

Fence is a 5 letter word. Enforcement has too many letters and confuses them.

Those who oppose a fence don't want the law enforced. They have made that quite obvious.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Yet I do not support a fence but do want our laws enforced.

The one or the other dichotomy is rarely accurate.

 

[OnePercenter]

Five years?

I think you're being generous.

This is not a cheesy chain link fence they're going to put up in the desert. It would have to be more like a substantial wall with concrete abutments and barbed wire and the like.

So let's say they could do a hundred yards a day (the length of a football field). No, let's give them 200 yards a day. That's 600 feet, but they're very industrious, hard working people. In nine days, they can complete one mile. At that rate, the full 2,000 miles will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 years.

You employ 100 crews. The wall will be 100 feet deep, 100 feet high, 50 feet wide. Try going under or over that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Five years?

I think you're being generous.

This is not a cheesy chain link fence they're going to put up in the desert. It would have to be more like a substantial wall with concrete abutments and barbed wire and the like.

So let's say they could do a hundred yards a day (the length of a football field). No, let's give them 200 yards a day. That's 600 feet, but they're very industrious, hard working people. In nine days, they can complete one mile. At that rate, the full 2,000 miles will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 years.

You employ 100 crews. The wall will be 100 feet deep, 100 feet high, 50 feet wide. Try going under or over that.

Can't wait to see the bill on that one, not to mention paying for all the private land you have to force people to sell.

 

[OnePercenter]

You haven't done shit accept pull numbers out of your ass. Manning the fence and maintaining it would cost less than the manpower required to defend the border without it. I did the math on the cost to build it, and it's $12.25 billion, not $100 trillion, you fucking numskull.

Must be Canadian math. Of course I'm making record profit in the deal. You spend hours defending corporate America, I'd think you'd be all-in.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yep , well , I at least I agree that 'Canada' is civilized for the most part 'Dragonlady' . At least you have a pretty small population which is very desirable in a nice large landmass . Course you have 'quebec' and the genetic's that include all those coward 1960s draft dodgers in yer mix plus the fact that you still like 'queens' as your overlords . So yeah , Canada is nice ehh , but kinda full of wusses !!

Canada in the summer is nice.

 

[Desperado]

Why is that the people that claim a fence along the Mexican border will not work, have no problem with Israel building a fence/wall to protect their border?

Is it a Fence Is it a Wall No it s a Separation Barrier The Electronic Intifada

Or Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile long wall along its northern border with Iraq
http://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabia-constructing-600-mile-long-wall-keep-isis-out-299664

Seems that walls and fences work for everyone but the US

 

[OnePercenter]

Instead of a wall, why don't we ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio why there aren't any employers of illegals in his tent jail. Biting the hand that feeds his election fund?