What The Border Wall Really Is About
As I tell people I am studying for a Bachelors Degree in Information Technology and right now, my class focus is on getting the Security+ certification from CompTIA. One of the concepts we learn about in the prep and class geared for the Security+ exam is the concept "Defense-In-Depth". What this means is that you have layers of security not only for your network, but for your location as well. This is why you see me using the analogies of network defenses and business defenses along with examples of countries that have actual border fences and walls.
What are the primary examples of physical defenses of a location?
The first line of defense is, if the building(s) are needed to be highly secure (like at Selmet, Inc., Hewlett-Packard's, and Weyerhaeuser's facilities near where I live), a fence of some type with gates at the entry locations to prevent access by intruders not only for security purposes of what is contained inside but for the intruder's safety. Selmet and Weyerhaeuser both have heavy equipment operating most, if not all of the time.
The second line of defense is security guards. They monitor video cameras and patrol the area from time to time looking for unauthorized personnel, when they aren't manning a guard station to allow or deny access to people trying to enter at the gates or the building(s) entrances.
The third line of defense can be some sort of access requiring a key, a key card, an id badge with a smart chip, or even a code to enter the building. As they say in my class, the best identification/authorization methods are multi-factor consisting of something the person knows, something a person has, something a person does, and something a person is (examples in order: password/code, a RFID or smart chipped card, the way they sign a paper, a fingerprint/voice identification/iris scanner/retina scanner)
Now, defenses of a network are a lot more complicated as you are not just dealing with a physical location, but a virtual location as well. All of us here on this site have an IP address that is provided by our ISP, some are static (unchanging) and others are dynamic (assigned for a set period of time before it might change to another IP address). Now, to get to this site, we type in a URL (Universal Resource Locator) which is the domain of the site, which our network's gateway asks a DNS (Domain Name System) server for the actual IP address. To actually access the site, we go through a bunch of nodes (if you ran a tracert command in the Windows command line or a traceroute command in UNIX/Linux or MacOS you would see the nodes for the most part) to get here. That means our signals are bounced around and could be intercepted by people outside our network or the site.
So, what are those defenses (I am not going to put them in order here) on the Internet between your network and The Newstalkers site?
First, we possibly have encryption, using one of a bunch of protocols, hashes, and cyphers to prevent people from reading what we send to the site.
Secondly, we have NAT (Network Address Translation) which hides our internal network IP addresses from the public. The main thing this is for is IPv4 addresses as there is almost no IP address left for distribution, but there is NAT used with IPv6 as well. While the primary purpose of NAT is to expand the available network space by creating private networks, it is a layer of security due to obfuscation. Your computer may have a local IP address (IPv4) of 192.168.1.100, but the IP address may be something along the lines of 84.8.1.183 to the public.
Third on our layers is the network firewall. What this does is detect intrusions and manages the ports on our network. The main thing it does depends on whether it is in stateful mode or not. A Stateful Firewall will inspect packets to see if they match an outgoing packet sent by the network. If the packet matches outgoing traffic, it will allow it in.
Fourth is the computer's firewall. Same thing as the network, except it only looks at traffic meant for that particular computer.
Fifth is the anti-virus. This is on your computer to detect actual attacks on your computer that none of the others picked up on. Most times, this will include anti-malware (spyware).
If you ignore any one of these, like not updating your anti-virus definitions and running a weekly scan of your computer, your computer may end up being infected with ransomware, a virus, or become part of a botnet that is used to send a Directed Denial Of Service attack against a major corporation.
The same applies to the defense of the country. We cannot just rely on personnel to man our borders as we have too much to constantly guard. So, we need to put up a border wall to protect our nation from those that are trying to get here illegally and do us harm, like terrorists.
The wall would be the first layer of defense, followed by the border patrol being the second, with ICE being the third layer. The fact that you have members of the Democratic Party pushing to not build the wall and to abolish ICE, leaving only the thinly stretched Border Patrol left to defend the country from illegal immigrants should really frighten everyone.
Remember my points about location security above? A fence reduces the need for manpower, because it delays intrusion. The intruders have to figure a way around the fence to avoid the access points where they know the guards are stationed. This also allows video cameras the chance of picking up the intruders before they get onto the grounds of the facility, and if other sensors are placed nearby possibly triggering them as well to alert the guard at the monitoring station. This increases the chances that the person making the intrusion will get caught before they actually commit harm to the location or steal information. A border wall is just one layer in the concept of Defense-in-depth at the border and within the country. The fact that the Democratic Party wants to ignore this important part of defending the country should frighten you as this means they do not want to provide for the common defense as the preamble to the US Constitution states as one of the primary functions of the United States Federal Government.
Tags
Who is online
584 visitors
Tom - excellent thread and information. [deleted]
Thanks for the info.
You're welcome.
No matter how many walls or lines of defense we build, if those breaching the defenses know that once they're inside the system the cash is practically handed to them by the companies that pay them cut rate prices for their work. If we figured out how to enforce the law about not hiring illegal immigrants we wouldn't need five expensive layers of border protection. This is a bi-partisan problem as both Republican and Democrat owned and operated companies and corporations have used illegal immigrants to harvest their fields and building our buildings. Trump even hired illegal immigrants to build one of his projects and had to pay millions in fines as recently as 1998. Without dishonest dick holes like Trump offering illegal immigrants work we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem.
21 years ago is your evidence that Trump hires illegals still? And, you are right, this is a bipartisan issue. If McConnell wanted to pass the funding for the wall all he had to do was change the rules back to "Move the Previous Question" as it was originally, which only required a majority vote. Everyone calls it the Nuclear option, but it is the original format of the Senate voting system.
Do you think firewalls, NIPS/NIDS, VPN concentrators, etc. are cheap? One of the main reasons networks are vulnerable is that not every single possible layer of defense is implemented due to budgetary concerns. Why do you think Target had that data breach several years back? They were using an old system with old anti-virus and other protections that ended up being beaten by a hacker. The most likely reason was due to Target not investing money in keeping their systems updated across the board.
As for dishonesty, look at Schumer and Pelosi, they are making a big deal about spending $20 billion on building the wall, but they helped spend over hundreds of billions of dollars on pork barrel projects in their and other people's districts and states in their tenure in Washington, DC. If they cut the pork barrel spending to buy votes, they could easily pay for a border wall.
You keep citing that as if it's relevant. Senate rules have allowed for the filibuster since 1806. So your 'original format' only lasted 17 years. The 'original format' for electing Senators lasted longer [by state legislators], since the 17th Amendment wasn't passed until 1914.
Schumer was the one that went to Trump with the offer of $25 billion for border security over 10 years. Trump did what Stephen Miller told him to do and turned it down.
Trump said that he would be 'proud' to close down the government over border security. Now he's saying that the 5.6 billion he wants is for building his wall, NOT border security.
No, the filibuster wasn't formalized until 1917, with the cloture rule.
Border security and the wall are two different things. The wall is a part of border security, border security encompasses the wall, Border Patrol, and ICE.
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about it being 'formalized', I said it was 'ALLOWED'. The first filibuster was in 1837, WAY before the cloture rule.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
You might want to tell Trump that.
[deleted]
The border security and the wall are two different things comment was expanded on by the wall is a part of border security comment. They are not interchangeable as one is a part of but not the sole thing in regards to border [security;deleted.] Is an anti-virus network security? It is part of network security, but it is not network security alone. It is just one layer of network security.
Do YOU know what addressing the comment NOT the member means tom?
Ask the RA, she can explain it to you. I have nothing to do with moderation on this site.
One conservative the other liberal?
Even moreso, most people so intensely against the wall of any kind do not live on or anywhere near our Southern border. They do not see and/or do not care about the mayhem created on this part of the border created in the wake of the illegals passing through. They so not see or care about the victims on this side that have their property and livelihood disrupted and destroyed when illegals tear down fences, slaughter cattle and even family pets for sport or food. They do not see the mountains of trash left behind in private property. They do not see the damage to homes from home invasions and thefts by illegal immigrants and human and drug smugglers looking for valuables and firearms. Many progressive liberals do not see or hear of this thanks to the liberal media that spoon feeds them the plight solely of the illegals. I strongly advise any progressive liberals that doubt what I say to travel to our Southern border and get their eyes opened with a dose of reality, but I feel the vast majority will refuse. Proof positive that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The above is why I firmly believe a wall in whatever form is vitally needed.
I strongly advise them to READ some of the statements coming from the people who actually deal first hand with the issue.
Guess they forgot how the coordinated on the border wall EIS.
They can't forget something that NEVER HAPPENED 1st.
ALL of the EIS in your link are based on FENCES, NOT WALLS. Sheesh.
Oh and BTW 1st, those EIS reports are from 2007 and 2008. There are none for the current 'wall' projects because Trump's EPA gave him a pass on environmental impacts on them. They don't need no stinking EISs.
you mean like the border security people, not the wildlife association?
One section of Texas does not comprise all of our Southern border, and TWA is a private civilian organization that is anti-wall to begin with. No cigar on that one...
Did anyone follow up with Chief Carla Provost to ask her to explain why she only asked for $1.6 billion for 65 miles of 'barrier' that SHE prioritized in her 2019 budget?
Anyone who cites Chief Carla Provost should review her RECORD and READ the devastating GOA report that cites the utter lack of accountability @ the CBP, ESPECIALLY on setting standards for border barriers, technology integration, budgeting and acquisitions.
As of July 2018, Chief Provost STILL hadn't submitted a PLAN on how to integrate border barriers and surveillance technology on ANY of the sections that she claims that she 'prioritized'. Of course, that didn't stop her from submitting a budget that had NO data for the actual cost of what she was proposing to build, which is actually a tall PICKET FENCE. She was aware that the Fiscal Year ended on Sept. 2018 and her authorized budget request was DUE before then...but instead of providing justifications, she requested a bloated slush fund...
Texas is over 60% of the border Ed and TWA is a statewide organization.
Gee Ed, your whole comment was about listening to the people who LIVE there and deal with the issue. Now you want to ignore the TWA merely because they are PRO-property and environmental rights.
Your position encourages me to dismiss any testimony from sources on your side that are PRO-wall, right?
I live right on the border, do you? I sincerely doubt it. I can safely say I probably have a much better idea of what goes on down here in my neck of the of the woods and I do not need the progressive liberal leftist media to spoon feed me lies about it. Bye now.
Ya need to get a little more update Dulay. An EIS, whether it's a draft or a final, is still a viable document until it is "CANCELLED". Under "normal" circumstances, EIS's, whether a draft or final, if it is still viable, will be updated.
NOWHERE in any of the documentation in Congress contains the word WALL - that is something the haters have thrown in. Trump enjoys the hell out of egging those nuts along so he continues using that word.
From the EIS FONSI, Page 2 - "Although the final fence design would be selected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the current plan is to install a steel sheathing or mesh fence. Regardless of the fence design selected for construction, all fence designs must meet the specific preliminary design performance measures that dictate that the fence must: extend 15 to 18 feet above ground and 3 to 6 feet below ground; be capable of withstanding an impact from a 10,000 pound gross weight vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour; be semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need; be designed to survive extreme climate changes of a desert environment; be designed to allow movement of small animals from one side to the other; and not impede the natural flow of water."
Nope - don't see the word WALL - do you?
No, they don't NEED an EIS to be rewritten - just modified to cover the new information of the action. The intent of the action is/will remain the same.
1st, you're kidding right? I suggest you READ Trump's EO. It sure as hell contains the word WALL.
You are citing a 2007/8 EIS. The 2018 GAO report stated clearly that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' only participation was to do construction cost estimates on the prototypes. In fact, it states that in July, 2018, CBP STILL hadn't actually chosen or PRICED the 'final fence design' for the 2019 budget that started OCT. 1, 2018.
BTFW 1st, that same GAO report states that 6 of the 8 prototypes failed to address DRAINAGE, a BASIC construction design standard.
The GAO report reveals Trump's and the CBPs utter lack of an understanding of basic construction practices. Little things like the challenges and added cost of pouring concrete on a 45 degree grade.
Those aren't even the worst things reported by the GAO. The one that REALLY got me was the idea that we needed to built full size prototypes before we could evaluate them designs. It made me wonder if the CBP had ever heard of a computer. Another one was the FACT that they STILL haven't figured out how they are going to integrate the surveillance technology when they finally DO figure out what the design will be.
It's an unadulterated clusterfuck.
Ya, just throw 5.6 billion at it and they'll figure it out eventually...
MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE WALL. We heard this REPEATEDLY for months on end.
So, what. Who is going to pay for it is not the topic of the article. This about why we need the wall no matter what and Democrats not wanting to pay for it or wanting someone else to pay for it is the height of foolishness. They might as well turn off all the firewalls and anti-viruses in the government right now as that is the position they are taking regarding the wall and ICE.
Tell that to all the trump supporters.
Well Tom, the DNC, Democrats and Billary didn't learn from the non-firewalls/anti-viruses - and you think they'll learn why we truly need the wall???
Most of the Trump supporters knew that getting Mexico to fund the wall probably wasn't going to happen before construction started. Anyone knows that things like toll roads don't pay for themselves until many, many years after they are built, if at all. In fact, the majority of the time the only thing they do is divert traffic away from the main roads onto the back roads as people do anything to avoid paying the tolls. It is only if you toll every single road going into and out of a location that you will get everyone coming and going from that location to pay a toll.
Part of the problem is the Democrats tendency to hire malicious insiders to run their networks. You remember Imran Awan and his family, who were the admins of the DNC's and many different Congressmen's computer systems?
...but they happily shouted "MEXICO!!" every time Trump rhetorically asked who was going to pay for the wall.
"Anyone knows that things like toll roads don't pay for themselves until many, many years after they are built, if at all."
A Southern border wall is not a toll road and doesn't provide any revenue and would cost at least $1.5 billion a year to maintain on top of the $20 billion + price tag to build it.
"In fact, the majority of the time the only thing they do is divert traffic away from the main roads onto the back roads as people do anything to avoid paying the tolls."
Exactly, a toll road doesn't reduce the number of travelers, they just find a different route if they don't want to pay the toll. The same is true of the wall. The end result will be a minor inconvenience for illegal border crossers while we go broke building and maintaining a pointless wall.
"It is only if you toll every single road going into and out of a location that you will get everyone coming and going from that location to pay a toll."
So if you block the ability to get a travel visa and fly in, build an ocean wall that goes out several miles, further than small boats could navigate around, pour a 60 foot deep concrete and steel footing on which to build a fifty foot steel slat wall with a barbed wire and electrified top and a sniper tower every 100 yards, then and only then will you force them through your preferred "toll" road aka legal pathway to citizenship.
The $5 billion would only build 215 feet of wall, anyway. Hardly worth Trump having a temper tantrum over not getting it ... but then, with his massive ego, everything is about him, and he'd screw over every single American to avoid losing face in his own eyes. He's a weak, insecure bully who couldn't govern his way out of a wet paper bag.
oYou are ignoring a major difference here between toll roads and the border wall, we want them to try to find ways around it. Most of those ways would lead to where we have our border patrol stationed, increasing the chances of catching the illegal immigrants before they cross. An example of this in a network is the creation of a honeypot, which is a worthless computer or server that contains nothing of value but looks valuable. You want to make the hacker try to get into the honeypot so you can observe what he is doing and/or trap him. What the fence is there to do is mainly divert people not deter them.
As I keep saying this is just 1 layer. Right now, we only have a 2 and a half layer approach towards border security along the Southern border. The 2 main layers are the Border Patrol and ICE. The half layer is some border fences at spots not along most of the border.
That last bit on your post is laughable, since it shows you know that it is completely impossible to protect against everything. For all you know, tomorrow you walk out to get the mail and a school bus will run you over, or if you live in the city, when you go to get into a taxi a bus runs into it. No way to protect against that. However, the wall is meant to delay and divert not deter or stop. And, it won't stop people from getting travel visas and overstaying them. It is about reducing illegal border crossings.
So, when does it cost over $23 million for a foot of wall? Even steel slats are not that expensive per foot to install.
Guess what? They already have! And the walls not even built yet! 70% of illegal immigrants got here by overstaying their visa, not running across a border. The majority of the border is near impassible already for most who know it's far easier to apply for a temporary visa then just never go home instead of chancing a several hundred mile dangerous and difficult uncertain journey.
"the wall is meant to delay and divert not deter or stop" I know, that's what I've been saying, it won't stop anything, and for the price, it's definitely not worth the minor delay they'll experience.
"And, it won't stop people from getting travel visas and overstaying them.
No shit. So if you owned a movie theatre and you had 30% of people getting in through the exit doors at the back of the theatre but 70% of the illegal movie viewers bought a matinee ticket, watched their film then just stayed the rest of the day watching all the other films in your theatre. Do you spend 90% of your security budget to secure those back doors? Or do you focus on where the majority of illegal theatre goers are skipping between screens by checking ticket stubs at each separate theatre door?
"It is about reducing illegal border crossings."
Not the wall, it's got very little to do with reducing illegal border crossings since it's been proved both ineffective and inefficient. The "wall" is about one thing and one thing only, keeping a rhetorical illogical promise to rabid white nationalists angry with the perceived "browning" of America.
Is it a wall or a fence? Please pick one and stick with it.
It seems pretty ridiculous to me - but the folks at Homeland Security apparently said the $5B would pay for taller posts for 115 miles, and new fencing for 100 miles. That's what the Dallas Morning News reported, anyway.
Dulay, we currently have some fencing and most of it is falling down. I am pointing out that the current fence is there to delay and divert and it works. The Border Patrol's website shows that where there was fencing put in, the known illegal border crossings reduced dramatically from their pre-fence numbers.
You do realize that trying to obfuscate the issue by doing Three Card Monty is not a good idea, right? ICE is busy trying to find those that crossed the border illegally AND those that overstayed their VISAs. A border wall would actually help ICE focus more on those that overstayed their visas rather than finding those that came here illegally in the first place.
And, it has not proved ineffective nor inefficient as the current dilapidated fence actually reduced the numbers of known illegal crossings by a huge amount from their pre-fence numbers. Just look at the numbers of apprehensions for the San Diego sector alone:
From FY 2006 to FY2017, there was an 82% drop just from the fencing being built there from 142,104 to 26,086. Of course, that was between when the Congress actually passed the Bush border fence funding to now with a dilapidated fence in place. And, ignores the jump to over 162,000 in FY2008, which was the peak after the funding and before the fence was built.
You have changed it from feet to miles. You do realize there is over 5,000 feet in a mile, correct? That drops the cost per foot down to $4404.51; which may be a touch high but not as ridiculous as $23 million.
Bullshit. Total, unadulterated bullshit. The facts show that a border wall would require ADDITIONAL border security to maintain and repair costing $1.5 billion a year in maintenance that could be better spent enforcing the existing laws.
Where did I say it would free up the Border Patrol? That is whom PATROLS THE BORDER! ICE is supposed to enforce the internal laws looking for both those that crossed illegally and those that stayed illegally. It would free up ICE assets being used to look for those that crossed illegally to focus on those that stayed illegally.
They also never bring up any eminent domain issues and the cost involved in all of that.
So now with a wall, the cost is just ever increasing.
BUTT, Trump said just the other day that most of the wall is ALREADY built.
I have sat at the U.S./Mexico border and watched people scale the FENCE in less than a minute. I lost count how many.
Will a taller fence take longer? Sure.
But we're NOT talking about a FENCE. Trump promised to build a 30' concrete wall and make Mexico pay for it.
Yet a FENCE isn't what we're talking about, is it tom? Trump insisted that a FENCE wasn't good enough, despite what the CBP website shows. Trump said "It's a WALL, it's NOT a FENCE'.
So WHY do you and others keep talking about a FENCE?
Another set of contradictory statements.
The topic isn't who is going to pay for it, it's about the Democrats not wanting to pay for it.
Hilarious.
Perhaps you can tell us what he was found guilty of?
Yes, and tax dollars pay for both. Increasing the border costs would require more tax dollars that could be better spent on ICE. How is this apparently so hard to understand?
Dulay, if you would notice my comments were in response to someone else's comments. Was any of the costs discussed in the actual article? No. It was about what building the wall is about not about costs or who pays for what. It is about why we need the wall PERIOD.
Now, I would suggest you stop grenade trolling.
Every time I bring it up, this seems to be ignored by wall proponents. They all complain about how horrible it is on the border yet it seems that most of the land owners did not want this and did not want their land taken.
If it was their land that was being seized by Obama for government purposes you know their answer would be "Over my dead body!". The hypocrisy of conservative Republicans truly knows no bounds.
Tom, if you would notice, MY comment was in response to YOUR comment.
YOUR comment DID, YOU stated:
Now I suggest you stop trying to move the goal posts YOU set and refrain from accusing me of trolling merely because I made a point using YOUR OWN WORDS...
I made a typo. So sue me.
Ok, we will get right on that. See you in court!
The so-called "WALL" is metaphorical icon and theoretical-political "bumper-sticker" of a concept to pander to xenophobes and white nationalism.
"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." E. B. White
A, Mac,
Did you bother to read the article at all?
I read it, and frankly it has shit all to do with border security. The analogy of trying to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing a border by tossing around computer security jargon is frankly ridiculous. It's poorly thought out and uses lots of technical terms to say nothing. You might as well have used the many layers of an adult diaper to describe trying to keep the pee from getting through the barrier and wetting your pants. Having multiple layers of security isn't a new idea, it's a very very old one, right there along with castle walls and moats.
Mac is right when he points out that the wall is nothing but a stupid metaphor for white nationalists and xenophobes who apparently have given up all custody of their brains and the ability to comprehend facts and reality.
Didn't take long for the "racism" tag to come in.
I used the same words Mac used, white nationalists and xenophobe's, and he's right, the wall is a symbol for both those groups of people, a symbol of of the hate in their hearts, a wall of bitterness and prejudice, a barrier of racism they long for to prevent their worst fear, the browning of America. They shake in their boots at the thought of some imagined "white culture" not being the default for small town America. They quiver with fright when they hear Spanish spoken in local stores or see a taco truck in their neighborhood. Those are the folk who champion this moronic boondoggle wall, not any actual security experts. Even the Presidents own cabinet have been telling him it's a stupid idea that is extremely expensive, fraught with problems and won't produce demonstrable results.
I passed my Security + with just one day of studying - and I agree, the analogy doesn't fit.
Indeed, I did.
• The fact that the headline implies that "The Wall" is a viable solution to illegal immigration is the manifestation of partisan paranoia and pandering to a zeal-without-knowledge voter-constituency.
• There are laws, a legal protocol, and, Human Rights agreements that allow petitioning for asylum and temporary protected status … beyond that …
• The way to address illegal immigration is TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE REASONS IT OCCURS … WHICH A WALL DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ADDRESS. I have, on several occasions, posted a plan that would both identify and address those reasons … and several members with whom I generally disagree politically, expressed positive reactions to that plan.
• Most Americans are NOT IN FAVOR OF A WALL … and hardly any American are aware that the single, greatest group of immigration offenders ARE CANADIANS WHO OVERSTAY THEIR VISA LIMITATIONS!
• Property owners along the Texas/Mexico Border are apposed to a wall, Eminent Domain, and, have threatened lawsuits if their land is taken for the purpose of a wall.
Yes tom, I not only read the the article, I addressed the fallacies of its plausibility as a "solution" to a complex problems.
I don't disagree with the implementation of the various security components discussed in the article, I DISAGREE WITH THE REALITY THAT THEY ULTIMATELY FAIL TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES MOTIVATING THOSE WHO COME TO AMERICA for the REASONS THEY DO SO.
I will post my plan again if anyone is interested.
Some are quick to paranoia and to shoot the messenger … but …
... slow or absent altogether to address the realities of a hot issue!
I don’t play the so-called “race card,” I specifically state my case ... and earlier today -- 7 hours earlier -- I offered to identify the specific reasons as to why our border with Mexico is a destination for both legal and illegal entry … AND, TO OFFER REALISTIC SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE THE SITUATION.
I said I’d post a plan to deal with the reasons, immigrants, legal and illegal, try to enter America, and, to do so “if anyone was interested.” No requests …
I’m not surprised. It’s easier to blame scapegoats for one’s life disappointments than to get all bogged down with the realities.
Here’s my offer; I will post my plan in detail ... IF a request comes with a promise to acknowledge any/all points with which one agrees, and/or specifically state objections to that which is not agreeable.
The hit and run method of a dismissive comment, a shoot-the-messenger-wimping- out when it comes without offering counter arguments, is in effect, a concession and/or a manifest fear of knowing one is on the losing end.
I will take the time and make the effort to lay it all out for discussion, but only if I am assured that we will have an actual debate/discussion.
No he just wrote a big sweeping 🧹 generalization.
Or the sweeping generalizations about supporters of the wall.
I would like to know what everyone has to say to the President of the Border Patrol Council, the UNION that represents the Border Patrol agents. He is in support of Trump's policies:
I would like to know what everyone has to say to the President of the Border Patrol Council, the UNION that represents the Border Patrol agents. He is in support of Trump's policies:
As a retired UNION official and Legislative Representative, Union Presidents are elected to represent their members; happy to see a conservative like yourself cite a union position.
As for his position … in part …
"As long as people think they can cross the border illegally, they will continue to try. The journey is dangerous enough due to the natural conditions alone. Traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles on foot, often in extreme heat and without adequate water, is no easy trip for an adult – let alone for a child."
Don't individuals holding such an opinion WONDER WHY INDIVIDUALS WOULD PLACE THEMSELVES IN SUCH DANGER? Ever consider from what horrors they must be trying to escape in order to take such risks.
For the record, most of the individuals trying to cross the border ARE NOT DOING SO ILLEGALLY … under U.S. and International law and Human Rights treaties, individuals have the right to PETITION FOR ASYLUM OR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS. No question some people do have illegal motives for entering the U.S., but they are the exception, not the rule.
Some 20 hours ago I made the following challenge/offer …
" I will post my (immigration reform) plan in detail ... IF a request comes with a promise to acknowledge any/all points with which one agrees, and/or specifically state objections to that which is not agreeable."
No takers, tom … and likely because those who favor a "wall" see it as a symbol of something other than just "border protection," likely don't know the facts, and, believe that ethnic purity is the actual objective.
Want to address the single, largest demographic in AMERICA ILLEGALLY … then address all the Canadians who are here with EXPIRED VISAS!
20 hours ago, tom … I speculate that many Trumpians are waiting for the pesos …
"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." E. B. White
BRANDON JUDD
I would like to know what everyone has to say to the President of the Border Patrol Council, the UNION that represents the Border Patrol agents. He is in support of Trump's policies:
As a retired UNION official and Legislative Representative, Union Presidents are elected to represent their members; happy to see a conservative like yourself cite a union position.
As for his position … in part …
"As long as people think they can cross the border illegally, they will continue to try. The journey is dangerous enough due to the natural conditions alone. Traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles on foot, often in extreme heat and without adequate water, is no easy trip for an adult – let alone for a child."
Don't individuals holding such an opinion WONDER WHY INDIVIDUALS WOULD PLACE THEMSELVES IN SUCH DANGER? Ever consider from what horrors they must be trying to escape in order to take such risks.
For the record, most of the individuals trying to cross the border ARE NOT DOING SO ILLEGALLY … under U.S. and International law and Human Rights treaties, individuals have the right to PETITION FOR ASYLUM OR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS. No question some people do have illegal motives for entering the U.S., but they are the exception, not the rule.
Some 20 hours ago I made the following challenge/offer …
" I will post my (immigration reform) plan in detail ... IF a request comes with a promise to acknowledge any/all points with which one agrees, and/or specifically state objections to that which is not agreeable."
No takers, tom … and likely because those who favor a "wall" see it as a symbol of something other than just "border protection," likely don't know the facts, and, believe that ethnic purity is the actual objective.
Want to address the single, largest demographic in AMERICA ILLEGALLY … then address all the Canadians who are here with EXPIRED VISAS!
20 hours ago, tom … I speculate that many Trumpians are waiting for the pesos …
"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." E. B. White
FYI" Border Partrol Union President, Brandon Judd has praised Trump's "brilliance" as a businessman … (apparently he's not up-to-speed on that item) …
IS TRUMP A CHAMPION OF WORKERS? HIS ANTI-UNION POLICIES INDICATE OTHERWISE
Trump has decreased labor protections, rolled back worker safety and weakened federal unions during his presidency. The thrust of his policies points at his actual intentions and political base, according to Ileen DeVault, Academic Director of The Worker Institute at Cornell.