It's not that Biden wants to build more wall; Biden has no choice.  It's Trump's fault, don't 'ya know?

Let's see...there is an election coming....Arizona has been swamped with migrants and democrat Senator Mark Kelly is suddenly & publicly calling for the Biden administration to close the gaps. Every Senate seat is important.

I think we can mark this one "case closed,"

The project will be funded under Homeland Security's 2021 budget, though it was initially planned to be funded by the Defense Department.

The 2021 budget was signed by Trump. 

So...  Isn't this what you wanted?

Just goes to show how partisan politics compromises doing the right thing.

By the way, I do not think building a wall is the universally correct solution anyway.   I think we should be handling our border security with technology rather than simply with concrete and steel.   There no doubt are areas where a wall is the best idea, but in general we have technology that can detect human beings and enable border patrol to round them up.   We should invest in such technology (infrared, etc. detection, drones, ...) and enforcement personnel.

Your president hasn't wanted them rounded up

Biden is as much my president as he is yours.    And your comment does not follow from what I wrote so why reply to me?

Biden and the Democrats don't even want to pay for a wall; which is far cheaper than the technology and personnel you are advocating for. Not to mention the BP can't fill their quotas for personnel now given their low moral; and how Biden has treated them. Who would want to work for the BP when they constantly need to be in fear of prosecution and harassment from Democrats?

washingtonexaminer

dailymail.co.uk

Until the Biden and the Democrats stop ringing the dinner gong for illegals they will continue to come.

... which is far cheaper than the technology and personnel you are advocating for.

How on Earth could you possibly make this claim?    You have no numbers to go on.

Biden is as much my president as he is yours.  

And Trump was your president during his term. 

Personally I would like to see bouncing Betty's, claymores, punji puts, fu gas, automatic/remote controlled .50 cals and free fire zones used to secure the border. 

OK but what if what if one of the illegal border crossers is pregnant?  

What if she is?  She made her choice. If she is killed she cannot be prosecuted for anything. If she survived she will be prosecuted for illegally crossing the border, child endangerment, child abuse, attempted murder (if the baby survives) or murder if the baby does not. 

Holy moley, ark.

You just ache to see someone persecuted, whether it effects you or not. Your warped sense of justification in the meting out of justice is simply terrifying. 

And Trump was your president during his term. 

Correct.  Glad we have that established.

Personally I would like to see bouncing Betty's, claymores, punji puts, fu gas, automatic/remote controlled .50 cals and free fire zones used to secure the border. 

You want to maim/kill people??

That is what you do to those invading your country. 

So you want border patrol to maim and/or kill illegals.   

As I said that is what you di to invaders. You maim or kill them. 

Yeah you said it alright.   You want the US government border patrol to fire on illegals with the intent to main and/or kill.

Personally I would like to see bouncing Betty's, claymores, punji puts, fu gas, automatic/remote controlled .50 cals and free fire zones used to secure the border. 

You want to maim/kill people??

There would be fences and warning signs so none of those things would be any more dangerous than an electrical substation as long as you read the signs and stay out of the fenced area.

Then why have them?    To what end?     Do you support shooting to kill and/or blowing someone up as a deterrent?   

Not to mention the BP can't fill their quotas for personnel now given their low moral;

A problem for decades, many officers live an hour to two hours away because the

border is a dry dust hostile environment.  Hiring woes are historic and not tied to the

party in power in Washington.

Whenever a President increases the BP  ( Obama, Bush, Trump ) the intended

increase in ,manpower just increases the pressure on affordable housing that someone

would actually like to live in.

I have lived in Tubac AZ and the problems were never illegals or Mexicans,

it's the climate, lack of jobs, did I mention climate?  Desert, low desert and high desert

with annual monsoon season which lasts a few weeks.

Yuma is the exception but they produce lettuce, cantaloupe and honeydew during the 

"winter" attracting, guess who? migrant workers because Americans haven't worked the

fields since 1941.

Who would want to work for the BP when they constantly need to be in fear of prosecution and harassment from Democrats?

In your dreams.

You want the US government border patrol to fire on illegals with the intent to main and/or kill.

But force women to bear a child to full term lest we "kill the child".

That's a pretty clear double standard.

There is a big difference between an innocent baby in the womb and an invader from another country illegally entering this country. It is not a double standard. Do you think that killing an innocent baby but protesting and trying to keep a convicted murder from being executed a double standard also?

By the way, I do not think building a wall is the universally correct solution anyway.   I think we should be handling our border security with technology rather than simply with concrete and steel.   There no doubt are areas where a wall is the best idea, but in general we have technology that can detect human beings and enable border patrol to round them up.   We should invest in such technology (infrared, etc. detection, drones, ...) and enforcement personnel.

That's a tacit admission that technology won't deter illegal border crossings.  The technology approach is attempting to substitute a human wall of border agents for physical barriers.  And there's going to be more holes in that human wall there would be in physical barriers.

Of course that _____  you’re responding to has no freaking clue and has never had an in depth discussion with a border patrol agent regarding the manner that they actually are using technology and how both the wall and technology work together. 

Yes, technology and border agents are serving as a human barrier against illegal entry into the country.  That human barrier is supposed to serve the same purpose as a physical barrier.  The human barrier augments the physical barrier and not the other way around.

Somehow politicians have twisted that into technology and border agents facilitating illegal entry into the country.  And a physical barrier impedes the ability to facilitate illegal entry which means physical barriers have to go.

And there's going to be more holes in that human wall there would be in physical barriers.

Back up this claim.   You are claiming that NO technical solution can be better than physical barriers.   

Do you think humans are NOT involved in enforcement with walls?

Do you think human beings are actively running technology?   Does it occur to you that technology can engage in sweeps that will detect human beings and report same to enforcement?   There is no need for 24x7 human beings sitting at a keyboard;  you know this, right?

Surely you can do better than that.

AI has been perfected where humans aren't needed ?

Another failure:   Do you see the difference between 0% and 100%?    Further, does it not register that my scenario includes human beings as part of the process?

Clearly you are not paying attention.

Back up this claim.   You are claiming that NO technical solution can be better than physical barriers. 

The technical solution must be reactive, of necessity.  The technology only has the capability of detecting those who have already illegally crossed the border.  Unless we deploy armed drones that will physically intervene, the technology cannot proactively prevent, deter, or impede illegal border crossings.

The technology actually forces border agents (and policy makers) to do something with the people that have already crossed the border illegally.  And the technology allows those wishing to cross the border illegally to create distractions and large holes in the human barrier of border agents.  The technology means its easier to out flank the border patrol.

The technology only has the capability of detecting those who have already illegally crossed the border.  

Why would it not be able to detect those approaching the border?    Answer: it could.

Unless we deploy armed drones that will physically intervene, the technology cannot proactively prevent, deter, or impede illegal border crossings.

Of course it could.   Detect and then deploy.   The deployment can be drones that capture images (facial recognition capable quality), allow agents to broadcast warnings to those approaching the border, followed by helicopters, land vehicles, etc. as the need arises.

In contrast, a wall that covers all that need to be covered is arguably unrealistic, is not cheap (if done properly) and will be a stationary target for people to breach at its weak points.   And the wall needs enforcement resources too.

Finally, technology can be deployed much quicker than building a secure wall and has a better chance of coming to pass than a wall.   And as time progresses, the technology will do likewise.   Walls simply degrade.

Of course it could.   Detect and then deploy.   The deployment can be drones that capture images (facial recognition capable quality), allow agents to broadcast warnings to those approaching the border, followed by helicopters, land vehicles, etc. as the need arises.

That's a significant weakness in the technology.  Create a distraction that attracts the resources and then send a thousand across through the hole.  They can wave to the cameras as they disappear.

In contrast, a wall that covers all that need to be covered is arguably unrealistic, uber-expensive and will be a stationary target for people to breach at its weak points.   And the wall needs enforcement resources too.

Deploying enough technology and employing enough border agents to provide the same deterrence as a physical wall won't be cheap.  A physical barrier or wall requires a large up-front expenditure.  But technology and border agents providing the same coverage requires a larger perpetual expenditure and a larger back-end expenditure.  

More technology and border agents are needed without a barrier than are needed with a barrier.  The more robust the physical barrier at impeding and preventing illegal border crossings reduces the need for larger numbers of border agents and lessens the need more extensive deployment of technology.

Natural barriers reduce the need for more border agents.  Man-made barriers can also reduce the need for more border agents in the same manner.

Humans (whom run those technologies) aren't "Perfect" and can "Fail" quicker than Hard Concrete and Steel.

The wall only works if it's manned.  

Create a distraction that attracts the resources and then send a thousand across through the hole.  They can wave to the cameras as they disappear.

What utter nonsense Nerm.   You don't think that that technology can detect a thousand human beings approaching our borders?

Deploying enough technology and employing enough border agents to provide the same deterrence as a physical wall won't be cheap.

I did not claim it would be cheap.   I am claiming it would be effective and would grow increasingly more effective as time goes on.   In terms of cost, imagine what it would take to construct, say, ten miles of wall sufficient (as a static structure) to prevent passage.   Now compare that to the cost of technology to monitor ten miles of border.   I do not need to do any calculations to know that the technological solution will be less expensive — especially given the economies of scale available when technology is used.

A wall is a static, dumb structure.  And it is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing either.  Technology is dynamic and intelligent.   Just open your mind a tad.   You are arguing that we use ancient methods (a wall) to deter illegal immigration.   We have 438 miles of wall in place today for a border of 1945 miles.

According to a CBP status report dated Jan. 22, two days after Trump left office, the U.S. constructed 458 miles of “border wall system” under Trump. That included 373 miles of replacement barriers for primary or secondary fencing, and 52 miles of primary wall and 33 miles of secondary wall in locations where there were no barriers before.

Instead of beating our heads against the wall trying to get funding to build a great wall of America that will very likely NEVER happen, we should back off of the physical, brute-force method and take a smarter approach using technology.    When government and corporations seek to secure large areas of land (e.g. a business campus) do you think they build big impenetrable walls surrounding the campus (e.g. the walls protecting ancient castles) or do they make use of technology?

Drones and long-range detection technologies grow increasingly better and cheaper.   Instead of spending time and resources on building a wall, we could very quickly secure hundreds of miles of strategically important border area with extant technology.    There would still be building (towers would naturally be built to host technology and staff) but the vast majority of the almost 2000 miles of border would remain free of walls but secured.

“A wall is a static, dumb structure.”

Agreed. 

And it has become a symbol for something much more sinister…a brick and mortar manifestation of self-defined exclusivity…a thought process contrary to every tenet of our founding. 

What utter nonsense Nerm.   You don't think that that technology can detect a thousand human beings approaching our borders?

Technology can detect a million human beings approaching our borders.  But the technology being utilized cannot intervene.  Technology won't address the problem of the number of available border guards being overwhelmed.  The technology will tell us it's happening but that doesn't mean we'll be able to do anything about it.

A wall is a static, dumb structure.  And it is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing either.  Technology is dynamic and intelligent.   Just open your mind a tad.   You are arguing that we use ancient methods (a wall) to deter illegal immigration.   We have 438 miles of wall in place today for a border of 1945 miles.

Well, yeah, a wall is an inanimate object intended to impede or prevent entry.  The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico are natural barriers that impede or prevent entry into the United States.  Mountainous regions along the southern border are natural impediments that are obstacles for illegal entry.  Oceans and mountains are static, dumb structures, too.  

A wall mimics nature.  Using these natural obstacles as a model doesn't seem like a very stupid thing to do.  

Technology can detect a million human beings approaching our borders.   ....  Technology won't address the problem of the number of available border guards being overwhelmed.

Neither will having a wall;  but note that part of my proposal has been more border personnel.    Are you envisioning a medieval siege, Nerm?     Are you assuming that technology would not provide very early warnings of thousands or (LOL) millions of illegals storming our borders giving us time to react?    Do you think the USA is so incompetent that the very best we can do is use medieval technology to control illegal immigration.   (And, yeah, try not to worry about a million immigrants storming our borders.)

Using these natural obstacles as a model doesn't seem like a very stupid thing to do.  

Who has suggested that we not make use of existing geographical structures??    We would use what we have and then supplement that with technology.   What we need not do is build walls.

“But the technology being utilized cannot intervene.”

that is something the anti wall crowd refuses to see, or, for whatever reason, cannot see. A wall will slow crossings to a very manageable trickle.

How about we allocate the billions of dollars to build a wall, provide surveillance, employ the guards, etc. and actually address the problem.

Provide the courts, judges, attorneys, etc. required to adjudicate legal entry into the country…in a timely fashion.

Provide adequate family housing, medical attention, and educational support as required until cases can be heard…in a humane fashion. 

And put the partisan bullshit aside, as it does absolutely nothing to fix an obviously broken system…in a sensible fashion. 

that is something the anti wall crowd refuses to see,

Good grief ... the 'anti-wall-crowd';  is that a thing now?     Is there an 'anti-technology-crowd' too that you are part of?    Is it not possible for people to just evaluate an idea without it necessarily being part of some partisan movement?

This is a paradigm shift.   Instead of trying to harden every open mile of border (at least 1,000 is open) with big, impenetrable walls, an alternate approach is to use technology to detect attempts to cross the border and automatically alert agents who can deploy drones immediately to capture images and announce warnings to the illegals.   Next phase is to deploy equipment (vehicles, helicopters, etc.) to the exact locations (triangulated by the technology) with full information as to how many are there, how they are organized, etc.    With the availability of inexpensive drone technology, we could have armies of drones out there tracking individuals even if they scatter.   And our technology will continue to get better (smarter and with more functionality) and less expensive over time.

Instead of spending all this money building and maintaining a static wall, invest in technology and border security staff.

As is true in typical campuses today (I am speaking of government and business campuses), we do not construct big, impenetrable walls to secure our campuses.   We use technology.   

Also, the wall is likely to NEVER be built.   Consider that when you blindly push for a wall and argue against smarter solutions.

What would you like to see? A mile long, pc description? You’re not going to get that from me. Look, it’s  pretty simple, there are people that want the wall built and there are people opposed to a wall being built, so give me a fucking break about your “partisan” bs because you are as partisan as anyone here and you don’t even see it.

i’m not opposed to using technology on the border but i think it should supplement a wall. Technology can be beaten by a well funded organization and the mexican cartels are very well funded. When technology alone is used and beaten that leaves a gaping hole for anyone to cross. A physical wall can be beaten too but will not leave miles and miles of border open. 

Technology can be beaten by a well funded organization and the mexican cartels are very well funded.

So what do you envision, some James Bond super jamming device that opens a corridor for thousands of immigrants to pass through all carrying cargo for drug lords?

... so give me a fucking break about your “partisan” bs because you are as partisan as anyone here ...

Really?   What party am I beholding to?    Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about (or do not understand what the word 'partisan' means).

Electronic technology can be defeated, and when it is it leaves gaping holes in security. No doubt the cartel’s are very well funded, especially now with our wide open border. They can buy the tech to defeat electronic surveillance.

It’s funny you ask. Like i said earlier, you don’t even see it.

That is a superficial and entirely vague ‘argument’ against using technology in general.

Again, you seem to be viewing this like a James Bond 007 film.   Defeating security technology is no trivial matter.   Further, are you envisioning Mexican cartels equipping thousand of Illegals with high-tech surveillance defeating technology you imagined?

I see comments from you making ridiculous allegations that you cannot even weakly back up.   Best for you to stop making things personal and focus on content.

You don't need half of that. 

Just raise the damn quota.

They don't want to sneak across the border.  They want to come in legally.  They don't because we won't let them.  We won't let them because we're married to an arbitrary quota that hasn't been updated in decades.  We're married to that quota because it's math and we're stupid.

Not at all, that is your very narrow interpretation of my comment. There are other views and opinions out there, besides your own. 

Well tig, an open forum article isn’t the place to discuss this. Why you keep pushing it is rather bizarre and rude to the seeder and Perrie. If you’d like, we can discuss this in a private conversation and i’ll gladly put you in your place. Until then, get shitty with me and expect to have it thrown back in your face. You should know that by now.

I see comments from you making ridiculous allegations that you cannot even weakly back up

And...

Best for you to stop making things personal and focus on content.

How ironic....

Steel that can be cut with a $100 saws all.

CBP spent over 2 million between 2019 and 2021 just to repair the over 3000 breaches in just the sections that Trump built. That doesn't include the manpower to continuously inspect it. Oh and BTFW, the workorders document that in all too many cases, contractors failed to fill the lower portions with concreate, per their contract. So, let's not try to pretend that 'the wall' is impenetrable or that it doesn't require CBP manpower to patrol. 

I am locking this thread because it has gone into attack mode and personal. Please stop and don't take this into another thread. Only warning.

Neither will having a wall;  but note that part of my proposal has been more border personnel.    Are you envisioning a medieval siege, Nerm?     Are you assuming that technology would not provide very early warnings of thousands or (LOL) millions of illegals storming our borders giving us time to react?    Do you think the USA is so incompetent that the very best we can do is use medieval technology to control illegal immigration.   (And, yeah, try not to worry about a million immigrants storming our borders.)

Technology detected Russia planning to invade Ukraine.  So, what happened?  The Ukrainian war should be providing lessons.  And one of the lessons is that physical barriers impede movement.  Destroying bridges revitalizes the natural impediment of rivers.

Barriers and impediments really are effective tools.  They're force multipliers.  Anti-tank traps, barriers, and obstacles are force multipliers allowing fewer personnel to achieve the same level of effectiveness.  A Czech hedgehog really is a modernized version of medieval technology.  Even technology is more effective with barriers and obstacles than without.

Who has suggested that we not make use of existing geographical structures??    We would use what we have and then supplement that with technology.   What we need not do is build walls.

The existing geophysical structures are forcing illegal immigrants to find places where they can jump the border more easily.  If those natural geophysical structures could be extended along the whole border then the flow of illegal immigrants would be reduced.  The point is that we can accomplish what those natural impediments do to reduce illegal immigration by using man-made structures.

Fewer border agents are needed where the border is more difficult to cross because that reduces the number of border jumpers.  The number of needed border agents is directly related to the number of border jumpers.  Fewer border jumpers mean less need for border agents.  Natural impediments and obstacles reduces the number of needed border agents.  Man-made structures that serve the same purpose as natural impediments and obstacles will also reduce the number of border jumpers and reduce the number of needed border agents.  Both natural and man-made impediments and obstacles are force multipliers.

By the way, I do not think building a wall is the universally correct solution anyway.   I think we should be handling our border security with technology rather than simply with concrete and steel.   There no doubt are areas where a wall is the best idea, but in general we have technology that can detect human beings and enable border patrol to round them up.   We should invest in such technology (infrared, etc. detection, drones, ...) and enforcement personnel.

This doesn't get said often enough.

I never do understand the idea that we should rely on a 4th-century non-solution when we have 21st-century technology available.

I think we should be handling our border security with technology rather than simply with concrete and steel. 

A hybrid solution might work best.  

Technology has improved in the 12-16 years since we tried the technology approach previously.  In 2006, Boeing won a multibillion-dollar contract to the 6,000 miles of border (North and South) with a network of 1,800 towers equipped with a variety of sensors, including cameras and heat and motion detectors.

The contract was part of the Secure Border Initiative, SBInet.

Boeing won with the lowest bid and was also seen ass less risky than the competitor proposals which relied heavily on multiple continuous drones.  Boeing proposed only using small drones when pursuing suspects.  

4 years and $8B later SBInet was deemed a failure.  A final report faulted the government for the lack of a well-thought-out plan and failed to properly supervise Boeing.

A hybrid solution might work best.  

I think the best solution would likely wind up being a hybrid.    That is often how things go.   But I do not see the hybrid being hundreds of miles of wall with technology filling gaps.   Rather it would be physical structures to host technology, equipment, and personnel with mostly untouched land on the border secured by technology.

Walls or other physical barriers may be most appropriate in urban areas and technology detection systems in open country.  

I agree in principle.   Are there many dense cities along the border proper?   Keep in mind that the detection would be focused on miles into Mexico up to the border.   I would not expect to see a large city sprawling over the border and certainly not one in Mexico that is right on the border.   That is, the land surrounding the actual border is typically open terrain or natural geographical structures.

Are there many dense cities along the border proper? 

I don't think that density is the factor.  This seed is about Yuma, AZ.  There are maybe 40-45  US/Mexican border cities/towns.

I am talking about the entire border.

Density is very much the issue.   If a city is a bunch of wooden structures as opposed to the densely packed concrete / steel of typical cities, there is a profound difference in what the technology can do.    The technology can see through wood and few structures but is blinded by dense buildings in a typical large city.

If a city is a bunch of wooden structures as opposed to the densely packed concrete / steel of typical cities

I'm familiar with San Diego/Tijuana, Yuma/Los Algodones, Nogales/Nogales, Sunland Park, El Paso/Juarez, not many wooden structures there.

The proper policy would seem to be “whatever works best.” I mean as long as inhumane options like shooting are off the table.

Trump made a big deal about the wall, but I don’t think he was ever opposed to technology. A lot of people unfairly represented his policy that way.

Conversely, a person can advocate for technology and still be open to some wall building.

The proper policy would seem to be “whatever works best.”

I agree.   This is ultimately an optimization problem considering many factors.   One of the factors, by the way, is the likelihood that the intended solution will ever see the light of day.

If we focus on building an impenetrable wall as the solution, my judgment is that we will never secure our border.

In contrast, we have the technology available right now that could be used to start securing open areas of the border.    Start deploying the technology immediately.   That would allow us to strategically secure our weakest points and to learn how to best use technology.   We continue phasing in (learning in each phase) with increasingly better tech and enforcement solutions until we have a secured border.

"Not another foot." Those were the words Joe Biden used as a mantra throughout his 2020 presidential campaign regarding the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

So, Biden lied.  But we won't see all those who despise lying politicians say a goddamn thing about this one.

Biden's decision to secure the border wall comes after Sen. Mark Kelly, D-AZ, has called on the president to secure the border. Republican lawmakers have made similar calls.

So Biden really is a partisan hack.

So Biden really is a partisan hack.

The problem is that most every politician is inherently a partisan hack;  almost a hard requirement to get elected.

But we won't see all those who despise lying politicians say a goddamn thing about this one.

That is such nonsense.   I for one have noted many times that Biden is known for his exaggerations and fabrications (all forms of lies).   

What I see with you and others is equating the level and consequential severity of Trump's lies with others.   Pretending that Trump's lying is just normal lying that all politicians engage in is profoundly wrong.

That is such nonsense.   I for one have noted many times that Biden is known for his exaggerations and fabrications (all forms of lies).   

YOU noted it.  There are many others who are silent about it.  The only time they say anything is when somebody else calls out these lies; they are the first to deflect to a specific politician.  

Oh just stop with the generic hypocrisy crap.   Who cares?    Blind partisans necessarily engage in dishonest arguments.   Don't pretend that this is not a common affliction among blind partisans of both parties.

Yeah, blind partisans are inherently hypocrites.   Big fucking surprise.

Gibberish.

So, Biden lied.  But we won't see all those who despise lying politicians say a goddamn thing about this one.

Trump made Biden do it.  It's not Biden's fault.

And Mexico is paying for it... 

nbcnews

Mexico agrees to provide $1.5 billion to help U.S. manage migrants on southern border

And Mexico is paying for it...

Ha ha. Good one. 

Oh goodie...............

"The goal of the new projects will be to improve the speed and security of border screening, not necessarily to deter migrants from crossing, the official said. 

And Mexico is paying for it...

Looks like a somebody was right all along despite all the bullshit coming from the opposition.

How can you not see that Trump did NOT make it happen?   If Biden negotiated a deal with Mexico as suggested then Biden accomplished what Trump could not.

Good grief man, you credit Trump for claiming Mexico would pay for the wall and then ignore that he failed to make that happen.

Biden's negotiation capabilities are equivalent to that of a toddler.  It's laughable to even think he negotiated it.

Big surprise, you translate a potential good into a bad because it was done by the wrong party.

Read the article. I don't think this, Mexico's "contribution" has much at all to do with the wall continuation........................

"The goal of the new projects will be to improve the speed and security of border screening, not necessarily to deter migrants from crossing, the official said."

Dems kept him from building the wall.

The exact details of the new projects are still being worked out, but, the official said, the new agreement will not result in the building of any kind of wall or border barrier. 

Not at all...

Big surprise, you translate a potential good into a bad because it was done by the wrong party.

Exactly. 

Well then you need to correct Jeremy @4.3 — a comment that you voted up.

Jeremy @4.3 ☞ Looks like a somebody was right all along despite all the bullshit coming from the opposition.

Miss that?   I responded to his post.

I used this language:

TiG @4.3.1 ☞ If Biden negotiated a deal with Mexico as suggested ...

That language was used because I did not simply trust the headline and simply used it as a hypothetical to reply to Jeremy.

Dems kept him from building the wall.

Wrong, the GoP is what killed it.   For two years Trump had a fully R Congress.   He could not get his own party to support his wall.    When he lost the House at midterms then it was the Ds that ALSO refused Trump.   Note that the Senate remained GoP throughout Trump's term.

For two years Trump had a fully R Congress. 

That's right. The filibuster didn't exist then. 

The point of course is that Trump failed to secure his wall legislation even though his party was in control of the House and the Senate for two years.

Seems you forget "Stay in Mexico". That was working; not that Biden enforced it after taking office.

Now it is "Hurry up and get them processed and sent further into the US". Sure Mexico is willing to pay for that- it is cheaper than keeping illegals in Mexico.

The Human Fuck Up Machine is costing us far more than 1.5 billion with his immigration policies.

If you are going to reply to me then at least write something that follows from what I have written.

If you are going to simply preach your 'Human Fuck Up Machine' rhetoric, do so in a first-level comment or write an article.

It wasn’t only dems, it was also establishment repubs. The establishment, dems and repubs, like their swamp, swampy.

[deleted]

You left out "Stay in Mexico". Trump tried to build the wall; and Democrats blocked him. Yet you blame Republicans who never had bullet proof majorities in the Senate or House.

Trump tried to build the wall; and Democrats blocked him. Yet you blame Republicans who never had bullet proof majorities in the Senate or House.

Hey Ronin, do you not know that Trump had two years where his party controlled both the House and the Senate?   He failed to secure his main campaign promise given two years of his party in control of the Executive, Legislative and even (arguably) the Judicial branches of our government.

Buy a vowel.

I you rea carefully I didn't say a goddamn thing about who did it.  I said look who was right in reference to who would pay for it.  No surpirse you missed the actual point of my statement.

I'll believe that when the pesos are in the bank.

The timing of filling in gaps of the "racist wall" is meant to help SEN Mark Kelly's reelection campaign in Arizona. 

BINGO!

Will you cast your vote for his opponent? 

Be prepared to explain and/or justify the same.

Oh, that’s right, you reside 3000 miles away. 

Oh, that’s right, you reside 3000 miles away. 

Irrelevant to the commentary being put forth...................

"Will you cast your vote for his opponent?"

Irrelevant question, but I would rather vote for Masters than for Mark Kelley whose politics I don't like very much and I happen to be from Arizona anyway.

How close to the border do you live? I personally love 6 blocks from the border fence and the AZ/Mexico Port of Entry is about a mile from my house.

Where do you live?  Do you confine yourself to only commenting on local issues?  Hypocrite much?

The timing of filling in gaps of the "racist wall" is meant to help SEN Mark Kelly's reelection campaign in Arizona. 

Noooo, really?  Just remember that Trump made Kelly do it.  

As I have said before, Kelley makes border statements to appeal to his liberal base to give the impression he cares, and then votes the reverse in lockstep with his party. He really does not give a rat's behind about the border, especially those of us right on the border on the US side that are affected by the invasion coming across our borders. What a pathetic joke!

There are other gaps in the border fence in Arizona at Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales, and bordering the Tohono O'odham Nation outside of Tucson, AZ,  all with significant gaps in the fence that President Joe Biden ceased finishing on day one of his presidency in 2000. Funny how there is little mention of this in the liberal controlled MSM.

The wall runs right through the Tohono O'odham nation cutting off a few thousand of the federally recognized tribe from the northern part of the nation. 

We ethnic Europeans love our lines on maps. 

We ethnic Europeans love our lines on maps. 

They need to figure out how to draw lines that don't leave US citizens on the Mexican side of the reservation. Pretty fricking stupid of them.

You are correct. I was referring to that side of the fence CBP and tribal authorities are actively able to patrol. I should have specified. My thanks for the correction.

My guess is that they don’t care.

My guess is that they don’t care.

Obviously.

Mark Kelly is bragging about his role in getting the Biden administration to fill gaps in the Arizona border wall despite having a track record of not supporting legislation for the "racist wall".

Replying to Nerm@2.2.33

Technology detected Russia planning to invade Ukraine.  So, what happened? 

The world decided to not escalate this to a world war.    Your analogy is silly.

Do you think that a tech-based border security system would simply be detection with no enforcement?    If so, you certainly have not read what I wrote.

The world decided to not escalate this to a world war.    Your analogy is silly.

That's not entirely accurate.  The world, led by the United States, decided to employ a deterrence that proved ineffective.  The world decided not to deploy border agents, as an analogy to the illegal immigration problem.  There wasn't any obstacle or barrier to impede Russia's invasion; physical or human.  The technology didn't fail but the technology did nothing to deter the invasion, either.

What's odd is that the first thing the Ukrainians did was to erect barriers and obstacles to impede the Russian military entering Kiev.  But, as history shows, reacting to an invasion is much, much less effective than taking steps to prevent an invasion.  Keeping the invaders out of the country would have avoided a lot more damage than trying to deal with the invaders after they invaded.

People don't jump the border for the benefit of the country they enter.  The reasons those people jump the border don't take into consideration the harm they may cause.  People only jump the border for their own benefit and they seem to be unwilling to compromise in obtaining that benefit.

Do you think that a tech-based border security system would simply be detection with no enforcement?    If so, you certainly have not read what I wrote.

That was the political decision by the current administration concerning the Russian invasion.  Isn't the current administration doing the same thing on our southern border?

That's not entirely accurate. 

The point is that the world chose NOT to take military action (enforcement).   And that your analogy is silly because a border security system would NOT exclude enforcement.

The point is that the world chose NOT to take military action (enforcement).   And that your analogy is silly because a border security system would NOT exclude enforcement.

Well, if there is a political choice to NOT enforce, then physical barriers and impediments become a more effective means of deterring people jumping the border. 

Technology won't impede illegal entry into the country without enforcement.  But physical barriers and impediments can impede illegal entry regardless of enforcement.  A wall doesn't depend upon human intervention to be effective.

We already know that illegal immigrants will seek out holes in the wall rather than attempt to defeat the wall.  And we already know that illegal immigrants must find some way to defeat the wall to enter the country.  Both those real world examples indicate that walls can be effective without need for human intervention or enforcement.  Maybe that's why walls have been used since ancient times -- they work.

Well, if there is a political choice to NOT enforce, then physical barriers and impediments become a more effective means of deterring people jumping the border.

Where do you see me arguing NO enforcement?   

Technology won't impede illegal entry into the country without enforcement.  

Clearly you are just playing pointless games.   No way you could not understand that I have called for technology+enforcement throughout.

Where do you see me arguing NO enforcement?   

You are arguing that walls are unnecessary.  You are arguing that technology is sufficient.  And technology requires enforcement to be effective.

My point is that walls can be effective with or without enforcement.  That suggests that walls are more important than you are indicating.

Yes walls can be built that are almost impenetrable and thus would protect without mass much enforcement as pure tech.

I am arguing that such walls would be very expensive, would be unpleasant compared to natural terrain and would very likely NEVER be built.    In contrast, we can use technology that can be quickly deployed at a fraction of the cost of an impenetrable wall and that will improve naturally in terms of capabilities, range and intelligence.   Technology with border control enforcement versus a wall that will almost certainly never exist.

I am arguing that such walls would be very expensive, would be unpleasant compared to natural terrain and would very likely NEVER be built

Expensive?  Let's test that argument.  The James Webb Space Telescope required decades to build and cost $10 billion just to construct.  The JWST was damaged before it became operational.  And the JWST cannot be repaired or maintained.  The justification for the JWST wasn't that it would be deployed quickly and would be inexpensive.  The justification for the JWST was what it could do and what it could allow.

Unpleasant compared to the natural terrain?  Let's test that argument.  The technology will require communication towers, camera towers, lights, and an energy infrastructure.  Enforcement is going to need roads, bridges, facilities, and its own infrastructure.  There will be a constant flow of traffic across that natural landscape.  And illegal immigrants will continue to cross the border which will have an adverse effect on the environment.  The technology/enforcement approach cannot avoid intruding on the natural terrain, either.

In contrast, we can use technology that can be quickly deployed at a fraction of the cost of an impenetrable wall and that will improve naturally in terms of capabilities, range and intelligence.   Technology and border control enforcement.

Here's the bottom line.  We know that illegal immigrants are incurring significant effort, expense, and risk to deliberately avoid entering the country through a port of entry.  We know the illegal immigrants intercepted by enforcement must be processed and vetted just as though they had entered through a port of entry.  We know that a significant number of illegal immigrants are deported which indicates they did not have a legitimate reason to enter the country.

The only conclusion is that illegal immigration is diverting resources away from immigration activities that need those resources.  Curbing illegal border jumping would allow more resources to be utilized efficiently and effectively to support legitimate entry into the country.  Requiring immigrants to enter through a port of entry would also allow Mexico to more efficiently and effectively utilize its resources to support migrants.  Requiring immigrants to enter through a port of entry may not reduce the expense for those migrants but should significantly reduce the effort and risk.

Illegal immigration is a problem for immigrants, too.  Recurring expenditures for technology/enforcement along the border doesn't free up any of those resources needed to support legal entry into the country.  A wall may be expensive up front but if a wall allows better utilization of resources to support legitimate entry into the country then that would be a benefit that technology/enforcement can't provide.  A wall really could be a win-win for both immigrants and the people of the United States.

Expensive?  Let's test that argument. 

You test whether walls are expensive by pointing to the James Webb telescope.  What kind of bizarre unrelated 'logic' is that?  Your 'test' is fundamentally flawed.

Unpleasant compared to the natural terrain?  Let's test that argument. 

You compare the towers that would be built dotting the landscape with a continuous wall covering the terrain.   Your test fails.   It implicitly admits that these man-made structures are ugly and obtrusive and then somehow ignores that technology would eliminate most of this unpleasant structure.

A wall may be expensive up front but if a wall allows better utilization of resources to support legitimate entry into the country then that would be a benefit that technology/enforcement can't provide.

Oh so you do indeed recognize the expense of a wall?  

An obtrusive, expensive, static wall versus far less obtrusive, less expensive technology whose capabilities increase over time.    And on top of that, the likelihood of such a wall ever existing is slim.   So you can rally behind the medieval practice of building a giant, impenetrable wall that very likely will never exist, or you can support exploiting modern technology that will continually improve.

You test whether walls are expensive by pointing to the James Webb telescope.  What kind of bizarre unrelated 'logic' is that?  Your 'test' is fundamentally flawed.

No, it's a test of expense as a reason not to do something.  You argued that a wall would be too expensive to build.  So, the refutation would be an example of something else the government has done that was also expensive in both time and money.  As the JWST example illustrates, expense is not a disqualifying consideration.

Your argument about 'logic' is fallacious.  Only a True Scotsman would accept that argument.

You compare the towers that would be built dotting the landscape with a continuous wall covering the terrain.   Your test fails.   It implicitly admits that these man-made structures are ugly and obtrusive and then somehow ignores that technology would eliminate most of this unpleasant structure.

Man made structures intrude into the natural terrain.  You are only arguing that one type of intrusion is better than another.  And you are ignoring that a human presence and activity is more intrusive than structures.

You argued that a wall would be too expensive to build.

I did not, I stated that a wall would be expensive.   That is an implicit comparison to a technological solution.     I also stated that a wall would likely not be built.   The primary reason it would not likely be built is that there are plenty of reasons to argue against it.   Expense is one, eyesore is another, optics akin to Berlin wall is another, time to build across changing political dynamics is another.   On top of that, the wall is now clearly a partisan issue and the Ds are obviously going to continue to push back on it.    The Rs also have shown very little support for the wall (note how Trump had two years with an R Congress and could not get his wall legislation).    In all, the wall is very likely to never happen.   So if you want to end up with unprotected borders for a long time, keep pushing for a wall.

You are only arguing that one type of intrusion is better than another. 

I was arguing that, based on our agreement that man-made structures intrude on natural terrain, the intrusion by a tech solution is a small fraction of the intrusion of a wall.   And I should not even have to argue that.   This is flat out obvious.

You know we could save a lot of time if you would carefully read what I wrote instead of me having to constantly correct your inserting of words to change my meaning.

I also stated that a wall would likely not be built.

Biden is currently building segments of wall along the Arizona border.  Your 'likely not' doesn't stand up to the reality of 'actually is' being reported in the seed article.

Walls along the southern border really are being constructed by the Biden administration.  The facts are that there really is an illegal immigration problem and that walls really do work for addressing that problem.  Efforts to address the problem of illegal immigration really are more effective with a wall than without a wall.  

I was arguing that, based on our agreement that man-made structures intrude on natural terrain, the intrusion by a tech solution is a small fraction of the intrusion of a wall.   And I should not even have to argue that.   This is flat out obvious.

And I pointed out that the argument you made was wrong.  Technology/enforcement won't be less intrusive on the natural terrain; it will only be a different type of intrusion.  The technology/enforcement approach will require human presence and activity along the border which is more intrusive than are static structures.

You know we could save a lot of time if you would carefully read what I wrote instead of me having to constantly correct your inserting of words to change my meaning.

I do read what you write.  I have responded to what you have written.  Is that a problem?

Your 'likely not' doesn't stand up to the reality of 'actually is' being reported in the seed article.

Do you not see the difference between segments of wall and the entire wall?    

The facts are that there really is an illegal immigration problem and that walls really do work for addressing that problem.

I have never suggested that a wall would not work.    

Technology/enforcement won't be less intrusive on the natural terrain; it will only be a different type of intrusion.

Select towers dotting the border are as intrusive on the natural terrain as a continuous wall???   What can anyone say in response to such obvious nonsense?  

Let's say we have two ranches.   Ranch A decides to protect its boundaries with a continuous, solid wall (no opening except for gates).   Ranch B instead opts for a modern security system with night vision and AI-based recognition of living creatures (especially human).    Which of those two is more intrusive to the natural landscape?    Go ahead Nerm, tell me that they are both equally intrusive.  

Do you not see the difference between segments of wall and the entire wall?    

Do you not understand that a wall is built in segments?  Walls are being built along the border in response to shifting patterns of illegal immigrants jumping the border.  That's a reasonable approach.  As the pattern of border jumping shifts, the segments will eventually connect and there be a continuous wall along more of the border.

The shift in the pattern of border jumping to unwalled sections of the border really does show that walls are effective.  The walls are doing what they are intended to do; impede border jumping.

Let's say we have two ranches.   Ranch A decides to protect its boundaries with a continuous, solid wall (no opening except for gates).   Ranch B instead opts for a modern security system with night vision and AI-based recognition of living creatures (especially human).    Which of those two is more intrusive to the natural landscape?    Go ahead Nerm, tell me that they are both equally intrusive.  

The wall doesn't need as much monitoring and certainly doesn't require maintaining capability for immediate response.  The wall may be more costly to construct but there is little recurring cost to maintain the walls effectiveness.  The wall would be a static impediment.  There would be no electromagnetic emissions.  There would be little or no risk of harmful chemicals leaching into the environment.  There would be little risk of natural fauna attempting to eat the wall and poisoning itself.  There would be little need to disrupt natural plant habitats and populations.  The static structure of the wall could become part of the habitat where local flora and fauna use the wall as they do any other static structure in the habitat.  (The natural flora and fauna would be more concerned with adapting to and utilizing the wall than the aesthetics of the wall.)

The technology approach will need many cameras capable of monitoring in all kinds of weather during day and night.  The cameras will need a power supply.  The cameras will need a means to send data to a monitoring station.  The cameras will need their own protection from the environment.  Plants would need to be kept clear.  Birds, rodents, and insects could not be allowed to nest on the structures.  The system will emit electromagnetic radiation (in one form or another, likely at radio frequencies).  The system will be constructed from a variety of materials that can leach toxins into the environment.  The system will need some sort of access road to allow response which must also be kept clear of plants and animals.  And the means of response will likely be by some sort of motor vehicle.

A wall can become part of the natural habitat and co-exist with the flora and fauna in that natural habitat.  A technology based system cannot be allowed to become part of the natural habitat and will require protection from the flora and fauna in that natural habitat.  And the technology based system will require more human presence and activity in the natural habitat for maintenance and protecting the system than would a wall.

I contend that the technology/enforcement approach would actually be more intrusive than would a wall.  The issue of aesthetics is a human value of little import to how intrusive the technology/enforcement approach would be.

Do you not understand that a wall is built in segments? 

I am done wasting any further time with you Nerm.

I am done wasting any further time with you Nerm.

Hilarious...

You cried when I said the same thing to you.

I am done wasting any further time with you Nerm.

You've been beating your head against the wall?

I've addressed all the issues you've raised.  And I've shown that a static wall can be superior to technology by your own criteria.