Inhofe Rolls Out Plan to Pay for Wall

[Swordsmyth]

Senator Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) announced Thursday a proposal to fully fund a border wall along the southwestern border, offsetting the cost by reducing illegal immigrants' access to federal welfare.
"We need to build the wall along the southern border—President Trump has called for the wall and I agree," Inhofe said in a press release. "As a former builder and developer in south Texas I know border security is national security and we need to do more to deter the growing numbers of unauthorized immigrants coming across our borders."
The WALL Act would appropriate the $25 billion that a wall along the Mexican border is generally estimated to cost. Inhofe's bill is not the first congressional attempt at funding. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) introduced his own (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/411205-mccarthy-introduces-bill-to-fully-fund-trumps-border-wall) bill last month, and President Donald Trump has multiple (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-wall/index.html) times (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-shutdown/in-quick-reversal-trump-threatens-shutdown-over-border-wall-idUSKCN1LL1YN) considered pushing for a shutdown of the federal government if Congress does not provide funding.
But Inhofe's bill goes a step further, explicitly identifying ways of cutting spending to pay for the $25 billion expense. It would increase the minimum fine imposed on illegal border crossers. But it would also substantially overhaul noncitizens' access to federal welfare, reducing consumption to levels that Inhofe's office contend would offset the cost of the wall.

Specifically, the WALL Act would require a work-authorized social security number in order to claim refundable tax credits (e.g., the EITC or Child Tax Credit)—under the status quo, only a child needs a valid SSN, not his or her parent, to collect the CTC. The bill would also require applicants for federal welfare programs—TANF, SNAP, etc.—to actually verify their citizenship using E-Verify, rather than simply "declare" that they are a citizen.

More at: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/inhofe-rolls-plan-pay-wall/

"Mexico will pay for it"

[Zippyjuan]

require a work-authorized social security number in order to claim refundable tax credits (e.g., the EITC or Child Tax Credit)

US citizens are not given a "work-authorized" social security number. I guess they are not going to be eligible for any refundable tax credits.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/cards.htm


Shows your name and Social Security number with notes, "VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION."

We issue it to people lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis who have DHS authorization to work.

[PAF]

How long before eVerify biometrics will be made available? I do not want this to be held up longer than it needs to be.

I read some articles where some of the biometric companies have it down to rice-sized implants which will be much more convenient.

We are finally winning. It is amazing how a NY Lib/globalist learned what conservatism and liberty really mean.

I did not vote for him in ‘16 because I did not vote. But he will get my vote in 2020.

Hip hip hooray.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/12/e-verify-threatens-us-all/


E-Verify Threatens Us All

written by ron paul

In addition to funding for a border wall and other border security measures, immigration hardliners are sure to push to include mandatory E-Verify in any immigration legislation considered by Congress. E-Verify is a (currently) voluntary program where businesses check job applicants’ Social Security numbers and other Information — potentially including “biometric” identifiers like fingerprints — against information stored in a federal database to determine if the job applicants are legally in the United States.

Imagine how much time would be diverted from serving consumers and growing the economy if every US business had to comply with E-Verify. Also, collecting the relevant information and operating the mandatory E-Verify system will prove costly to taxpayers.

Millions of Americans could be denied jobs because E-Verify mistakenly identifies them as illegal immigrants. These Americans would be forced to go through a costly and time-consuming process to force the government to correct its mistake. It is doubtful employers could afford to keep jobs open while potential hires went through this process.

A federal database with Social Security numbers and other identifying information is an identify thief’s dream. Given the federal government’s poor track record for protecting personal information, is there any doubt mandatory E-Verify would put millions of Americans at risk for identity theft?

Some supporters of E-Verify deny the program poses any threat to civil liberties, as it will only be used to verify citizenship or legal residency. They even claim a system forcing individuals to have their identities certified by the government is not a national ID system. These individuals are ignoring the history of government programs sold as only affecting a particular group or being used for a limited purpose being expanded beyond initial targets. For example, Americans were promised that only the wealthiest Americans would ever pay income taxes. And some of the PATRIOT Act’s worst provisions that we were told would only be used against terrorists are routinely used to investigate drug crimes.

E-Verify almost certainly will be used for purposes unrelated to immigration. One potential use of E-Verify is to limit the job prospects of anyone whose lifestyle displeases the government. This could include those accused of failing to pay their fair share in taxes, those who homeschool or do not vaccinate their children, or those who own firearms.

Unscrupulous government officials could use E-Verify against those who practice antiwar, anti-tax, anti-surveillance, and anti-Federal Reserve activism. Those who consider this unlikely should remember the long history of the IRS targeting the political enemies of those in power and the use of anti-terrorism laws to harass antiwar activists. They should also consider the current moves to outlaw certain types of “politically incorrect” speech, such as disputing the alleged “consensus” regarding climate change.

Claiming that mandatory E-Verify is necessary to stop illegal immigration does not make it constitutional. Furthermore, having to ask the federal government for permission before obtaining a job is a characteristic of authoritarian societies, not free ones. History shows that mandatory E-Verify’s use will expand beyond immigration enforcement and could be used as a tool of political repression. All those who value liberty should oppose mandatory E-Verify.

[Swordsmyth]

US citizens are not given a "work-authorized" social security number. I guess they are not going to be eligible for any refundable tax credits.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/cards.htm

That's a not "work-authorized" number, ordinary numbers are work-authorized.

[Swordsmyth]

How long before eVerify biometrics will be made available? I do not want this to be held up longer than it needs to be.

I read some articles where some of the biometric companies have it down to rice-sized implants which will be much more convenient.

We are finally winning. It is amazing how a NY Lib/globalist learned what conservatism and liberty really mean.

I did not vote for him in ‘16 because I did not vote. But he will get my vote in 2020.

Hip hip hooray.


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/12/e-verify-threatens-us-all/

I don't support mandatory e-verify for private businesses but requiring it for welfare doesn't hurt my feelings in the least.

[PAF]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/12/e-verify-threatens-us-all/

That is not true. Many on this site WANT that wall.

Plus, on the other site that I tried to spread truth, liberty and conservatism, the republicans there told me that Ron Paul was “good for a laugh” and that Rand is a “nut”.

[PAF]

I don't support mandatory e-verify for private businesses but requiring it for welfare doesn't hurt my feelings in the least.

Ah yes. I agree. But you know government. How will they distinguish those with eVerify from those who say “I forgot mine at home”.

It is best if we all get it so that the lines will move faster.

I also agree that government solutions are always better than private sector.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates


Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use Rates and Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs

The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of all federal outlays in that year.1 A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.2 Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.

Means-tested welfare programs are intended to aid the poor. For the purposes of this brief, they include Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (cash assistance), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Eligibility for these programs and the value of the benefits are based on the immigration status of the recipient, the recipient’s income, the value of assets owned by the recipient, his or her employment status, specific state policies, and myriad other factors.

Temporary migrants are generally ineligible for welfare benefits.4 Lawful permanent residents must wait at least five years before they are eligible for means-tested welfare benefits, but states have the option of providing those benefits earlier from their own tax revenues.5 Illegal immigrants are ineligible for entitlement and means-tested welfare programs apart from emergency medical care.6 Naturalized citizens, U.S.-born children, refugees, and asylees are eligible for all entitlement and means-tested welfare programs.7 These rules have some exceptions: children of lawful permanent residents are eligible for SNAP benefits, and states can extend Medicaid benefits to children and pregnant women regardless of immigration status. Furthermore, in-kind benefits — such as the National School Lunch Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and Head Start — are available regardless of immigration status.

Entitlement programs are intended to aid the elderly, and they include Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. The primary eligibility requirement for entitlements is the age of the recipient, but the value of taxes paid into those programs and the number of work years are factors in determining eligibility and the value of benefits.8 As such, lawful permanent residents who have paid payroll taxes for 40 quarters, or 10 years, are eligible to receive Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare.9

More at link.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates



More at link.
Open borders propaganda.

[Zippyjuan]

Open borders propaganda.

"If you are not in favor of a crazy expensive wall people can go under, over, or around, you are for open borders!" False dichotomy.

Ron Paul must be for Open Borders.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ron-paul-on-trumps-border-wall-totally-useless


Ron Paul on Trump's Border Wall: Totally Useless

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says President Trump's plan to build a wall along the country's Southern border a "totally useless" idea with low support in border states.

A new poll found that 61% of Texas citizens do not approve of building a wall along the border with Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out. "I’m glad that the poll shows that people in Texas don’t think much of this wall,” Paul told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

"I’ve always argued that the walls are going to hinder the American people as much as anybody," Paul said. "If somebody has honestly earned money and they want to walk across the border, they become criminals, you know, they can’t do it because they have all these regulations.”




“I think a wall is totally useless and he didn’t mention how he was going to pay for that wall, you know, Sessions didn’t say a word. That’s billions of dollars, nobody knows what it will cost and it won’t work, it’s so detrimental to the concept of liberty because what it is, they’re treating a symptom rather than saying, ‘our problem is a healthy economy and allowing people to trade freely.’”

[Swordsmyth]

"If you are not in favor of a crazy expensive wall people can go under, over, or around, you are for open borders!" False dichotomy.


Nobody said that, I don't even support the wall.

[Zippyjuan]

Nobody said that, I don't even support the wall.

You don't?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520999-Trump-We-re-going-to-be-guarding-our-border-with-the-military-until-wall


Trump: 'We're going to be guarding our border with the military' until wall complete


GOOD!

[Swordsmyth]

You don't?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520999-Trump-We-re-going-to-be-guarding-our-border-with-the-military-until-wall

I support the military guarding the border.

Learn to read.

[dannno]

I'm against the wall also, but I want Trump to build it just to piss off the left.

Aiding with border security in the short term is a plus.

[PAF]

I'm against the wall also, but I want Trump to build it just to piss off the left.

Aiding with border security in the short term is a plus.

Yes. I changed my mind. I now want that wall too. Just to piss off the Democrats.

Trump is good. Trump is great. We must support him in any way that we can.

Go Trump. That will teach them.

Plus, my offspring will also pay for it so that will help.

[dannno]

Yes. I changed my mind. I now want that wall too. Just to piss off the Democrats.

Trump is good. Trump is great. We must support him in any way that we can.

Go Trump. That will teach them.

Plus, my offspring will also pay for it so that will help.

You are an illegal immigrant?

[Origanalist]

I'm against the wall also, but I want Trump to build it just to piss off the left. [snip]



Way too much of that shit going around. When "pissing off the left" means more than what you stand for then it's not a healthy position.

[PAF]

You are an illegal immigrant?

According to the definitions, I am a government owned slave. So there.

Nobody responded to my above question. When will my eVerify biometric implant be ready. I do not want the lines to get too long when I travel. I would like to help distinguish them from me in any way that I can, without giving the excuse that I left mine at home.

[Swordsmyth]

I also agree that government solutions are always better than private sector.
You can't "agree" to that because I didn't say it.

[RJ Liberty]

We have a wall here. It doesn't work to keep out the illegals, and instead it creates a genetic bottleneck for the jaguars and ocelots on this side of the border that used to be able to cross over.

[Swordsmyth]

We have a wall here. It doesn't work to keep out the illegals, and instead it creates a genetic bottleneck for the jaguars and ocelots on this side of the border that used to be able to cross over.
It doesn't work because there are so many places without a wall and the jaguars and ocelots will just develop into separate breeds.

One reason I don't support the wall though is because patrols are more effective. (but a wall would be a force multiplier)

[PAF]

Well, there’s even a brighter side. Trump will get to try out Eminent Domain and make even more people happy ��

[RJ Liberty]

It doesn't work because there are so many places without a wall

No, it doesn't work because ladders, shovels, and U-Hauls exist.



and the jaguars and ocelots will just develop into separate breeds.

No, they won't. There are now just two known jaguars left in this state (https://www.livescience.com/62949-arizona-jaguar-killed.html). They are both male. The ocelots in Arizona are also believed to be male (https://www.hcn.org/issues/42.21/ocelots-in-arizona).

I liked going out to the Miller Wilderness, near where I live, to see the wildlife that now will not be crossing over into the US.

[Swordsmyth]

No, it doesn't work because ladders, shovels, and U-Hauls exist.
It still slows them down which would help maximize the patrols.




No, they won't. There are now just two known jaguars left in this state (https://www.livescience.com/62949-arizona-jaguar-killed.html). They are both male. The ocelots in Arizona are also believed to be male (https://www.hcn.org/issues/42.21/ocelots-in-arizona).

I liked going out to the Miller Wilderness, near where I live, to see the wildlife that now will not be crossing over into the US.
Meh. If there were that few of them it doesn't matter.

[Zippyjuan]

It still slows them down which would help maximize the patrols.




Meh. If there were that few of them it doesn't matter.

Half those in the country illegally entered legally- they came with valid visas and over-stayed (work, travel, student).

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5092c06beab8eaae7f000017-750.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1245211/images/o-BORDER-HOLES-facebook.jpg

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2513845.1453988260!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

https://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/lg/public/2015/08/13/gettyimages-173486833.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Half those in the country illegally entered legally- they came with valid visas and over-stayed (work, travel, student).

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5092c06beab8eaae7f000017-750.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1245211/images/o-BORDER-HOLES-facebook.jpg

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2513845.1453988260!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

So what?

It slows them down and we can do other things to deal with the overstays.

Note: As ever I am agnostic about the wall, I wouldn't do it if I were in charge, I would just increase patrols with the military or by growing the Border Patrol

[RJ Liberty]

Half those in the country illegally entered legally- they came with valid visas and over-stayed (work, travel, student).

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/5092c06beab8eaae7f000017-750.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1245211/images/o-BORDER-HOLES-facebook.jpg

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2513845.1453988260!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

https://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/lg/public/2015/08/13/gettyimages-173486833.jpg

Yep.

[Zippyjuan]

Way too much of that $#@! going around. When "pissing off the left" means more than what you stand for then it's not a healthy position.

Politics today is more about stopping or criticizing the other side than working together to solve problems. If one side suggests something, the other side must oppose it. No matter what.

[Zippyjuan]

So what?

It slows them down and we can do other things to deal with the overstays.

Note: As ever I am agnostic about the wall, I wouldn't do it if I were in charge, I would just increase patrols with the military or by growing the Border Patrol

How should we deal with them? Use the military as well to round up people? Government inspections/ raids of businesses to check IDs of all of their employees?

[Swordsmyth]

How should we deal with them? Use the military as well to round up people? Government inspections/ raids of businesses to check IDs of all of their employees?
:rolleyes:

There are other ways, wanted posters for instance.

[LibertyEagle]

I want the wall. In certain areas, yes. That will divert most of the crimigrants to other areas that are more easily patrolled.

I also want an end to birthright citizenship and any and all freebies to illegal aliens. Which makes sense, because as they present themselves, I want them deported.

[UWDude]

You are an illegal immigrant?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, he's the president of Mexico.

HA HA HA HA!

[RJ Liberty]

It still slows them down which would help maximize the patrols.

I've lived here (with a brief two-year exception, when I lived in Florida) since 1995. Walls don't slow them down in the least.

If you want to halt a migration, you must prevent the motivation for the migration. Building something as facile as an unmanned wall doesn't stop shit. I've had people visit me here and say stupid shit like, "Well, at least it prevents some of them coming over."

No, it does not, and the more walls are built in California and Texas, the more illegals go through Arizona (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2015/08/30/study-tighter-border-brought-az-mexican-migrants/71442296/), in areas such as mountain ranges where no wall can ever be built. I've had people tell me, "Well, the Berlin Wall worked just fine, sooo..." The Berlin Wall was built on level ground, not through mountains two miles high. The Berlin Wall was armed, with entry barred on pain of death. This wall is not, and never will be, because of optics.

We've had a wall here since 1994. You cannot extend it through the mountains, and it will never be complete. You can build a great wall through much of flat southern California, and then doom the mountain states forever.




Meh. If there were that few of them it doesn't matter.

Why? We still had seven (https://wtop.com/animals-pets/2018/06/rare-jaguar-seen-in-arizona-mountains-feared-dead/) here, and had hopes for more. Walls won't ever keep out a single human, because humans are canny, and have the ability to use tools, use vehicles, use ladders, use blowtorches and shovels, use cell phones, use social networks. The only things it will keep out are the wildlife that need to migrate through.

People who don't know this area have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Imagine me forcing you to live with some stupid shit in your neighborhood. Something you've witnessed is completely ineffective -- in fact, totally harmful -- for the past 20+ years. Then and only then will you begin to understand.

An unarmed wall won't ever stop a migrant trying to reach a better place. And this wall won't ever be armed, because even Trump wouldn't arm it. It's like expecting prisoners to not try to escape when there are no armed guards. Like expecting the Berlin Wall to stay intact when the armed guards have left.

https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc3NjU2MjE3NzI0NjM5/fall-of-the-berlin-wall.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

I've lived here (with a brief two-year exception, when I lived in Florida) since 1995. Walls don't slow them down in the least.

If you want to halt a migration, you must prevent the motivation for the migration. Building something as facile as an unmanned wall doesn't stop $#@!. I've had people visit me here and say stupid $#@! like, "Well, at least it prevents some of them coming over."

No, it does not, and the more walls are built in California and Texas, the more illegals go through Arizona (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2015/08/30/study-tighter-border-brought-az-mexican-migrants/71442296/), in areas such as mountain ranges where no wall can ever be built. I've had people tell me, "Well, the Berlin Wall worked just fine, sooo..." The Berlin Wall was built on level ground, not through mountains two miles high. The Berlin Wall was armed, with entry barred on pain of death. This wall is not, and never will be, because of optics.

We've had a wall here since 1994. You cannot extend it through the mountains, and it will never be complete. You can build a great wall through much of flat southern California, and then doom the mountain states forever.




Why? We still had seven (https://wtop.com/animals-pets/2018/06/rare-jaguar-seen-in-arizona-mountains-feared-dead/) here, and had hopes for more. Walls won't ever keep out a single human, because humans are canny, and have the ability to use tools, use vehicles, use ladders, use blowtorches and shovels, use cell phones, use social networks. The only things it will keep out are the wildlife that need to migrate through.

People who don't know this area have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Imagine me forcing you to live with some stupid $#@! in your neighborhood. Something you've witnessed is completely ineffective -- in fact, totally harmful -- for the past 20+ years. Then and only then will you begin to understand.

An unarmed wall won't ever stop a migrant trying to reach a better place. And this wall won't ever be armed, because even Trump wouldn't arm it. It's like expecting prisoners to not try to escape when there are no armed guards. Like expecting the Berlin Wall to stay intact when the armed guards have left.

https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU3ODc3NjU2MjE3NzI0NjM5/fall-of-the-berlin-wall.jpg
I too have lived in Arizona and I have always said we need more patrols on the border and I wouldn't do the wall if I got to choose but it does slow them down and help the patrols.

[RJ Liberty]

I too have lived in Arizona and I have always said we need more patrols on the border and I wouldn't do the wall if I got to choose but it does slow them down and help the patrols.

Where did you live in Arizona, SS?

It doesn't slow them down at all, and in fact causes massive wildfires like the 2011 Monument Wildfire, caused by illegals crossing over an in an area that cannot be walled.

[Swordsmyth]

Where did you live in Arizona, SS?


Casa Grande.

[RJ Liberty]

Casa Grande.

Casa Grande isn't on the border, SS. Central Arizona has plenty of problems with illegal immigration, but nothing like what you're advocating for southern Arizona. Here are pictures of my hometown during and after the Monument Fire:

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/tucson.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/fe/afe9103d-a21a-5207-9a1c-485b1043e59f/4df9908ca6c17.image.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPlKCjgNiiY/TfpjWQNmOAI/AAAAAAAAQEg/P07NM4vkfeo/s1600/0612-WEBFire%255B1%255D.jpg

https://www.nwherald.com/_internal/cimg!0/jbknehwpujtv21knh427tmsy7wcbvka

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rRGtf07tyEg/Tf-MjUVHwYI/AAAAAAAAABs/iAG5yKnI5do/s1600/Monument+Fire+1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y_HV0avCq38/Tf-Ny2z4pOI/AAAAAAAAACA/b4M5nciZ0vM/s1600/Monument+Fire+6.jpg

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/files/entryimages/061911nicksfire.png

[Swordsmyth]

Casa Grande isn't on the border, SS. Central Arizona has plenty of problems with illegal immigration, but nothing like what you're advocating for southern Arizona.

I'm not advocating for the wall.

I can't stop it or make it happen but I wouldn't build it if I was in charge of that, I'm just discussing what effects it might have, you are making good points about the fire danger etc. of the illegals using alternate routes but the alternate routes are harder and slower.

With or without the wall we need a massive increase in patrols by either the BP or the military, especially in the areas that you can't put a wall.

[acptulsa]

I'm against the wall also, but I want Trump to build it...

The whole country is up against the wall. Is it any wonder?

[Schifference]

Station shoot to kill military at the border indefinitely. Post signs stating all legal border crossings must be made at legitimate border crossings. Eventually people will want a wall.

I have been to Mexico many times and have seen Mexican police/army with assault rifles and a guy up against a wall. Looked like the guy against the wall was going to get shot.

Stop incarcerating criminals in the US. For small crimes monetary fine. For repeat offenses and serious crimes amputate a joint. Start with fingers at the knuckle.

[RJ Liberty]

I'm not advocating for the wall.You keep saying that walls slow them down. You've said it repeatedly: "a wall would be a force multiplier", "It still slows them down which would help maximize the patrols", "It slows them down". You have this idea that the wall would somehow be beneficial, by slowing down illegals crossing over.

They do not; it simply causes the migrants to choose a new route.

If there were a border wall between the US and Canada, and you were fleeing from the US, you wouldn't bother going across the area with the wall: crossing in the flat area between Manitoba and Saskatchewan wouldn't be worth it. You'd simply cross over in the mountainous area south of British Columbia or Alberta. You'd drive to an area like Rexford, Montana, walk the two miles north through the mountains, and then have your friend pick you up just north of Roosville, BC. No matter what western state you lived in, crossing over from Montana would only take more time than trying to cross from a flatter state... by a matter of hours. A wall wouldn't stop you.

A wall only makes some people feel safer. It's like TSA "security" measures: there to make people feel protected, without providing any actual protection. When the wall here was built, I supported it; but I've come to realize how foolish it is.

People are supporting this wall because they believe it will be somehow beneficial: it will "slow down the flood", or "piss off the Democrats". Walls without armed guards don't slow down the flood (they just re-route it), and pissing off Democrats is hardly worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars.



With or without the wall we need a massive increase in patrols by either the BP or the military, especially in the areas that you can't put a wall.

We already had a massive increase in BP agents: under the Bush and Obama administrations, the number of BP agents went from 9,000 to 17,000, and the Border Patrol budget went from $1 billion to $3.6 billion (https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/).

[RJ Liberty]

Station shoot to kill military at the border indefinitely. Post signs stating all legal border crossings must be made at legitimate border crossings. Eventually people will want a wall.

A shoot-to-kill border will never happen. Not under even a Republican president.

[Swordsmyth]

We already had a massive increase in BP agents: under the Bush and Obama administrations, the number of BP agents went from 9,000 to 17,000, and the Border Patrol budget went from $1 billion to $3.6 billion (https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/).
And we need to either use the military or cut the military budget to have an even more massive increase in patrols along the border.

[Swordsmyth]

A shoot-to-kill border will never happen. Not under even a Republican president.
Stranger things have happened.

[RJ Liberty]

And we need to either use the military or cut the military budget to have an even more massive increase in patrols along the border.

"Using the military" only means an increase in current military expenditures, which are already out of control: $681 billion.

When has an increase in the Border Patrol budget led to a decrease in military spending? That doesn't happen.



Stranger things have happened.

Be serious. The optics of armed guards shooting at unarmed women and children would cause a huge outcry, and rightly so.

No, the route to take is to eliminate the motivation for illegal aliens to come here in the first place. A comprehensive reform, removing everything from free-ride scholarships for border crossers, to welfare assistance for non-citizens, needs to be performed. Eliminate the motivation and then you never have to worry about armed conflict.

[Swordsmyth]

"Using the military" only means an increase in current military expenditures, which are already out of control: $681 billion.
Not if we withdraw them from places they don't belong.


When has an increase in the Border Patrol budget led to a decrease in military spending? That doesn't happen.
It could, I'm not saying that it is likely, I'm saying it should happen.




Be serious. The optics of armed guards shooting at unarmed women and children would cause a huge outcry, and rightly so.

No, the route to take is to eliminate the motivation for illegal aliens to come here in the first place. A comprehensive reform, removing everything from free-ride scholarships for border crossers, to welfare assistance for non-citizens, needs to be performed. Eliminate the motivation and then you never have to worry about armed conflict.
Eliminating the motivation as much as possible is good but it isn't likely to happen and we may be forced to take drastic measures before it can happen, these caravans are a test, if they are allowed across the border then many more will follow and the border will lose all meaning, they must be stopped at all costs and Trump knows it, if he allows them in he can kiss a 2nd term goodbye right now.

As has been discussed in another thread it is possible to start with less-lethal deterrents in the hope that those would work.