They are supposed to be "beautiful" and the border patrol says they would prefer something they can see through to the other side. That pretty much rules out most of them. Walls don't stop people from going over, under, and around them.
There was a government report a few years ago that concluded that internal border patrol checkpoints are ineffective. They concluded that checkpoints at the actual border always work better. I summarized and commented on that report. My comment is below.
“The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
--Richard Stana, General Accountability Office
A recent government report entitled Border Patrol http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of Border Patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal non-border] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”
The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal non-border checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal non-border checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal non-border checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.
The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal non-border checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal non-border checkpoints was only 8.
The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”
The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal non-border checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”
Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”
The permanent, internal non-border checkpoint proposed for the Tucson Arizona sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal
checkpoints do not work.
This all leads back to the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” This statement alone attests to the glaring inefficiency, waste, and intrusion that is the United States federal government.
Originally Posted by TheCount
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
I used to correspond with a guy named Terry Bressi in Arizona. He eventually won a $210,000 settlement, which was the result of the border guards harassing him at an internal roadblock (checkpoint). He encountered these jokers dozens of times on his way to work at the Kitt Observatory.
They still harassed him after he got the settlement, but that did not keep Terry from giving them a taste of their own medicine. This 3 minute video shows Terry schooling the rookie border guard. Watch how she gets flustered when Terry asserts his rights.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Off topic here...
I've seen this image before but I don't get the 100 miles going into Indiana. Lake Michigan has no international waters, it's entirely within the US. So I don't get the 100 miles from there into Indiana, or Chicago for that matter.
“…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned
BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq
Yeah, I also noticed that. I don't think it's a hard and fast representation. I could be wrong, but always thought the 100 mile figure was an arbitrary number. Maybe done by the border guards or the ACLU itself. Maybe I will research it again (it's been awhile). Anybody know off the top of their head?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Most immigration is coming from Asia- not Latin America. If fighting immigration is the goal, they want to build the wall in the wrong place. It also won't stop smugglers. They are already going over, under, and around the sections of wall which are already built. It is a waste of taxpayer money.
This is a one minute video that is really funny:
Border guard at road block: Are you a US citizen?
Passenger: Are YOU an American citizen?
Border guard: Yes sir!
Passenger: Do you have an ID on you?
****
Passenger: Where you been today?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
I found this:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/o...ep-5660862.php
More at link.Beware, that 'border' is actually 100 miles deep
SAN ANTONIO — You should know your rights at or near the international border with Mexico.
Mostly, you should know that you have fewer of them at the border and in a 100-mile-deep sweet spot that constitutes the Border Patrol's “border.” This, it turns out, includes swaths along the Mexican and Canadian borders, around the Great Lakes and along both coasts, containing 197.4 million people or 62.8 percent of the U.S. population.
The American Civil Liberties Union and others call this the “Constitution Free Zone.” I don't think that's quite right. A Constitution-lite zone is more like it. Not just for undocumented immigrants, but for U.S. citizens and legal residents as well.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 permits all this.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6516742They are supposed to be "beautiful" and the border patrol says they would prefer something they can see through to the other side. That pretty much rules out most of them. Walls don't stop people from going over, under, and around them.
Coyotes will always adapt, whatever we do at the border. Surest way to curb illegal immigration is ending the War on Drugs, so they can recover if they choose (and I think they would). Until then, Mexico and other central American countries will continue their slide to hell, leaving people with fewer liberties to gain wealth in their own communities. They might as well lighten their families' burdens by burdening the people who allow their State to plunder it's neighbors.
Border guard: Where you guys coming from?
Passenger: Where YOU comin' from?
****
Border guard: Get out of here. Go!
Passenger: I'm an illegal! Are you illegal?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...y-useless.html
Says the wall is not libertarian.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.”
Video at link.
http://nation.foxnews.com/ron-paul/2...e-used-keep-us
Ron Paul: Border Fence Will Be Used To 'Keep Us In'
Rep. Ron Paul has a problem with the idea of a U.S. border fence.
“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border,” the congressman noted. “A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don’t believe that is what America is all about.”
“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201
Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-13-2017 at 03:24 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us