Much as I hate the Trumpster, I have to admit this is a very good idea!

I just don't see a practical reason to build a physical wall... it simply isn't necessary.

A zone of a few hundred yards with ground penetrating sensors and drone air coverage is much cheaper and much more effective in my opinion. A virtual wall. I bet army engineers could set this up in a few months.

The wall's still an ineffective and ridiculous waste of money, but, yeah, if there was one, might as well put solar panels on it. Couldn't hurt. And, since it's already going to be an obstructing eyesore anyway, might as well put wind turbines on it, too. At least in any areas where that'd be worth doing... I'm not sure how windy the desert is.

Solar panels without the wall would be even better, though -- pure profit without the cost of the pointless barrier.

Remember the Secure Border Initiative (SBINet)? Depending on the source it was a 3 billion dollar failure. An electronic fence that was supposed to be a force multiplier for the Border Patrol. Doesn't work....a static wall won't work....If the country is serious about controlling access (I worry more about smuggling of weapons and drugs than people) the only realistic solution is expansion of the Border Patrol.

gatorfan wrote:Remember the Secure Border Initiative (SBINet)? Depending on the source it was a 3 billion dollar failure. An electronic fence that was supposed to be a force multiplier for the Border Patrol. Doesn't work....a static wall won't work....If the country is serious about controlling access (I worry more about smuggling of weapons and drugs than people) the only realistic solution is expansion of the Border Patrol.

Expand the Border Patrol? Oh, yeah, that's a great idea.

66 Percent of Americans Now Live in a Constitution-Free Zone

Thanks to the militarization and expansion of the “border” region, 197 million Americans now live within the jurisdiction of US Customs and Border Patrol.
https://www.thenation.com/article/66-percent-americans-now-live-constitution-free-zone/




Given that over two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an external boundary, the ACLU and others argue that the 100-mile distance—coupled with the expanded mandates afforded to immigration officers as part of the “wars” on drugs and terrorism—creates “border zones” where ordinary American citizens could be caught up in warrantless searches and interrogations with no legal recourse.
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-long-history-of-americas-constitutionallychallenged-border-zones

Why don't we just turn the whole goddamn country over to the CBP thugs?

del.capslock wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Remember the Secure Border Initiative (SBINet)? Depending on the source it was a 3 billion dollar failure. An electronic fence that was supposed to be a force multiplier for the Border Patrol. Doesn't work....a static wall won't work....If the country is serious about controlling access (I worry more about smuggling of weapons and drugs than people) the only realistic solution is expansion of the Border Patrol.

Expand the Border Patrol? Oh, yeah, that's a great idea.


Thanks to the militarization and expansion of the “border” region, 197 million Americans now live within the jurisdiction of US Customs and Border Patrol.[/color]
https://www.thenation.com/article/66-percent-americans-now-live-constitution-free-zone/


Given that over two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an external boundary, the ACLU and others argue that the 100-mile distance—coupled with the expanded mandates afforded to immigration officers as part of the “wars” on drugs and terrorism—creates “border zones” where ordinary American citizens could be caught up in warrantless searches and interrogations with no legal recourse.
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-long-history-of-americas-constitutionallychallenged-border-zones

Why don't we just turn the whole goddamn country over to the CBP thugs?

I'm not a "scaredy cat" when it comes to enforcing the law.......as you well know your source "The Nation" is decidedly far left and not a good source for objective thinkers. The article you cited is pure histrionics. How amusing......

gatorfan wrote:

as you well know your source "The Nation" is decidedly far left and not a good source for objective thinkers.

By the time Trump gets done fucking things up, "The Nation" is going to seem mainstream. Welcome to the future.

Or look at the contemporary state of the leftists in the USA... where do you have to go but up?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration-border/

ARGUMENT

Donald Trump’s Mexican Border Wall Is a Moronic Idea

The data show that fences don’t keep migrants out — they just keep them from going home

BY DOUGLAS MASSEY Douglas Massey is the Henry G. Bryant professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University and co-director of the Mexican Migration Project.

AUGUST 18, 2015

epublican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recently released proposal for immigration reform is simple: build a wall along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and make Mexico pay for it. Setting aside the issue of how the United States might make Mexico pay for a blatant monument to anti-Mexican sentiment, the idea is flat-out moronic, to use one of The Donald’s favorite adjectives, like asking the Mongolians to pay for the Great Wall of China.

In the first place, it’s not as if the border is undefended. The United States spends $3.7 billion per year to keep around 21,000 Border Patrol agents in the field, and another $3.2 billion on 23,000 inspectors at ports of entry along the border, a third of which has already been walled or fenced off. It is perhaps the most patrolled and highly defended border anywhere in the world, at least for two closely connected countries at peace with one another. Judging from the border, you’d never know Mexico was a friendly nation linked to the United States by a treaty agreement worth over half a trillion dollars in annual trade.

But a plan for more walls to further enhance border enforcement is moronic not only because it is expensive. Abundant evidence also shows that money spent on border enforcement is worse than useless — it’s counterproductive. Abundant evidence also shows that money spent on border enforcement is worse than useless — it’s counterproductive. For most of the 20th century, migration from Mexico was heavily circular, with male migrants moving back and forth across the border to earn money in the United States and then returning to Mexico to spend and invest at home. From 1965 to 1985, estimates indicate that 86 percent of undocumented entries were offset by departures, and the undocumented population grew slowly, rising to just under 3 million over two decades.

In 1986, however, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which kicked off a decades-long process of border militarization. It was passed during the Cold War, when President Ronald Reagan warned Americans that “terrorists and subversives” south of the border were “just two days’ driving time from Harlingen, Texas” and when his task force on terrorism stated that communist agents were ready to “feed on the anger and frustration of recent Central and South American immigrants who will not realize their own version of the American dream.”

Enforcement was further buttressed by the launching of Operation Blockade in El Paso, Texas, in 1993 and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, California, in 1994. These operations, led by the U.S. Border Patrol, erected a literal wall of enforcement resources at the two busiest U.S.-Mexico border crossings. They also diverted migratory flows away from these regions, through the Sonoran Desert, and into Arizona. This diversion greatly increased the costs and risks of undocumented border crossing: Since 1986, more than 7,000 migrants have died along the border, and the average cost of crossing has risen from $600 to $4,500, according to estimates from the Mexican Migration Project, which I co-direct.

Although the intent of border enforcement was to discourage migrants from coming to the United States, in practice it backfired, instead discouraging them from returning home to Mexico. Having experienced the risks and having paid the costs of gaining entry, undocumented men increasingly hunkered down and stayed in the United States, rather than circulating back to face the gantlet once more. As a result, the rate of return migration began to fall after 1986 and accelerated with the launching of the border operations in 1993 and 1994.

Because net migration equals the difference between those entering and leaving the United States, the falling rate of return produced a huge increase in the net volume of undocumented migration. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, in other words, the United States spent billions of dollars, only to double the rate of undocumented population growth. Not only that, but Operation Gatekeeper’s diversion of migrants away from California and into Arizona prompted them to continue onward to new destinations throughout the United States. Census data indicate that two-thirds of Mexican migrants who arrived between 1985 and 1990 went to California; by the 1995-to-2000 time period, that share had fallen to just one third, where it has since remained. Led by Mexicans, but also by Central Americans, the fastest-growing Latino populations are now in places like Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa — not California.

In addition, as male migrants spent more time north of the border, they were increasingly joined by their wives and children. And then they started making babies. At present, almost 80 percent of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens. In the end, the militarization of the border transformed what had been a circular flow of workers going overwhelmingly to just three states — California, Texas, and Illinois — into a much larger settled population of families living across all 50 U.S. states — not a good outcome for a policy whose goal was the limitation and control of immigration.

Doubling down on a failed policy of border militarization by adding more fences and walls is not only moronic because it would continue, at great cost, a demonstrably counterproductive strategy for restricting immigration — but it is also senseless because net undocumented migration from Mexico has stopped. Trump appears not to have received the memo. By the Department of Homeland Security’s own estimates, the total undocumented population peaked at 12 million in 2008, fell by a million by 2009, and since then has fluctuated around 11 million people.

Although the Great Recession may have been responsible for the sharp drop in 2008, undocumented Mexican migration had actually begun to decline around 2000 — not because of rising border enforcement, but because of Mexico’s demographic transition. Whereas the total fertility rate stood at 7.2 children per woman in 1965, by 2000 the Mexican fertility rate had fallen to 2.4; today, it stands at 2.3 children per woman, just above replacement level, yielding much less demographic pressure for migration to the United States.

The huge cohorts of Mexicans born in the 1960s were mainly responsible for the large number of undocumented migrants entering the United States during the 1980s, but the small cohorts born since 2000 have produced declining rates of labor force growth in Mexico, which has become an aging society. Migration follows a characteristic age pattern that rises in the teens, peaks in the early 20s, and falls to near zero by age 30. If people don’t migrate within that age range, they are very unlikely to make the journey later. What this means: The average age of Mexicans at risk of initiating undocumented migration has now pushed past the upper limit.

Although improving economic conditions would have, by now, led to a return of undocumented migrants if historical patterns still prevailed, this simply hasn’t happened. Instead, the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest point since 1973. And in 2014, for the first time, a majority of those caught were Central Americans — not Mexicans — who have long been a small part of the undocumented inflow, and amounted to little more than a rounding error when Mexican apprehensions were regularly exceeding 1 million per year. Fertility rates are also dropping rapidly in Central America. Given current demographic realities south of the border, where 85 percent of undocumented migrants originate, a return to the 1980s and 1990s is extremely unlikely.

While net undocumented migration from Mexico may have ceased, legal immigration continues apace.

While net undocumented migration from Mexico may have ceased, legal immigration continues apace. Over the past 10 years, the United States experienced 1.6 million entries by legal immigrants and 3.9 million entries by temporary workers from Mexico. These migrants increasingly circulate back and forth in response to changing conditions and opportunities in each country, while undocumented migrants are paradoxically the ones who are trapped north of the border, unable to return to Mexico for fear of not being able to return to family, friends, and lives in the north. Rather than attempting to repress migration that occurs as a natural consequence of ongoing economic integration in North America, a more reasonable policy would be to bring the flows aboveboard and manage them in ways that benefit both countries, while protecting the rights of citizens on both sides of the border.

The United States already has a sizable guest-worker program and supports a legal framework that allows for significant legal immigration from Mexico each year. And with net undocumented migration at zero, the border is as under control as it’s ever going to be. The only task remaining is finding a pathway to legal status for 11 million undocumented residents of the United States, giving them the freedom to come and go as they please and build a better life wherever they choose.

With few undocumented migrants entering and those already in the United States legalized, the problem of undocumented migration would be solved. This might be an unwelcome development for politicians who have grown used to using illegal migration as a sop to mobilize voters. But the reality is that undocumented migration has ended and won’t be coming back. Spending billions of dollars more on border enforcement to solve a problem that no longer exists is, umm, what’s the right word? Moronic.

***************

I really like the idea of drones. I remember when Bill Gates was talking about fixed balloons to set up internet connections over a wide geographic area. When I have crossed the border, I get checked at the border, and anywhere from thirty to sixty miles checked again. I look at it like painting. The probability of covering every inch in one coat is difficult, but multiple layers of sensors and virtual camera coverage on multiple defense lines, does not require physical barriers. I have no problems with walls if they work. They rarely do, and they send a horrible message of exclusion. I think for three billion you could set up three virtual walls of 100% coverage over a three mile area and could write incredible software which could crunch the data and give incredible guidance for border patrol. There are some constitutional issues with native American Land any way, and the drones and balloons would give incredible coverage. I think President Trump should quit arguing about building a wall, and simply work for the most cost efficient method to secure our borders. This also could be applied to our Northern Border where I have crossed over to Canada and back many times in a canoe and NOBODY was within ten miles of my crossing. However a series of drones on the Northern border to me is far more a priority than the Mexican border. Our Northern border is wide open.

I grew up about 200 miles from Matamoros. There were two border checkpoints between my town and the actual border checkpoint. The border patrol were always courteous and really not very interested in anyone going TO Mexico...just in what was coming back. I loved Mexico and traveled way beyond the border, as did my (at the time) in-laws. My MIL taught gifted English, but she was also an artist and liked to incorporate Hispanic culture into her classes...and into her art. The people, the language, the food, the art, and even the Catholic religion...I had all this in common with the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans I grew up with. I can't imagine Texas without Hispanic culture. I can't at this point even imagine a United States without some kind of Hispanic influence. Even Pensacola celebrates Don Tristan De Luna, who was apparently a real loser in the history books. What I'm getting at...and I have plenty more to say on this subject...is that a wall
at the Mexican border is a horrible idea. HORRIBLE AND DISGUSTING!!!

I recently read an account of a South Texas family whose property had been divided by Bush's Mexican wall. To this day, so far as I know, they have been forced to cross an artificial gate to access the rest of their ranch. It's not just the Mexicans who are enduring harassment by these "walls"; it's American citizens. No GOP politician will tell the truth about this idiotic proposal; they're standing with their madman. And there are plenty of parallels to the previous Republican administration, that of George W Bush the lesser.

I love the Mexican culture and people too. I always felt welcome in my friends homes... and they have an amazing family bond. Of course... those aren't the problem... not even if they come here illegally really. I'd try anything to escape the poverty and corrupt govt. The real issues are that those poor people are victimized and some even trafficked by extremely terrible criminal cartels (yes the same ones that Obama and holder were arming with assault rifles). That criminal element needs to be shut down. Further ease our immigration policies if you like... but the border needs to be secured.

The illegal immigration has declined. Why "fix" a problem that doesn't exist? There's only one answer to that...for partisan purposes, and it's absolutely clear in Trump's case...that he exploited an irrational fear.

What's being exploited are the poor by criminal cartels... and they suffer this due to your legal malaise.

PkrBum wrote:... but the border needs to be secured.

You're damn right, otherwise Mexico might want to take the Great Southwest back since we stole it with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago:



You dumb shit, you have the historical perspective of a Mayfly.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Or look at the contemporary state of the leftists in the USA... where do you have to go but up?

Consider your conservatives -- the ones who want to end health insurance for 23 million people.  The ones who are working hard to destroy the EPA, and virtually all environmental agencies.  The ones who are working to rescue the coal industry.  The ones working to give big investment houses and banks freedom of any sort of regulation that protects their customers. The ones rooting for the end of investigations into Russias' interference with our recent elections. Etc. Etc. Etc.  

Reality. LOL

Not reality... propaganda. Although I'd like them to go further cutting central command and control.

And cut the military... then you'd know for sure that trump is anti-establishment.

You're just parroting the dnc talkingpoints.

The Fate of the Conquered

The struggle for the ownership of the land in the stolen territories did not end with the conclusion of the war. Although the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized the legitimacy of Spanish and Mexican land grants and offered the Mexican inhabitants in the ceded territories American citizenship, the influx of land-hungry and ruthless whites resulted in widespread oppression that sparked mass exile and repatriation. The exile of Mexican citizens from Texas that began after the Anglo takeover of 1836 intensified after the war in 1848. Besieged refugees abandoned their farms and ranches and moved across the Rio Grande to the old Mexican towns of Paso del Norte, Guerrero, Mier, Camargo, Reynosa, and Matamoros and established the new towns of Nuevo Laredo, Mesilla, and Guadalupe.

The Spanish-speaking population fared no better in post-war California. Descendents of the original Spanish settlers, known as Californios, faced problems similar to those of their compatriots in Texas and additional pressure from the gold rush of 1849 which attracted over 100,000 newcomers to the territory, including more than 80,000 whites from the U.S., 8,000 Mexicans from the state of Sonora, and 5,000 South Americans, mostly miners from Chile.

Much trouble in the goldfields of California stemmed from the fact that both the Sonorans and the Chileans were better miners than the whites and became targets of resentment and persecution. The Foreign Miners' Tax Law of 1850, passed by the California legislature, required foreigners to buy mining permits for $20 a month (a huge sum of money in those days). The legislation was intended to make the Mexicans and Chileans abandon their claims and reduce them to the status of wage laborers. The law, however, proved to be unenforceable and the work of disenfranchisement had to be completed by white lynch mobs and gangs of gunmen. Several of the local and regional leaders of these gangs knew how to get the job done -- they had been Rangers in Texas before joining the California gold rush.

Anglos in California denounced the Mexicans who fought back as bandits. The intensity of the conflict is reflected in the legend of the bandit Joaquín Murieta, who created havoc in the Anglo community as revenge for the murder of his wife and brother and theft of his gold mine by Anglo claim jumpers. Whether or not Joaquín Murieta actually existed is not important -- the historical cases of Juan Flores and Tiburcio Vásquez, bandidos caught and hanged by white vigilantes, are testimony to the desperation and rage of the dispossessed Mexicans in California.

In the end, most Chileans and many Mexicans were repatriated. The Mexican population that stayed in California, followed by their descendants and succeeding generations of immigrants from the South, provided the labor power to develop the state¹s wealth much as their compatriots in Texas did.

At first, the future of the Mexican population in the territory of New Mexico looked bright. Numerical superiority, representational government, and the rights guaranteed in The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo initially offered them the possibility to hold on to their land, but ultimately the Anglo ranchers, land speculators, and eastern and foreign capitalists won out. After two decades of land wars and lawsuits, most native New Mexicans, like their compatriots in Texas and California, found themselves displaced and landless.

http://www.houstonculture.org/hispanic/conquest4.html

Do you think that history of conquest particularly unique?

Mexicans in the now occupied lands were to be protected under the laws of the United States and the Treaty.  They retained the right to their language, religion, and culture.  Their property and land was protected by the law.  As for citizenship, they were offered one of three options: 1) declare their intent to retain Mexican citizenship; 2) leave to Mexico; or 3) become U.S. citizens by declaration or by doing nothing.

This was the first time in U.S. history that citizenship was extended to a population that was not formally recognized as “white” by the federal government.

Two generations later, most Mexicans living in the U.S. no longer held title to their lands and found their cultural way of life increasingly under attack as U.S. white supremacy came to predominate.  In California, as land transferred from Mexican to Euro-American hands, a very racially-motivated Workingman’s Party dominated the call for a Constitutional Convention.  In 1879, that new Constitution not only made Chinese immigration illegal (the primary cause of the Party), but it also destroyed the legal protections Mexicans once enjoyed, rights promised to them in the 1848 Treaty.  California once required Spanish and English as the languages of it official business.  Now the new Constitution followed the already common practice of an English language state.

The “nation of laws” violated international and domestic laws in order to secure a democracy for some (white, European, male) at the expense of others (Mexican and nonwhite).
https://latinolikeme.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/mexican-after-the-u-s-mexican-war/

Nothing is unique to Russian attempts of interference in the last election. Nothing.

Try not to be so triggered by leftist ruling elite and complicit media talkingpoints and propaganda.

It can't be good for you.