Border Troops Making A Difference

[zeb1094]

BORDER TROOPS MAKING A DIFFERENCE

According to U.S. and Mexican officials, the arrival of the National Guard troops on the border have already started having an effect. That didn't take long, did it? The results have been immediate: illegal border crossings are off 21% in the first 10 days of June, year over year. Imagine just how far down that number is going to go once all the troops get down there!

Isn't it amazing that while the House and the Senate debate to death the issue of what to do about illegal aliens, we're finally getting results. And all it is taking is all that it ever took: the federal government living up to its responsibility to actually secure the border. Imagine if the Feds built a 2,000 mile long wall? You know, a real wall...one that people couldn't jump over. Imagine if the number of border patrol agents was doubled. We're never going to eliminate illegal aliens entirely...but we can surely reduce it.

However, while you and I might think this good news, politicians are sure to be alarmed. Less illegal aliens means less votes, particularly for the Democratic party who wants to buy their support with government benefits. And Mexico is going to be none too happy as well. They depend on the border jumpers for billions in hard currency sent back home.

Still though...a 21% drop? We'll take it.

 

[neonlyte]

So that's 6,000 troops (according to the news report - see I read it!) + another say 3000 on rotation, because you can't keep them permenantly on patrol. What as a trooper cost these days? Salary, Training, Command Structure, Support, Uniform, Encampment, Food, must be 150k per year. Say 1 billion $ per year tops. And they are stopping 9000 per day, most of whom are repeat offenders (from other reports - upto 90%). Let's call it an actual 1000 per day, 365000 per year at a cost of 3000$ each.

Who's paying? The other 9.8million per year they don't catch?

Build a wall - you know it makes sense.

 

[zeb1094]

So that's 6,000 troops (according to the news report - see I read it!) + another say 3000 on rotation, because you can't keep them permenantly on patrol. What as a trooper cost these days? Salary, Training, Command Structure, Support, Uniform, Encampment, Food, must be 150k per year. Say 1 billion $ per year tops. And they are stopping 9000 per day, most of whom are repeat offenders (from other reports - upto 90%). Let's call it an actual 1000 per day, 365000 per year at a cost of 3000$ each.

Who's paying? The other 9.8million per year they don't catch?

Build a wall - you know it makes sense.

The cost would be the same for the Guard troopers, which are already trained, or a fully trained Border Patrol Agent. I don't quite see your point.

 

[Liar]

Build a wall - you know it makes sense.

I think a moat would be cool. Filled with sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads. *cue evil laugh*

 

[zeb1094]

I think a moat would be cool. Filled with sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads.

Ok, the Sci-Fi thread is...well I don't know but you may want to start one!

 

[neonlyte]

The cost would be the same for the Guard troopers, which are already trained, or a fully trained Border Patrol Agent. I don't quite see your point.

The point is... the US cannot solve the problem. It requires a radical workable solution. The US needs to integrate vertically (in geographic terms) and not horizontally. There are huge underdeveloped markets in Latin America and South America. By helping to reshape those economies you create more employment, more trade and less desire to slip over the border.

But I do like the moat idea.

 

[zeb1094]

The point is... the US cannot solve the problem. It requires a radical workable solution. The US needs to integrate vertically (in geographic terms) and not horizontally. There are huge underdeveloped markets in Latin America and South America. By helping to reshape those economies you create more employment, more trade and less desire to slip over the border.

But I do like the moat idea.

Unfortunatly, the corrupt government south of the board does not wish to create the jobs in their own country. They(those in power) only wish to keep getting richer. A radical change is needed. It will consist of many steps.

Step 1. Secure the border.
Step 2. Fine, hugh fines, for business that hire illegal workres.
Step 3. A guest worker program, where tamperproof ID's are issued. And they are only issued in the workers country of origin.
Step 4. Certified guest worker agencies are set up. Guest workers can only get employment through these agencies. The guest worker is not paid directly by the employer but by the agency.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

The point is... the US cannot solve the problem. It requires a radical workable solution. The US needs to integrate vertically (in geographic terms) and not horizontally. There are huge underdeveloped markets in Latin America and South America. By helping to reshape those economies you create more employment, more trade and less desire to slip over the border.

But I do like the moat idea.

Yep. That's the ticket. Some are quick to give up because the Mexican government seems uninterested, and why shouldn't they? We've been screwing them for our gain for as long as we've been here. I have a hunch, however, that if the U.S. made a real effort (akin to the one we've made in the Middle East over the last 20 years) that the mere dollar signs and potential for true change benefiting all participants would perk up the Mexican government's ears more than a little.

Sadly, it won't happen. We've looked down our noses so long at Mexico that it'd take a serious miracle to recognize them as an independent nation worth making allies with and worth investing in as a neighbor.

 

[3113]

The cost would be the same for the Guard troopers, which are already trained, or a fully trained Border Patrol Agent. I don't quite see your point.

And I don't quite get your point. That more troops at the border are keeping more illegals out?

You seem to have missed the point. People said: "George, there's a leak in the dam!" And he said, "Well, I'll just have a national guard stick his finger in it." And they said, "George--more troops may or may not sove the illegal immigration problem, but our concern is the use of National Guard to do this. What if there's a state emergency? We need those national guards to be there, ready to help out in flood, earthquake, fire, riot! Please don't take them away to put their fingers in the dam."

And a lot of people, including Gov. Arnold said, "Instead of removing these guards from their real purpose, to be there for us in an emergency, why not just allocate the money to a bigger and better trained boarder patrol--with better technology and such?"

And George said, "No, I like my idea!" So, there's the national guard with his finger in the dam. And you're boasting and strutting and saying, "See! It worked! There's less of a leak!"

Well, duh. I don't know who you read who argued that more troops on the boarder wouldn't make a difference. Stupid liberal that I am, I *knew* it would make a difference. But a real patrol doesn't rotate and a real patrol leaves the national guard there to take care of cities in an emergency. So, given that we're paying out for it anyway, why not use the money for a better, bigger, more technologically sophistocated patrol instead of using the national guard?

THAT is the argument--and so far as *I* know, it's the primary argument against putting national guard at the border. Now whether this plugging the dam with a finger is the best way to solve all those leaks is another question. But really, telling us that there's less of a leak...this is news?

 

[zeb1094]

And I don't quite get your point. That more troops at the border are keeping more illegals out?

You seem to have missed the point. People said: "George, there's a leak in the dam!" And he said, "Well, I'll just have a national guard stick his finger in it." And they said, "George--more troops may or may not sove the illegal immigration problem, but our concern is the use of National Guard to do this. What if there's a state emergency? We need those national guards to be there, ready to help out in flood, earthquake, fire, riot! Please don't take them away to put their fingers in the dam."

And a lot of people, including Gov. Arnold said, "Instead of removing these guards from their real purpose, to be there for us in an emergency, why not just allocate the money to a bigger and better trained boarder patrol--with better technology and such?"

And George said, "No, I like my idea!" So, there's the national guard with his finger in the dam. And you're boasting and strutting and saying, "See! It worked! There's less of a leak!"

Well, duh. I don't know who you read who argued that more troops on the boarder wouldn't make a difference. Stupid liberal that I am, I *knew* it would make a difference. But a real patrol doesn't rotate and a real patrol leaves the national guard there to take care of cities in an emergency. So, given that we're paying out for it anyway, why not use the money for a better, bigger, more technologically sophistocated patrol instead of using the national guard?

THAT is the argument--and so far as *I* know, it's the primary argument against putting national guard at the border. Now whether this plugging the dam with a finger is the best way to solve all those leaks is another question. But really, telling us that there's less of a leak...this is news?

I never said George was smart...

I was just quoting the fact that the crossing of the boarder by illegals was down by 21%.

And I believe the National Guard has more than 9.000 troops in it.

And why not use them to secure our borders, that's what the Armed Forces are for, to stop invasions of our country.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think a moat would be cool. Filled with sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads. *cue evil laugh*

Nah, army of nuclear-powered attack gnus. With their bioengineered shark teeth they will devastate the ninja Mexicans and their secret powers of teleportation. It's the only way.



Seriously, I think we'd have less illegals if getting legal citizenship wasn't like a combination of pulling teeth from a rabid shark and a weird slavery/indentured servant combo. How many legal friends do we have you have spent in excess of twenty years getting citizenship despite pretty much growing up in the country? Knowing our civics better than we do? I understand the racial and economic reasons for not doing it, but that's the reason we have an illegal problem. If the legal route were viable, if there wasn't a strong economic impetus, if we simply cracked down and begun prosecuting any business that hired an illegal for any job, the problem would end. We don't want it to end. We like having people we can abuse doing our shit jobs.

 

[zeb1094]

Nah, army of nuclear-powered attack gnus. With their bioengineered shark teeth they will devastate the ninja Mexicans and their secret powers of teleportation. It's the only way.



Seriously, I think we'd have less illegals if getting legal citizenship wasn't like a combination of pulling teeth from a rabid shark and a weird slavery/indentured servant combo. How many legal friends do we have you have spent in excess of twenty years getting citizenship despite pretty much growing up in the country? Knowing our civics better than we do? I understand the racial and economic reasons for not doing it, but that's the reason we have an illegal problem. If the legal route were viable, if there wasn't a strong economic impetus, if we simply cracked down and begun prosecuting any business that hired an illegal for any job, the problem would end. We don't want it to end. We like having people we can abuse doing our shit jobs.

I think I suggested that?

 

[Guest]

Some predict that after the November elections, the Guard's presence at the borders will be reduced, if not altogether eliminated.

Let's take a look at this again, in say March 2007.

 

[Antfarmer77]

"There are huge underdeveloped markets in Latin America and South America. By helping to reshape those economies you create more employment, more trade and less desire to slip over the border." The only problem I see with this ( and I do like the idea BTW) is the predictable "Oh the mean US is trying take over the world again and this time they're exploiting those poor Central Americans" attitude.

But I do like the moat idea.[/QUOTE]
This made me spit beer outta my nose!

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

The point is... the US cannot solve the problem. It requires a radical workable solution. The US needs to integrate vertically (in geographic terms) and not horizontally. There are huge underdeveloped markets in Latin America and South America. By helping to reshape those economies you create more employment, more trade and less desire to slip over the border.

But I do like the moat idea.

It sounds like you are suggesting the US should invade Latin American nations and impose our customs and values on them. Even if I thought it would work, which I don't, it sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me.

 

[zeb1094]

It sounds like you are suggesting the US should invade Latin American nations and impose our customs and values on them. Even if I thought it would work, which I don't, it sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me.

That would be wrong! We need to solve the problem from our side of the border.

 

[neonlyte]

It sounds like you are suggesting the US should invade Latin American nations and impose our customs and values on them. Even if I thought it would work, which I don't, it sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me.

No. I was not suggesting that.

 

[JamesSD]

However, while you and I might think this good news, politicians are sure to be alarmed. Less illegal aliens means less votes, particularly for the Democratic party who wants to buy their support with government benefits.

You do know that you have to be a citizen to register to vote, right?

Immigration isn't a strict Left Wing-Right Wing issue. Bush and his big buisiness buddies need that cheap labor to pad profits and stock prices. I don't imagine many unions (who vote HEAVILY Democrat) favor a loose immigration policy. It's a delicate issue that taking an extremist standpoint on would likely lose a candidate more votes than it wins (except in certain parts of the country).

Personally I'm torn. I'm just hoping we'll pay for it by cutting back on the war in Iraq.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Some predict that after the November elections, the Guard's presence at the borders will be reduced, if not altogether eliminated.

Let's take a look at this again, in say March 2007.

Hurricane season is upon us.

Pat Robertson says the God told him that there would be weather this year.

I say look for the Guard presence to be reduced shortly...
Or, alternatively, look for new national scandal as they are prevented from doing their stated duty- helping in emergencies- by this unacceptable assignment.

 

[cantdog]

One method of fishing involves a moving boat. It goes like this. You drag baited hooks or other lures through the water, and wait for it to come to the fish's attention. Once they've bit you reel 'em in.

They call it trolling.

This is a lot like what zeb has been doing in several threads. He doesn't defend his posts, because they do not count as posts, really; they are bait.

You are biting the troll's bait.

The only way to discourage this is to stop biting.


I'll let you fill in the conclusion of the sorites for yourself, but I advise just ignoring the bait. Seriously.

 

[zeb1094]

One method of fishing involves a moving boat. It goes like this. You drag baited hooks or other lures through the water, and wait for it to come to the fish's attention. Once they've bit you reel 'em in.

They call it trolling.

This is a lot like what zeb has been doing in several threads. He doesn't defend his posts, because they do not count as posts, really; they are bait.

You are biting the troll's bait.

The only way to discourage this is to stop biting.


I'll let you fill in the conclusion of the sorites for yourself, but I advise just ignoring the bait. Seriously.

Here we go again, the fucking fishing story.

 

[zeb1094]

You do know that you have to be a citizen to register to vote, right?

Immigration isn't a strict Left Wing-Right Wing issue. Bush and his big buisiness buddies need that cheap labor to pad profits and stock prices. I don't imagine many unions (who vote HEAVILY Democrat) favor a loose immigration policy. It's a delicate issue that taking an extremist standpoint on would likely lose a candidate more votes than it wins (except in certain parts of the country).

Personally I'm torn. I'm just hoping we'll pay for it by cutting back on the war in Iraq.

Yes, but it would seem that Ms. Francine Busby doesn't...

So ... what was Busby's exact quote? When a Latino man stood up in the audience and said "I want to help, but I don't have papers" Francine Busby responded "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you all can help. You don't need papers for voting. You don't need to be a registered voter to help."

 

[JamesSD]

Yes, but it would seem that Ms. Francine Busby doesn't...

So ... what was Busby's exact quote? When a Latino man stood up in the audience and said "I want to help, but I don't have papers" Francine Busby responded "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you all can help. You don't need papers for voting. You don't need to be a registered voter to help."

Busby was and always has been a terrible candidate.

She pretty clearly misspoke. She obviously meant to say that people who aren't registered voters can still help on campaigns.

 

[S-Des]

I'm not going to wade into the "what should we do" debate, because it's really an excercise in futility. There's nothing at this point our government could do to police 11 million illegals (of all nationalities) already in this country to make them conform to a new law. Did anyone pay attention to the 1.4 billion we just pissed away on lap dances, GGW videos, vacations and champaign that was supposed to go to victims of the hurricane?

I'll let you all fight it out about what will work the best, I just want to see the crossings reduced because a lot of criminals and gang bangers are using it to go back and forth. Also, a lot of people die trying to cross dangerous areas.

My question is this; If we start enforcing the laws to prevent hiring illegal immigrants, will this lead to more crime from desperate people who can't find work, but don't want to go back? I'm not trying to make an argument for or against what to do, I honestly am curious about what people will do if they feel like they don't have any choice. I haven't heard anyone address the question and wonder why.

In Chicago, there are neighborhoods that you simply don't go into. It's not because one segment of people are bad, it's because in economically depressed areas, people will do anything to get the money they need (whether it's to feed their families, buy drugs, or whatever). Will there be a spike in crime due to illegals feeling like they're being squeezed (even if that belief is foolish). I'm far more concerned about this than the whining about not being able to find people to do the jobs.

....S-Des

I think a moat would be cool. Filled with sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads. *cue evil laugh*

"We couldn't get the sharks, but we have sea bass...Are they ill-tempered?"

Seriously, are we the only ones who've seen Austin Powers

 

[Guest]

"We couldn't get the sharks, but we have sea bass...Are they ill-tempered?"

Seriously, are we the only ones who've seen Austin Powers

Throw me a friggin' bone here.