The open-border agenda of the Democrats is on full display with this shutdown!

Spending money on a wall is spending other people's money, just in case you didn't know it.


As always, it is the right wingers who are so quick to waste taxpayer money while their wealthy patrons shelter their incomes in tax free overseas accounts.

 

We would if it kept people out. Then we could be "saving" $135 billion a year. But even still, if $135 billion isn't spent on illegals, the government will turn around and spend it somewhere else.

 

The fencing we currently use, keeps them out just fine. You're right though, the U.S. government might use that $135 billion a year for things like repair of our roads, bridges and maybe even fixing Flint's water problems.

 

No, they want border security and not a border wall paid for with taxpayer money. This has been made abundantly clear. Modern
technology has not been used to solve this problem yet.

 

Says the person who isn't condemning CA for their billions spent on all illegals housed in their state. All government spending is the spending of stolen profits of the citizens. No money the government has comes from anything they produce.

 

Sure, tell that to the 35 million already here.

Why wont the democrats in Michigan who caused Flint's water problem fix flints water problem? Why are the democrats pushing it up to the republicans to fix their mess?

 

You're vastly overstating the numbers of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. There were 12.1 million immigrants living in the country illegally as of January 2014, according to the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security. The estimates from two independent groups are similar: The Pew Research Center estimates the number at 11.1 million in 2014, and the Center for Migration Studies says there were 11 million people in 2015 living in the U.S. illegally.

Border apprehensions have declined, and as I've previously stated in a comment, estimates show a growing proportion of the undocumented population legally entered the country on visas but overstayed the time limits on those visas. A Center for Migration Studies report estimates that 44 percent of those in living in the U.S. illegally in 2015 were visa overstays. That’s up from an estimated 41 percent in 2008.

 

The CBP currently uses cameras, sensors, FLIR, and other state of the art technologies

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-119

What technologies are you claiming they are not using?

 

says the right winger who has no objection to NYC and Miami harboring thousands of illegals here to escape the military draft in their countries while others are having babies in our shores to promote chain migration

 

Tell that to the Yale proefessors. https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/19/yale-study-shows-23-million-illegal-immigrants/

Yes, I am fully aware of the over stayed visas tally. They do come in legally, are tracked when they leave, and is a known quantity. Those who sneak over in vans, cars, tunnels or by foot are untrackable. The government gives us estimates, but they don't know for sure. As will the previous linked study, the graph shows the steady incline from 1990 at 3 million to 2007 at 12 million. Even mexico's ambassador says there are roughly 30 million illegals in the US. https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/former-mexico-ambassador-30/2015/08/18/id/670740/

 

Who said I have no objection to those situations. Actually, that's the first time ive heard of that happening. And I am against the anchor babies as well. Plus, I am not RW, sorry. I don't agree with putting up the wall.

 

Who said I support open borders or spending tax dollars for illegals in CA?

 

You never object to them. You didn't even object to when I brought it to your attention like I did when you brought up what you mentioned.

 

Drones, flyovers, etc. Are they using this technology across the 1200 miles?
We have the technology to improve border security, and it would be much cheaper than a physical wall. Plus, it could be operational within a year.
TWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
We have driverless vehicles, we can use facial recognition software as payment for goods, and outer space is the next hot commercial travel destination. Yet we continue to debate the efficacy of a third century solution to secure our nation’s southern border.

The American people are frustrated and have every right to be. The federal government should have secured our borders by now. The tools to do so are available and have existed for some time in the private sector.

I used many of them when I worked for a private intelligence firm after nearly a decade of service in the CIA. I am continuously amazed by innovations in security and surveillance technology as a member of the House committees on both Homeland Security and Intelligence. We have access to existing sensor technology that can determine the difference between a jack rabbit and a human moving across the desert. We have drones that can track individuals anywhere on the planet. But when it comes to the border, we’ve allowed an outdated, physical barrier to dominate the national dialogue and stifle innovation.

The wall will be neither big nor beautiful: Ruben Navarrette

A one-size-fits-all approach will not solve our complex border problems. While a physical barrier can be effective in urban areas, each sector of the border faces unique geographical, cultural and technological challenges that would be best addressed with a flexible, sector-by-sector approach that empowers the Border Patrol agents on the ground with the resources they need.


Of the 650 miles of existing border fencing, hundreds of miles are in need of repair because criminal organizations have cut through, dug under or plowed over it repeatedly. The drug cartels are using more modern technology than we are to breach our border, so why would we double down on an outdated tool?

What we need is a "Smart Wall" to solve our 21st century border problems. A Smart Wall would use sensor, radar and surveillance technologies to detect and track incursions across our border so we can deploy efficiently our most important resource, the men and women of Border Patrol, to perform the most difficult task — interdiction. Most of this process can be done with computer vision, artificial intelligence and machine-learning, allowing our Border Patrol agents to focus exclusively on stopping individuals and contraband from crossing our border illegally.


The recent horrific human smuggling tragedy in my hometown of San Antonio is a stark reminder that there are nine major criminal organizations operating in Mexico that have zero regard for human life. A physical wall would not have prevented the Zeta cartel from smuggling some of those people across the riveron rafts. On the other hand, a Smart Wall could have detected the crossing and followed the individuals until they were safely apprehended by agents.

For every move we make to defend ourselves, our adversaries will make a countermove. As the National Border Patrol Council agrees, true border security demands a flexible, defense-in-depth strategy that includes a mix of personnel, technology and changing tactics — all of which come at a lower price tag than a wall.

Based on this administration’s budget, each mile of physical border wall would cost $24.5 million. According to leading technology entrepreneurs, utilizing off-the-shelf technology to build a Smart Wall would bring the cost-per-mile down to less than $500,000. With proven tracking technology and state-of-the-art drones, we could have a more secure border at a fraction of the cost — and it could be fully operational within one year.

 

the law is the law and must be applied uniformly, not selectively as you right wing apologists do

 

The Republicans are supporting a renegade president who has offended our allies repeatedly, cozied up to three dictators, says Putin is his "friend", has shown that he has no interest or respect for our Constitutional functioning of the branches of government with its checks and balances, and has attempted to turn the people against the Intel and judicial branch of government, and here you sit with the utter gall to accuse DEMOCRATS of acting to destroy America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ARE YOU FRIGGIN SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And your claim of "35 million" came from where?

 

So you wouldn't object to the law that allowed Slavery in 1850? So if the House and senate pass the law to build the wall, you would back it because its "the law"? The Law also says that you can't cross the border illegally, and yet you don't denounce the sanctuary cities that go against federal laws. You pretty much are the walking contradiction.

 

35 was wrong, 30 million was what I should I have said. Sorry.

 

No matter which study you choose to uses for statistics they will vary between 10 million and 29 million. According the PLOSOne study, (Public Library of Science), the most current estimate is between 16 million to 29 million.

 

Ok, whatever. Its still a ton and they mostly got in over the southern border with the "fence" you prefer.

Again, I am NOT for the wall, just saying how worthless the fence is if you are against the wall.

 

Trump didn't announce all the caveats you invented. He was plain and clear saying that if he didn't get what he wanted he would shut down the government and be proud to take full responsibility for it. He added that he wouldn't blame the Democrats.

So what did he do? --He shut down the government when he didn't get what he wanted like a little child stamping his little feet, and then he blamed Democrats just as you also did.

BULLSHIT.

 

your fellow right wingers love 'federalism' or state's rights when it suits them - thus, they should be the first ones to applaud sanctuary especially since it is mandated in their Bible

if anything you on the far right are the walking contradiction

 

I was bringing up your reply of "the law is the law". You keep making this straw man and placing me on the RW when I am making no such argument. If you are for states rights, would you have also sided with the dixiecrats or the secession of the southern confederate states? I am trying to gage your stringent "the law is the law" statement to see if you actually hold to it or if you are just being a partisan mouth piece. You've pretty much shown that it only applies to ideas that are anti-Trump/RW.

What statement have I, personally, made that is a contradiction? Stop making the straw man and speak to me and my statements.

 

Because Dems didn’t vote for a fiscally irresponsible bill shoved through by Republicans doesn’t mean they are pro-open borders. That one of the small caveats missing in your post.