US Government Shutdown

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

trunkage:

Silentpony:

Samtemdo8:

Why not, China did it?

Yeah but that was back during the Dark Age of Technology. The STC needed to build an actual wall was lost thousands of years ago.

The 40k universe is so silly that I could believe that they would need a STC to build a wall.

I do wonder if Trump is going to treat the builders like his other business transactions... make them take pay cut and then just not pay them.

How would that work though? Like I grant he'd totally try to do that, but the workers aren't private employees, they'd be federally contracted workers. Like Trump couldn't sue his way out of a contract because its not his contract to have, its the US governments. Like I don't think Trump can say he's decided not to pay the Military this month and if they don't like it, they can take it up with the Justice Department.

Palindromemordnilap:

trunkage:
I do wonder if Trump is going to treat the builders like his other business transactions... make them take pay cut and then just not pay them.

And given his habit of using minority workers to do his construction and the location the wall will be in, he will of course end up bringing a load of Mexican immigrants into the country to come work. Which is almost hilariously ironic

Step 2. After the wall is built just deport then back to Mexico. And in the fact that you could just room and board these guys in tents. Promise you'd pay them at the end. You could save Billions.

You guys are still shut down over all this?

Sad.

Samtemdo8:

Why not, China did it?

Something that has often gone overlooked when making comparisons to the Great Wall of China is this: the Great Wall was built by multiple dynasties over literal millennia. The oldest sections of the wall date back to 700 BC and predate China itself; the most recent sections only date back to 1644 AD. It took 2,300 years for them to finish the darn thing. In fact, very little of the original wall remains - most of what exists now was built in the latter period under the Ming and is only around five hundred years old.

This is why the idea of the Great Wall of America is so stupid: Trump was promising to build a 2,000 mile concrete barrier in eight years, in defiance of the laws of physics and basic economics. He would have trouble building it in eighty years. I think the only reason he got so attached to the idea is because he has an inferiority complex about China and latched onto the idea of a "great, great wall" after hearing it from Ann Coulter.

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Yeah but that was back during the Dark Age of Technology. The STC needed to build an actual wall was lost thousands of years ago.

The 40k universe is so silly that I could believe that they would need a STC to build a wall.

It's not just a wall. It's the Doomstone Primaris Super-Heavy Fortification Matrix.

And it costs sixteen hundred pounds from Forge World.

bastardofmelbourne:
You guys are still shut down over all this?

Sad.

Samtemdo8:

Why not, China did it?

Something that has often gone overlooked when making comparisons to the Great Wall of China is this: the Great Wall was built by multiple dynasties over literal millennia. The oldest sections of the wall date back to 700 BC and predate China itself; the most recent sections only date back to 1644 AD. It took 2,300 years for them to finish the darn thing. In fact, very little of the original wall remains - most of what exists now was built in the latter period under the Ming and is only around five hundred years old.

This is why the idea of the Great Wall of America is so stupid: Trump was promising to build a 2,000 mile concrete barrier in eight years, in defiance of the laws of physics and basic economics. He would have trouble building it in eighty years. I think the only reason he got so attached to the idea is because he has an inferiority complex about China and latched onto the idea of a "great, great wall" after hearing it from Ann Coulter.

Not to mention the following facts.

-THe great wall was fortified by the Chinese Army. Without effective patrols, a wall is just an expensive way to slow someone down until they can get a ladder over.

-China was invaded and conquered(notably be the mongols) despite the great wall. So that's that.

I'll just let Gen Patton respond here. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity."

Someone should help all those unpaid government workers to storm the white house and yell at Donald.

That would be fun to watch.

bastardofmelbourne:

Something that has often gone overlooked when making comparisons to the Great Wall of China is this: the Great Wall was built by multiple dynasties over literal millennia. The oldest sections of the wall date back to 700 BC and predate China itself; the most recent sections only date back to 1644 AD. It took 2,300 years for them to finish the darn thing. In fact, very little of the original wall remains - most of what exists now was built in the latter period under the Ming and is only around five hundred years old.

That is not a fair description. It would be far better to state that there have been many great walls built by different dynasties, usually in different places and not using much of previous structures.

This is why the idea of the Great Wall of America is so stupid: Trump was promising to build a 2,000 mile concrete barrier in eight years, in defiance of the laws of physics and basic economics. He would have trouble building it in eighty years. I think the only reason he got so attached to the idea is because he has an inferiority complex about China and latched onto the idea of a "great, great wall" after hearing it from Ann Coulter.

Compared to the kind of (often nearly impenetrable and quite deadly) border barriers erected in Europe during the Cold War, i disagree. The US could build a 2000 mile border wall that is far harder to cross than what is planned now in less than 8 years, if they really wanted to. Wouldn't even be 1% of GDP over those eight years, which is what nations often have invested into great projects or in time of special hardship.

But Americans, even Americans who want the wall are not actually willing to pay for it in a way they can notice in declining living standard

Dalisclock:

Not to mention the following facts.

-THe great wall was fortified by the Chinese Army. Without effective patrols, a wall is just an expensive way to slow someone down until they can get a ladder over.

-China was invaded and conquered(notably be the mongols) despite the great wall. So that's that.

I'll just let Gen Patton respond here. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.?

The Chinese walls were never meant to protect from invasions. They were means to protect from/discourage raids. And arguably worked reasonably well. Slowing down raiders so that you can muster a response, making it harder for them to use their horses for speed and harder to get back with the loot are all valuable, beneficial things.

Dalisclock:

I'll just let Gen Patton respond here. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.?

Patton was an overly-aggressive braggart who only managed to avoid a Stalingrad-style disaster for his subordinates by virtue of having more competent peers and facing an enemy unable to conduct offensive mobile warfare by the time Patton got to fighting them. Fixed fortifications have plenty of uses when deployed correctly. There's a reason why Germany went through Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940 instead of just smashing straight into Alsace-Lorraine, because the Maginot Line was an effective deterrent. Or why Germany absolutely failed to achieve a breakthrough at Kursk in 1943 (just to use examples contemporary with Patton). There's also a reason why castles and forts played central roles in warfare from Roman times straight up to the late 19th century.

Where Patton has a point is that you need a sound strategy to leverage fortifications to maximum effect. Just putting down a wall or a bunch of concrete bunkers somewhere is an invitation for a mobile enemy to move past them or surround them. In the case of preventing people moving into your territory, a wall can probably work. But if the refugee streams from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe can teach you anything, it is that people who can't walk to refuge are not adverse to using any semi-seaworthy vessel available to make their way via sea. So unless Trump intends for the Coast Guard to get tons more resources to patrol the coasts near Mexico, you can just expect that the traffic with small ships and boats from harbors in Mexico to unguarded coastal areas of the US will increase significantly.

bastardofmelbourne:
This is why the idea of the Great Wall of America is so stupid: Trump was promising to build a 2,000 mile concrete barrier in eight years, in defiance of the laws of physics and basic economics.

Hardly - it just depends how many workers you set on doing it. A wall as envisaged by Trump is ultimately a simple construction: it's nothing like a skyscraper, or even the Great Wall of China (which, let's remember, has many times the volume as it is vastly thicker, and has to be walked on). Dig a ditch, shove in a foundation, then prefab components with simple construction mechanisms hardly any more complex bar size than assembling IKEA furniture... parts might be pretty much as simple as dumping huge concrete / metal slabs in a base with construction vehicles, and then fixing it all together.

After that, it's just about how many workers are set to get going. Whether it will be done for ~$20 billion is a much harder question to answer.

Major construction projects seem to me to tend to be overly optimistic in both time to completion and cost. It might be scheduled for eight years but take longer - although as said, that'll more likely be because someone lowballed to get the contract and never employed enough workers in the first place than that it was impossible.

Dalisclock:
I'll just let Gen Patton respond here. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.?

So, idiotically, said a man who lived in an era of high explosives and mobile warfare.

Fixed fortifications were a godsend in the right era. How many times was Constantinople saved from ruin because no-one could break its walls, for instance? Up until relatively recently, you couldn't just blow castles and forts up, and you couldn't just bypass many of them because it could wreak havoc on supply lines; you could leave them under siege with a detachment, but every one you did would shrink your army to inefficiently contain a smaller force.

* * *

The border wall is however stupid: it's valueless without the manpower to guard it, defeatable by as simple as a rope or ladder. If anyone's feeling more adventurous, a large tunnel: they've got a rich history, from ancient sieges up to modern Palestinian supply routes to Gaza. I can't help but wonder if some groups might try blowing bits of it up, even just for fun. It's not like drugs gangs won't have access to heavy-duty military explosives if they want it.

So it's probably going to require approximately the same manpower and surveillance costs, plus now also yearly maintenance, and it's still unlikely to stop many more illegal immigrants.

Wait this is still going on? image

This has been nearly two weeks.

tf2godz:
Wait this is still going on? image

This has been nearly two weeks.

Trump and his GOP goons are telling everyone that it could go on for Months or Years over something he repeatedly promised Americans they would not have to pay for because it is blatantly obvious they care nothing for people.

Trump Suggests Government Shutdown Could Last for Months or Even Years

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/democrats-trump-meeting-government-shutdown.html

"This would be a very good time to do a shutdown," the president told reporters last month, setting the scene for the battle.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/9/donald-trump-good-time-for-shutdown/

Republican Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee warned Thursday the nearly two-week partial shutdown could go on for "months and months"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/shutdown-could-last-months-and-months-says-senate-republican

Then we have Trump threatening to abuse his powers by declaring "A state of Emergency" as is supposed to only be used in times of war or actual disaster and have the military build a wall he had promised Americans would not have to pay for in the first place:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-what-s-national-emergency-can-trump-declare-one-n954966

He is trying pretty damn hard here to break his promise of Americans not having to pay for this.

Agema:

bastardofmelbourne:
This is why the idea of the Great Wall of America is so stupid: Trump was promising to build a 2,000 mile concrete barrier in eight years, in defiance of the laws of physics and basic economics.

Hardly - it just depends how many workers you set on doing it. A wall as envisaged by Trump is ultimately a simple construction: it's nothing like a skyscraper, or even the Great Wall of China (which, let's remember, has many times the volume as it is vastly thicker, and has to be walked on). Dig a ditch, shove in a foundation, then prefab components with simple construction mechanisms hardly any more complex bar size than assembling IKEA furniture... parts might be pretty much as simple as dumping huge concrete / metal slabs in a base with construction vehicles, and then fixing it all together.

A 2,000 mile concrete barrier across the US-Mexico border would take at least two decades, assuming consistent funding. You could get it done in eight - if Trump invoked emergency powers, nationalised the construction industry, confiscated every piece of land along the border, conscripted tens of thousands of construction workers, and mobilised military assets for logistics.

The bollard barrier currently being debated on could be built much faster, since it's basically just steel bars being shoved into the ground at regular intervals. But Trump has only recently pivoted to talking about "steel slats" as a rhetorical escape hatch from his self-constructed shutdown trap. During the campaign and much of his early administration, he was promising a concrete barrier that would be at least 30 feet high and cover most or all of the border.

Such a construction project would be monumental, and if it was rushed the costs would skyrocket. It would require a civil mobilisation of a scale hasn't been undertaken in America since at least WW2 and probably not since the Civil War. Because there genuinely is no pressing need for a concrete border wall, such a mobilisation would simply not happen. The result would be delay - delays in finding materials, in contracting workers, in appropriating the land, in settling the lawsuits caused by the contracts and appropriations, in hassling with the states and, yes, in building the damn thing.

Agema:
Major construction projects seem to me to tend to be overly optimistic in both time to completion and cost. It might be scheduled for eight years but take longer - although as said, that'll more likely be because someone lowballed to get the contract and never employed enough workers in the first place than that it was impossible.

It's because the estimates typically work off of an estimate of how long the physical construction would take. But physically constructing the building or object is really only one part of the construction process. It's actually sometimes the quickest part; where time tends to get wasted is in the legalities and the financing.

Funny how he said the shutdown was mostly affecting democrats, but also those affected by the shutdown agree with it and really want the wall.
Why a country lets a man so obviously out of touch with reality run their country is just baffling.

bastardofmelbourne:
A 2,000 mile concrete barrier across the US-Mexico border would take at least two decades, assuming consistent funding.

Let's imagine a concrete wall is 2000 miles long, 1 metre wide and 6 metres high. That would require approximately 20 million cubic metres of concrete, or 50 million tonnes. That is one tenth of the USA's annual concrete consumption. If we assume the actual construction takes five years (the rest being land purchasing, etc.) then the wall would require about 2% of the USA's concrete consumption. That's no big deal: the global market or ramped up US production could easily meet it.

But what does that mean in terms of labour? One might, with extreme simplicity, argue that whatever uses 2% of the USA's concrete is likely to use ~2% of its construction workers who work with concrete. Christ knows how many that is, but it's going to be one hell of a lot less than 2% of the USA's entire construction workforce. Again, it's easy work to expand up a workforce 2%. Not least because the USA could - perhaps ironically - also hire in large quantities of construction workers from abroad to help meet demand.

We could even double or triple those concrete requirements - perhaps to reflect foundations, or a wider, taller wall, and it's still very doable.

Kwak:
Funny how he said the shutdown was mostly affecting democrats, but also those affected by the shutdown agree with it and really want the wall.
Why a country lets a man so obviously out of touch with reality run their country is just baffling.

Agema:
Let's imagine a concrete wall is 2000 miles long, 1 metre wide and 6 metres high. That would require approximately 20 million cubic metres of concrete, or 50 million tonnes. That is one tenth of the USA's annual concrete consumption. If we assume the actual construction takes five years (the rest being land purchasing, etc.) then the wall would require about 2% of the USA's concrete consumption. That's no big deal: the global market or ramped up US production could easily meet it.

But what does that mean in terms of labour? One might, with extreme simplicity, argue that whatever uses 2% of the USA's concrete is likely to use ~2% of its construction workers who work with concrete. Christ knows how many that is, but it's going to be one hell of a lot less than 2% of the USA's entire construction workforce. Again, it's easy work to expand up a workforce 2%. Not least because the USA could - perhaps ironically - also hire in large quantities of construction workers from abroad to help meet demand.

We could even double or triple those concrete requirements - perhaps to reflect foundations, or a wider, taller wall, and it's still very doable.

This is a perfect example of an armchair general. Crunching numbers in a perfect world without any real understanding of how all this junk works in the real world.

Our annual concrete production is already being /used/. Companies would have to dramatically increase production to meet what looks like such a small number and that's ignoring how you even decide who gets the contract, how many people gets contracts, what quality of concrete you want, where you're going to store that concrete, how you're going to transport the concrete in a steady enough fashion that construction doesn't get delayed at random times...

And labor? Good lord, you're suggesting the party of "immigrants are terrorists and rapists" hires en mass immigrant laborers to construct a thing designed to keep out immigrant laborers. Not to mention that /already/ right now there's not enough construction workers to work the projects that currently exist or are planned to exist. And again you run into the problem of where these workers will need to stay to remain close to their worksite, who will build these workcamps, who will run them, feed them, power them...

Do I need to go on? 'Very doable'. Christ.

Khellendrosiic:

And labor? Good lord, you're suggesting the party of "immigrants are terrorists and rapists" hires en mass immigrant laborers to construct a thing designed to keep out immigrant laborers.

That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Trump himself, in the infamous Jim Acosta fake karate chop moment, was accused of being against immigrants, and his answer was that he wants more immigrants because our economy is doing well. And it's not a stretch to suggest Trump is more anti-immigrant than the average person in the party that elected him. And also, immigrant laborers wouldn't exactly been stopped by the wall, they tend to use actual border crossings for that pretty often, probably more so if they were being hired by the US government.

Khellendrosiic:

This is a perfect example of an armchair general. Crunching numbers in a perfect world without any real understanding of how all this junk works in the real world.

No, it's common sense.

Think about things like (for instance) smartphone growth. The increase has been phenomenal over the last 10 years, way, way, way over 2% a year. And yet the global and national economies have met demand, year after year. There are natural fluctuations of larger than 2% - and that's 2% globally, not just the USA - in countless resources and materials: construction materials, oil, metals, microchips, and so on every single year. Unless limited by a particularly severe scarcity (and sand, water, cement etc. are definitely not scarce) there's ample flexibility.

Our annual concrete production is already being /used/. Companies would have to dramatically increase production to meet what looks like such a small number and that's ignoring how you even decide who gets the contract, how many people gets contracts, what quality of concrete you want, where you're going to store that concrete, how you're going to transport the concrete in a steady enough fashion that construction doesn't get delayed at random times...

Again, assuming the above of three years prep and five years building, that's years to arrange all this. Model walls have already been tested, so approximate parameters should already be known.

And labor? Good lord, you're suggesting the party of "immigrants are terrorists and rapists" hires en mass immigrant laborers to construct a thing designed to keep out immigrant laborers.

a) Give them a work visa, they're good to go. Most Americans don't have a problem with legal immigration of productive workers.
b) Who's already doing these jobs? Do you think Trump's own properties are built by crews that are a model of WASP homoegeneity? All those external government contracts go to private firms with exclusively American citizen labourers?

Not to mention that /already/ right now there's not enough construction workers to work the projects that currently exist or are planned to exist. And again you run into the problem of where these workers will need to stay to remain close to their worksite, who will build these workcamps, who will run them, feed them, power them...

Do I need to go on? 'Very doable'. Christ.

Okay.

Consider that in one year, 1940-1941 alone, the USA increased the size of it's army about fivefold to around 1.5 million troops, approximately 1% of the entire US population. Think about what that means in terms of meeting demands in materials, logistics, equipment, vehicles, accommodation, training. It was done - plus increases in the navy and air force as well. That was a much, much larger task than building the wall will be, done ~80 years ago with all the limitations of lower technology.

Knowing stuff like that has been done and thus obviously can be done, how can anyone seriously believe the wall is somehow an insuperable problem? It's just a matter of laying out sufficient money.

Agema:

No, it's common sense.

Think about things like (for instance) smartphone growth. The increase has been phenomenal over the last 10 years, way, way, way over 2% a year. And yet the global and national economies have met demand, year after year. There are natural fluctuations of larger than 2% - and that's 2% globally, not just the USA - in countless resources and materials: construction materials, oil, metals, microchips, and so on every single year. Unless limited by a particularly severe scarcity (and sand, water, cement etc. are definitely not scarce) there's ample flexibility.

You don't even need to go that far. 2% is within the expected annual fluctuations of any market, especially one as volatile and market sensitive as the construction sector. If the companies supplying the US with concrete couldn't deal with a 2% annual increase, they'd be boned every time the market cycles into a boom. Sure, the logistics of sending large amounts of concrete into the sparsely populated deserts of the US-Mexican border and storing it there (not to mention housing workers) might be a problem, but getting the actual materials themselves would be child's play. Particularly as the USA is a giant on the international market and there'd be a lot of international companies ready to fill any orders that domestic production would be unable to fill.

There's an irony in the fact that Trump's border wall is a rather trivial project in terms of materials and workforce due to the ease of acquiring those things on the international market...

tstorm823:
That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Trump himself, in the infamous Jim Acosta fake karate chop moment, was accused of being against immigrants, and his answer was that he wants more immigrants because our economy is doing well. And it's not a stretch to suggest Trump is more anti-immigrant than the average person in the party that elected him. And also, immigrant laborers wouldn't exactly been stopped by the wall, they tend to use actual border crossings for that pretty often, probably more so if they were being hired by the US government.

I don't doubt that they'd do it, but you can't say that it wouldn't be a PR nightmare for the anti-immigrant party. Trump's supporters might be willing to ignore literally any infidelity that Trump himself shows, but when it comes to the government? It'll be a lot more messy.

Agema:
No, it's common sense.

...no, no it's not. Economics works on supply and demand. /Consistent/ supply and demand. Smartphone production keeps growing because it's a consumer electronic that everybody wants and there's always more people wanting them (at least so far, I saw Apple wasn't doing too hot recently). The wall is a one-off project opposed by a significant majority of the country whose funding will likely be erratic as all hell given the fact that your proposed timeframe extends beyond a Republican presidency no matter how many terms you think Trump will have.

You're trying to compare apples and cows, they're two totally different animals.

Trying to compare the wall to mobilizing for WWII is also disingenuous as hell. That's not even apples and cows, that's apples and a car. Unless you want to nationalize everything involving construction from the concrete and steel companies (I actually forgot to mention that the wall would need steel reinforcement, so that's some more contracts and logistics you need) to the workers themselves, the wall is /nothing/ like the US military in any way, shape, or form.

If we want to compare related things, why not compare how previous attempts to construct border walls went? Go on, look them up. It's a lesson in boondoggles, with cost-overruns and shenanigans all over the place. Hell, the Hoover Dam took about as long to finish as you say the wall will take and it uses about... a third of the concrete the projected wall would require. In a smaller area. In a single biome. Without needing to worry about rules and regulations regarding endangered species and any other host of red tape that might stymie a gigantic project.

Common sense. Ha!

Addendum: I will acknowledge that the wall totally /could/ be built. Human stubbornness knows no bounds. My argument is chiefly that it's unfeasible and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. That includes Trump, who is probably the only person who could actually find out but hasn't.

Khellendrosiic:
And labor? Good lord, you're suggesting the party of "immigrants are terrorists and rapists" hires en mass immigrant laborers to construct a thing designed to keep out immigrant laborers.

Why not? It doesn't make any less sense than half of what the GOP has done in 2 years. They aren't afraid of being called hypocrites as long as they get what they want.

Khellendrosiic:

tstorm823:
That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Trump himself, in the infamous Jim Acosta fake karate chop moment, was accused of being against immigrants, and his answer was that he wants more immigrants because our economy is doing well. And it's not a stretch to suggest Trump is more anti-immigrant than the average person in the party that elected him. And also, immigrant laborers wouldn't exactly been stopped by the wall, they tend to use actual border crossings for that pretty often, probably more so if they were being hired by the US government.

I don't doubt that they'd do it, but you can't say that it wouldn't be a PR nightmare for the anti-immigrant party. Trump's supporters might be willing to ignore literally any infidelity that Trump himself shows, but when it comes to the government? It'll be a lot more messy.

It would be fantastic PR. You think the Republican base is anti-immigrant. I think the Republican base is weary of repeating "I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant." You give Republicans a project powered by migrant workers being paid above the table after entering the country legally and transparently, we'll ride the wave of "see, we're not racist, so you can shut up now" for decades.

tstorm823:

Khellendrosiic:

tstorm823:
That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Trump himself, in the infamous Jim Acosta fake karate chop moment, was accused of being against immigrants, and his answer was that he wants more immigrants because our economy is doing well. And it's not a stretch to suggest Trump is more anti-immigrant than the average person in the party that elected him. And also, immigrant laborers wouldn't exactly been stopped by the wall, they tend to use actual border crossings for that pretty often, probably more so if they were being hired by the US government.

I don't doubt that they'd do it, but you can't say that it wouldn't be a PR nightmare for the anti-immigrant party. Trump's supporters might be willing to ignore literally any infidelity that Trump himself shows, but when it comes to the government? It'll be a lot more messy.

It would be fantastic PR. You think the Republican base is anti-immigrant. I think the Republican base is weary of repeating "I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant." You give Republicans a project powered by migrant workers being paid above the table after entering the country legally and transparently, we'll ride the wave of "see, we're not racist, so you can shut up now" for decades.

Republicians aren't Anti-Immigrant. They're Anti-Immigrant from particular countries. I.e, Europeans are generally classed as okay.

To get asylum in American, you first have to be on American soil. Thus, by immigrant logic, the best way to seek asylum is go over the current wall. Asylum is not affected by Republicans picking and choosing who would enter (I.e. Selecting Europeans over everyone else.) Thus they get a better chance. Call it illegal all you want, doesn't change the fact that they are given a fairer hearing if they do it illegally.

Everyone wants any immigrant to be earning the country money for taxes. That's why Obama has the Dreamer program, so they would pay taxes. I have no idea why Trump doesn't want immigrants to pay taxes. I would have thought he would be for it. Cutting them out of citizenship just means they can stop paying taxes. But it's one of those things that Trump think is a good idea by listening to his base rather than understanding the process

trunkage:
But it's one of those things that Trump think is a good idea by listening to his base rather than understanding the process

Or thinks will be considered a good idea by his intended audience. Not necessarily the same thing.

Now, it would be a nice PR move by the GOP to show themselves not to be anti-immigrant. Unfortunately for them, they'd sorta have to not be anti-immigrant (at least to an extent) to do it, which'll alienate more of their current voters than it'll gain in new ones.

trunkage:

To get asylum in American, you first have to be on American soil. Thus, by immigrant logic, the best way to seek asylum is go over the current wall. Asylum is not affected by Republicans picking and choosing who would enter (I.e. Selecting Europeans over everyone else.) Thus they get a better chance. Call it illegal all you want, doesn't change the fact that they are given a fairer hearing if they do it illegally.

To apply for asylum, you need to be in the country or arriving to the country. You can apply for asylum at any legal port of entry without hopping the border, which is a crime to do. But you are absolutely spot on with your assessment: people crossing the border illegally have a better time than those following the intended procedure. People applying for asylum at legal border crossings end up trapped waiting at the border, often effectively homeless, for possibly weeks or months. The people who just jump the border first get a chance of disappearing into the country without even having to claim asylum, if they get caught or turn themselves in they'll be detained (which for all the comparisons to concentration camps, detainment by border control affords people more food, shelter, and likely access to legal aid than the people waiting in Mexico are gonna get), and when we were playing catch-and-release there was a good chance they could jump the border, get caught, and still just get to disappear into the US.

That's backwards nonsense. Frankly, we should probably just let all the people waiting at ports of entry in because they're clearly virtuous people; there's not other reason why anyone would wait there instead of hopping the fence. The incentives our national policies have given to enter the country criminally are significant, and they encourage people to do things like hire human traffickers to get them across or show up in the middle of the night in the desert hours from civilization so when their child gets sick it's too late to save them.

We need to fix this situation. Half of that is making the legal methods of entry work for people, and half is making the illegal methods not work for people. I don't think Trump cares about the first half, but I don't think the Democrats are giving any consideration to the second half. They're saying that a border wall is immoral, but physically preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place is the most moral option for disincentivizing illegal border crossing. Consider the alternatives. Do you want to deport anyone who crosses illegally willy-nilly, deny them due process and asylum? That's a sucky option. Do you want to not enforce any border, exacerbating smuggling issues and effectively negating any refuge we have to offer asylum seekers? That's a sucky option. Do you want to detain and punish illegal border crossing without respect for human rights so they're afraid to cross that way? That's a sucky option. Or do you want to build a wall that funnels people to the right places to cross the border. And then maybe we can tear down the tent cities of detained people and direct our human resources to processing the people that didn't commit a crime.

Everyone wants any immigrant to be earning the country money for taxes. That's why Obama has the Dreamer program, so they would pay taxes. I have no idea why Trump doesn't want immigrants to pay taxes. I would have thought he would be for it. Cutting them out of citizenship just means they can stop paying taxes. But it's one of those things that Trump think is a good idea by listening to his base rather than understanding the process

Trump really doesn't seem to have a problem with amnesty for undocumented workers, he's offered it on several occasions. What he refuses to do is enact that policy by executive order, because the legislature is supposed to determine these policies. At some point, Trump wanted the legislature to send him a bill that gave permanent protections to Dreamers and also funded border security. Democrats counter offered that they'd fund the border security if Trump legalized Dreamers using executive power, and that's not the same thing at all. If there's anything Trump isn't understanding about the process, it's that politicians aren't trying to fix immigration problems themselves. They don't want the credit or the blame for that. We've had 18 consecutive years of presidents being for immigration reform, during which time both parties have had turns controlling both houses, and we've accomplished squat.

Khellendrosiic:
...no, no it's not. Economics works on supply and demand. /Consistent/ supply and demand.

No, it works on supply and demand. I tell the concrete suppliers next year I want a shitload of concrete, the concrete suppliers factor that in and order more of the necessary materials from their suppliers, who order more of it from theirs, etc.

Here we go: graph of cement production in the USA.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-cement-in-the-us/

I make that being able to achieve a 2% change in production easily enough. And as said, that's not even the whole global market, where it's an even smaller drop in the ocean.

The wall is a one-off project opposed by a significant majority of the country whose funding will likely be erratic as all hell given the fact that your proposed timeframe extends beyond a Republican presidency no matter how many terms you think Trump will have.

The project will get the money or it will not. Contracts will be signed in good time asking for X much to supplied in whatever timescale allowing time for appropriate purchasing and hiring. If at some point the government backs out with contracts unfulfilled, there will be penalty clauses or insurance. If they stop part-way, they stop part way and the company releases the excess staff (using all that wonderful hiring and firing flexibility labour regulations have created over the last three decades).

If you're arguing political difficulties getting the wall done, then you've merely jumped into a discussion without reading the context.

Trying to compare the wall to mobilizing for WWII is also disingenuous as hell. That's not even apples and cows, that's apples and a car. Unless you want to nationalize everything involving construction from the concrete and steel companies (I actually forgot to mention that the wall would need steel reinforcement, so that's some more contracts and logistics you need) to the workers themselves, the wall is /nothing/ like the US military in any way, shape, or form.

It doesn't need to be. An apple and a cow are completely different things, but if I can pick up a cow I can pick up an apple. Because apples are obviously lighter and less likely to resist, and all the other differences don't really matter a damn.

It's just a task. It needs workers, materials, etc. If a government / nation can accomplish a task that requires enormous funding and huge mobilisation of resources and manpower, it can therefore accomplish an easier task that needs a far lower requirement of manpower and resources. And who needs to nationalise a damn thing? Remember, we're talking a very small fraction of the US construction industry, and private construction firms would leap at this sort of opportunity.

If we want to compare related things, why not compare how previous attempts to construct border walls went? Go on, look them up. It's a lesson in boondoggles, with cost-overruns and shenanigans all over the place. Hell, the Hoover Dam took about as long to finish as you say the wall will take and it uses about... a third of the concrete the projected wall would require.

The Hoover Dam was built over 80 years ago on much inferior technology and is a far more complex structure, because it's got to hold back a huge mass of water and various other functions. The border wall would just be load of concrete slabs in the ground. You can also start the wall at a lot of locations and have a lot of teams working on it at once, which you can't necessarily do with a vertically layered structure with a restricted footprint where lower bits must be completed before the later ones started.

I'm not sure why you're going on about cost-overruns - I've already stated my skepticism about costs, and we were explicitly talking about the actual physical contruction feasibility. Which is, obviously, totally and easily feasible.

Agema:
we were explicitly talking about the actual physical contruction feasibility. Which is, obviously, totally and easily feasible.

Yeah, the wall would be a relatively easy venture, all things considered. It would likely be an assembly line production, almost being put together like gigantic puzzle pieces.

Of course, it'll be a private corporation on a government contract. So that corporation will find every cost-cutting measure available and the government contract will have little to no incentive to haggle the price much. The shareholders will run home to swim in their Scrooge McDuck moneypiles while the deficit ceiling is raised again and again.

Agema:
I'm not sure why you're going on about cost-overruns - I've already stated my skepticism about costs, and we were explicitly talking about the actual physical contruction feasibility. Which is, obviously, totally and easily feasible.

If you want to consider the physical construction in a blank white space with no outside influences and everything you want going exactly to plan, then sure it'll go just fine and relatively quickly. The problem I have with your thinking is that you're willingly ignoring how every single thing involved with a massive project like the wall would affect the physical construction, regardless of whether you call it 'just politics' or not. The problem I have is that you seem to have crunched a couple numbers and think that's all that is necessary to make a thing succeed in exactly the fashion you've envisioned.

But I can't argue against magical thinking, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

tstorm823:
It would be fantastic PR. You think the Republican base is anti-immigrant. I think the Republican base is weary of repeating "I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant." You give Republicans a project powered by migrant workers being paid above the table after entering the country legally and transparently, we'll ride the wave of "see, we're not racist, so you can shut up now" for decades.

This is some more magical thinking ascribing much more virtue in regards to immigrants than the typical Trump voter should ever be given. But that's all I'll say on it. If you really believe that, than more power to you.

Khellendrosiic:

This is some more magical thinking ascribing much more virtue in regards to immigrants than the typical Trump voter should ever be given. But that's all I'll say on it. If you really believe that, than more power to you.

You are welcome to start listening to voices that disagree with you at any time.

2016 Republican Platform:

Our immigration system must protect American working families and their wages, for citizens and legal immigrants alike, in a way that will improve the economy. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today's legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

Yes, Republicans like it when people legally migrate to the US and contribute the economy and US national interests. That's not a wild suggestion.

tstorm823:

Khellendrosiic:

This is some more magical thinking ascribing much more virtue in regards to immigrants than the typical Trump voter should ever be given. But that's all I'll say on it. If you really believe that, than more power to you.

You are welcome to start listening to voices that disagree with you at any time.

2016 Republican Platform:

Our immigration system must protect American working families and their wages, for citizens and legal immigrants alike, in a way that will improve the economy. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today?s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.

Yes, Republicans like it when people legally migrate to the US and contribute the economy and US national interests. That's not a wild suggestion.

Those seeking asylum ARE legal immigrants. Trump and current republicans have repeatedly tried to undermine the law to make it more difficult for asylum seekers and have outright been in violation of the law themselves. It is illegal for them to attempt to bar people from seeking asylum and they have been trying to not only limit what they can seek asylum for, they have tried to put as many barriers as possible to prevent them from doing so. By keeping them from reaching US soil, they are trying to prevent them from being able to claim asylum. In addition, they tell them to " come back another day" when they may not even live another day to be able to " come back another day" then additionally attempt to bar them illegally from claiming asylum if they somehow managed to find it on to US soil anyways.

The courts and Republicans have been going back and forth on this issue for some time now:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/12/19/second-judge-blocks-attempt-trump-limit-asylum-migrant-caravan-immigration-border/2066608002/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-strikes-down-trump-asylum-rules-domestic-gang-violence-n949936
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/05/migrants-seeking-asylum-legally-ports-entry-turned-away-separated-fami/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.94793756a82f
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-asylum-seekers-will-stay-mexico-judge-approves-individual-claims/
https://theasylumseekers.com/government-shutdown-closes-immigration-courts-adding-to-record-high-800000-case-backlog-cbs-news/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-border-officials-are-illegally-turning-away-asylum-seekers-critics-say/2017/01/16/f7f5c54a-c6d0-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.83697fb2bd8a

Current Republican handling and policies are causing asylum seekers to die before ever having a chance to claim asylum in addition to not handling their cases properly. The current administrations policies and procedures are in violation of the law and are turning asylum seekers away illegally.

Not only that, they are denying legal applications leaving people no choice but to be illegal immigrants. The republicans have been the ones responsible for forcing people into illegal immigration in the first place by intentionally skirting the law to make it more difficult to be able to obtain the documents needed to stay in the US legally, even when they have been in the US legally for a long time and following all requirements, republicans have been deliberately undermining the system to force them to become illegal immigrants against their will.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/18/trump-legal-immigration-crackdown-legal-challenge
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway
https://www.care2.com/causes/ice-has-accidentally-deported-thousands-of-american-citizens.html

Immigration advocates say a pattern has emerged in which the Trump administration has attempted to cut back legal immigration by gutting existing programs and making citizenship much less obtainable.
The overall picture is one of extreme hostility with no distinction between the undocumented and those legally here
Joshua Hoyt, National Partnership for New Americans

"The overall picture is one of extreme hostility with no distinction between the undocumented and those who are legally here," said Joshua Hoyt, co-chair of the National Partnership for New Americans.

The past year and a half has seen a series of proposals ? some threatened, others already realized ? that make good on Trump?s pledge to sharply restrict immigration.

Under the stewardship of attorney general Jeff Sessions and White House adviser Stephen Miller, who have both long opposed the system that cemented America?s legacy as a nation of immigrants, other steps have targeted those already here.
Last week, immigration advocates sounded the alarm over a pending proposal that would make it harder for legal immigrants to obtain green cards or citizenship if they have ever used government programs such as the Affordable Care Act, food stamps and children?s health insurance. According to a report by NBC News, the Trump administration was expected to issue the new rule in the coming weeks, affecting around 20 million immigrants.

Elsewhere, spouses of those on high-skilled immigrant visas were still awaiting their fate as the administration prepared to revoke authorization to work in the US. The proposed rules change, which is expected any day, would affect tens of thousands of immigrant spouses, most women.

The current rhetoric and actions taken by Trump and his Republicans have shown this is not just an attack on " illegal immigrants" they have targeted and attacked legal immigrants and made it harder to become a legal immigrant so they can attack those trying to do everything right as well. Forcing people into " illegal immigration status" and then claiming they are only against illegal immigrants is a disgusting practice that needs to be stopped.

Khellendrosiic:

If you want to consider the physical construction in a blank white space with no outside influences and everything you want going exactly to plan, then sure it'll go just fine and relatively quickly. The problem I have with your thinking is that you're willingly ignoring how every single thing involved with a massive project like the wall would affect the physical construction, regardless of whether you call it 'just politics' or not. The problem I have is that you seem to have crunched a couple numbers and think that's all that is necessary to make a thing succeed in exactly the fashion you've envisioned.

But I can't argue against magical thinking, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do accept that the project could be arranged in such a way as to allow huge political interference. Congress might stump up ~$20 billion, and then want to agree cost overruns separately such that if it goes overbudget then construction halts until a new funding amount is agreed, which could lead to substantial delays. Or even a part-completed wall if agreement never materialises.

However, the fundamental premise I'm working with here is that the wall is agreed to go ahead, and becomes a political necessity. Normally in such endeavours (be it a border wall, another 200 jet fighters for the air force, departmental IT system or sports stadium), whatever the initial budget is claimed to be, there's considerable leeway and sometimes even a blank cheque for cost overruns. There has to be, because the alternative of nothing getting done has been deemed unacceptable.

Once after that, the basic concept of securing sufficient workers and materials to construct the wall is a major task, but not even remotely as daunting as some are making out.

Lil devils x:

Those seeking asylum ARE legal immigrants. Trump and current republicans have repeatedly tried to undermine the law to make it more difficult for asylum seekers and have outright been in violation of the law themselves. It is illegal for them to attempt to bar people from seeking asylum and they have been trying to not only limit what they can seek asylum for, they have tried to put as many barriers as possible to prevent them from doing so. By keeping them from reaching US soil, they are trying to prevent them from being able to claim asylum. In addition, they tell them to " come back another day" when they may not even live another day to be able to " come back another day" then additionally attempt to bar them illegally from claiming asylum if they somehow managed to find it on to US soil anyways.

The courts and Republicans have been going back and forth on this issue for some time now:

Current Republican handling and policies are causing asylum seekers to die before ever having a chance to claim asylum in addition to not handling their cases properly. The current administrations policies and procedures are in violation of the law and are turning asylum seekers away illegally.

Not only that, they are denying legal applications leaving people no choice but to be illegal immigrants. The republicans have been the ones responsible for forcing people into illegal immigration in the first place by intentionally skirting the law to make it more difficult to be able to obtain the documents needed to stay in the US legally, even when they have been in the US legally for a long time and following all requirements, republicans have been deliberately undermining the system to force them to become illegal immigrants against their will.

The current rhetoric and actions taken by Trump and his Republicans have shown this is not just an attack on " illegal immigrants" they have targeted and attacked legal immigrants and made it harder to become a legal immigrant so they can attack those trying to do everything right as well. Forcing people into " illegal immigration status" and then claiming they are only against illegal immigrants is a disgusting practice that needs to be stopped.

tstorm823:

We need to fix this situation. Half of that is making the legal methods of entry work for people, and half is making the illegal methods not work for people. I don't think Trump cares about the first half, but I don't think the Democrats are giving any consideration to the second half. They're saying that a border wall is immoral, but physically preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place is the most moral option for disincentivizing illegal border crossing. Consider the alternatives. Do you want to deport anyone who crosses illegally willy-nilly, deny them due process and asylum? That's a sucky option. Do you want to not enforce any border, exacerbating smuggling issues and effectively negating any refuge we have to offer asylum seekers? That's a sucky option. Do you want to detain and punish illegal border crossing without respect for human rights so they're afraid to cross that way? That's a sucky option. Or do you want to build a wall that funnels people to the right places to cross the border. And then maybe we can tear down the tent cities of detained people and direct our human resources to processing the people that didn't commit a crime.

You are essentially repeating things I've already said on this page. Limiting asylum claims, increasing deportations, denying rights to asylum seekers aren't consequences of wanting border security, they're consequences of not having border security. It's the same conceptually as the argument when pro-life people are also against birth control, and someone says that birth control prevents abortion. Being upset about the things you're upset about and then being against improved border control is holding conflicting positions. The fewer people that cross illegally, the fewer get treated that way, the less resources we have to spend handling those people, the better we can treat everyone. The less that asylum claims are granted to people who cross illegally, the less effect limiting asylum would have on illegal border crossings, the less reason there is to limit it at all. Basically all the specific policies pointed to by the articles you linked are about removing incentives to be here illegally. If you effectively prevent people from being here illegally, there's no reason to enact those policies.

As an aside, I want to state some perspective on all of this. The US isn't just a nation of immigrants, it's The nation of immigrants. It has the biggest foreign born population of any nation on earth, like 20% of all people who've immigrated on earth alive today, and second place isn't even close. Prior to the asylum limits you mention, the US was taking in more foreign refugees every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Our immigration policies are overwhelmingly more based on family unity and humanitarian efforts than almost any other country even with Trump's proposals enacted. It sounds bad when you hear Trump says he doesn't want bad immigrants, it sounds a lot less bad when he says he wants to do immigration like Canada, and that is a more extreme position than the Republican establishment. The position of Republicans is not that we have to stop being the most generous country on the planet to immigrants, it's that we definitely have some wiggle room to worry about other issues without risking that title.

Also also, that article about deporting US citizens is some nonsense clickbait. They quote a line from Vice that says "over 20,000 U.S. citizens have been either wrongfully detained or outright deported from the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement" which is true in the same way as saying "millions of Americans ate cheeseburgers or caviar for lunch yesterday," and then they go a step further and make a headline that thousands of US citizens are being deported, with absolutely no evidence of that claim.

Gethsemani:

Dalisclock:

I'll just let Gen Patton respond here. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.?

Patton was an overly-aggressive braggart who only managed to avoid a Stalingrad-style disaster for his subordinates by virtue of having more competent peers and facing an enemy unable to conduct offensive mobile warfare by the time Patton got to fighting them. Fixed fortifications have plenty of uses when deployed correctly. There's a reason why Germany went through Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940 instead of just smashing straight into Alsace-Lorraine, because the Maginot Line was an effective deterrent. Or why Germany absolutely failed to achieve a breakthrough at Kursk in 1943 (just to use examples contemporary with Patton). There's also a reason why castles and forts played central roles in warfare from Roman times straight up to the late 19th century.

Where Patton has a point is that you need a sound strategy to leverage fortifications to maximum effect. Just putting down a wall or a bunch of concrete bunkers somewhere is an invitation for a mobile enemy to move past them or surround them. In the case of preventing people moving into your territory, a wall can probably work. But if the refugee streams from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe can teach you anything, it is that people who can't walk to refuge are not adverse to using any semi-seaworthy vessel available to make their way via sea. So unless Trump intends for the Coast Guard to get tons more resources to patrol the coasts near Mexico, you can just expect that the traffic with small ships and boats from harbors in Mexico to unguarded coastal areas of the US will increase significantly.

I guess I should have elaborated. I agree that walls can be useful, either as a funneling tactic to restrict movement to certain avenues(gates) which can be more easily guarded or to slow down advance. However, they don't work on their own. You still need a force to respond to a breach or prevent one to begin with. Which means either patrols(drones or vehicles), surveillance(sensors/cameras) as well as a rapid respond force. Just plopping a wall down and calling it a day accomplishes nothing, but then again, that's Trump for you. Why talk about realistic solutions when one can fixate on a "Big, Beautiful Wall"?

I kinda hope someone will offer him money for 2000 meters of Wall and see if he's fooled by it.

Pelosi on Trump: "He thinks maybe they could just ask their father for more money. But they can't"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here