Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[mdk]

@mdk The likelyhood is that living off grid ect is better than what they fled. If that weren't the case people wouldn't keep coming. A sane and moral response is increasing efforts to address the problem down stream. There aren't easy answers to this problem which is what the build a wall and deport them all crowd refuses to see.

A country has the right to control its borders and set its own immigration policy but what is legal and what is moral are not always the same thing.

It would certainly make me happier if there were a reasonable legal way for people in these terrible situations to find a measure of sanctuary.

@Penny

I mean there is (kinda -- that system is also pretty broken)... but it's so much easier to come illegally and, like you say, it's not like these poor folks have time to sit around. As long as illegal immigration remains this easy, effective reform is impossible. The path of least resistance is, and will remain, to come here illegally -- until we have a physical barrier. Without that, we're neglecting a huge, huge source of poverty, crime, and other badness.

Speaking of which -- it's just as easy for the drug lords to get here as it is for the people fleeing them. MS13 is worth googling, if you're unfamiliar with them (dunno how international their reputation is). We have to do something here -- flinging wide the gate and crossing your fingers feels very nice, but it's terrible for everyone in the long run. I say that to do nothing to secure the border is neglect.

[Penny]

@mdk As it happens, I've done some reading regarding MS-13, the Zetas, the Sinaloa ect for a project I'm working on. MS-13 particularly illustrates the danger in a simplistic approach to immigration.

The idea that building a huge wall is a practical solution has the appeal of simplicity but I sincerely doubt that it would be physically or fiscally possible. It wouldn't be possible to bring border crossings to a complete stop even with a minefield. The best you can hope for is a somewhat reduction.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

but it's so much easier to come illegally

@mdk

Firstly I doubt anyone coming from somewhere like El Salvador would describe the trip as easy. Secondly it might be easier but its way shittier. I could have just flown in and overstayed my visa, rather than spending several thousand dollars and many months to do it legitimately. Of course that would mean I'd have to accept a life of menial under the table labor with no security rather than practicing my profession. I choose a path that wasn't the path of least resistance but I have the luxury of choice. If there were a realistic option people would take it. If there were a modicum of stability at home people wouldn't be as inclined to risk it in the first place.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

it's not like these poor folks have time to sit around.

@mdk

Indeed not, they are desperate people who have given up everything on the hope of safety and a better life, even though they must know they will never really be part of the society they are going to for sanctuary.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

we're neglecting a huge, huge source of poverty, crime, and other badness.

@mdk

It is being neglected either way, even if its on the other side of a big wall.

Coming to America is not a goal in itself. People come here because their situation is dire enough that they feel they have no choice but to attempt it.

No one is arguing for some sort of completely open border, but there is a reason we don't see thousands of Americans illegally crossing into Canada every year. People don't break the law because they are evil (generally) they do it because they are desperate. So long as we continue to pretend that building a wall or digging a moat or whatever is going to solve the problem, its never going to get much better.

[mdk]

Snipping to get to (what I think are) the main points -- if I slip up and snip something vital, feel free to correct me.

The idea that building a huge wall is a practical solution has the appeal of simplicity but I sincerely doubt that it would be physically or fiscally possible.

@Penny

When you do the math on the financial impact of illegal immigration, building a wall is about 90% cheaper (assuming a 100% elimination, which is a faulty assumption, but just for the sake of argument). It would save us money; and in terms of feasibility, large portions are already built (the wall was already approved years ago -- Clinton actually voted in favor). But anyway "physically (im)possible" just sounds like a challenge. I do physically impossible shit every day. Dream big!

Firstly I doubt anyone coming from somewhere like El Salvador would describe the trip as easy.

Compared to assembling the funds to do it legally.

If there were a realistic option people would take it. If there were a modicum of stability at home people wouldn't be as inclined to risk it in the first place.

Bingo and bongo. Illegal immigration is nothing anybody should WANT to defend -- it's a symptom of terrible things, and oversight, and it SUCKS. I'm beating a dead horse, but.... we should really do something to curb it. The left will not (allegedly, because illegals who vote, vote democrat).

No one is arguing for some sort of completely open border....

They absolutely are. And they very nearly got it, too.

People don't break the law because they are evil (generally) they do it because they are desperate.

As I've said, totally agree, and I'm in no way arguing for a wall out of spite or malice. Illegal immigration is horrible for the immigrants -- more so than it is for us. Rape statistics during the crossing alone should confirm that, if the arguments already acknowledged don't suffice.

So long as we continue to pretend that building a wall or digging a moat or whatever is going to solve the problem, its never going to get much better.

Wall is a necessary first step. Immigration law today is meaningless, because there is no control. Reforming a meaningless law is, well, meaningless. We need control before we can fix this. A wall doesn't fix the problem -- it merely establishes control. And we need that to happen.

Hypothetically we could establish control by militarizing the border without constructing physical barriers -- border gestapo -- but I'm not amenable to that. I want a wall -- and a door.

[Dolerman]

[mdk]

[Vilageidiotx]

When you do the math on the financial impact of illegal immigration, building a wall is about 90% cheaper (assuming a 100% elimination, which is a faulty assumption, but just for the sake of argument). It would save us money; and in terms of feasibility, large portions are already built (the wall was already approved years ago -- Clinton actually voted in favor). But anyway "physically (im)possible" just sounds like a challenge. I do physically impossible shit every day. Dream big!

@mdk

I feel like this bit highlights all the practical problems with building a wall, and why it isn't a worthwhile investment, and why it is mostly a political red herring used to keep us from focusing on our real problems.

1: That 100% effectiveness is unlikely and shouldn't taken into calculation. 50% elimination would be wildly impressive.

2: That we've already got walls in the sensible places, and what we are mostly discussing now is the utility of building walls across the remote deserts and mountains that make up so much of the border.

3: That it would be a continuous cost to upkeep a massive piece of infrastructure that more or less doesn't do anything. This means it would probably be abandoned in portions as both parties look to reapportion that money to active projects, so that I would expect the Trump portions of the wall to be mostly abandoned and let go into ruin since they are impractical.

I personally don't have a problem with them building the wall. I'd rather Trump focus on it, actually. Sure, it's a waste of money, and there is probably some dark and dirty corruption behind the plan, but corrupt wastes of money is something we can swallow and forget. Get the dumb thing out of the way so we can get to forgetting about it sooner, and hope that Republicans don't start pushing something equally "useful" like building a really really really tall tower on the Canada border so we can see to the artic.

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I feel like this bit highlights all the practical problems with building a wall, and why it isn't a worthwhile investment, and why it is mostly a political red herring used to keep us from focusing on our real problems.

1: That 100% effectiveness is unlikely and shouldn't taken into calculation. 50% elimination would be wildly impressive.

2: That we've already got walls in the sensible places, and what we are mostly discussing now is the utility of building walls across the remote deserts and mountains that make up so much of the border.

3: That it would be a continuous cost to upkeep a massive piece of infrastructure that more or less doesn't do anything. This means it would probably be abandoned in portions as both parties look to reapportion that money to active projects, so that I would expect the Trump portions of the wall to be mostly abandoned and let go into ruin since they are impractical.

I personally don't have a problem with them building the wall. I'd rather Trump focus on it, actually. Sure, it's a waste of money, and there is probably some dark and dirty corruption behind the plan, but corrupt wastes of money is something we can swallow and forget. Get the dumb thing out of the way so we can get to forgetting about it sooner, and hope that Republicans don't start pushing something equally "useful" like building a really really really tall tower on the Canada border so we can see to the artic.

@Vilageidiotx

1. Prepare to be impressed! Just by talking about it, we've made a big dent. Follow-through is important though, or else that's all coming right back.

2. 600 of 1900 miles, if my sources are any good (they're probably not) are currently walled. That's a LOT of open territory. Anyway if we had the sensible places all shored up then why do we still have illegal immigration?

3. I mean I'm waiting to see what the project looks like before declaring it useless. One proposal involved covering the whole thing in solar panels -- I mean how badass would that be? We are, after all, talking about deserts. That could be huge. Another proposal worked in some mass transit (though I dunno how many passengers/goods take that route -- I mean I guess our own little land-borne panama canal could be neat).

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Actual boundaries are a physical and psychological deterrent, as well as an area of demarcation that display a willingness to deny access to a zone, usually by some authority. Granted these people clearly do not respect that authority, but the problems of besting a physical object like a wall reinforce the nature of the consequences of disobeying it. The short of what I am saying is that walls do work at keeping people out, especially if it is well noted why it is there and what the punishment is for failing to heed it is once on the other side. No less, it needn't even be one-hundred percent effective to have a positive gain. Not just on immigration issues, but proving the United States can better back its word for once after the past few years.

I live and work in a remote desert. It is not that difficult to build a wall up to a point that is difficult to pass then use the natural boundary to funnel people through it and into another, significantly smaller wall. This type of "channeling" is not new and is, in fact, a very efficient way to force people to go right where you want them to; most are willing to believe there won't be a deterrent or anyone waiting on the other side. It also makes escape by those persons more difficult, meaning apprehension and arrest take less time while also being less dangerous for the officers in question. It needn't even be that elaborate as having anyone on the other side to remain fairly effective.

It was said already, but a physical boundary can be used for anything from solar panels to wind turbine in the right places, but its objective isn't to off set its costs; that's just a benefit that should be worked out if at all possible. The reality of managing the upkeep of a mostly concrete and steel structure is minimal in a desert; it isn't like it is going to rust that much. More Border Patrol agents would be required to do this, but that was a given from the start as the objective was to reduce and eliminate, as near to zero, illegal immigrants gaining unauthorized entry and to do just that you will need human sentries.

[Vilageidiotx]

1. Prepare to be impressed! Just by talking about it, we've made a big dent. Follow-through is important though, or else that's all coming right back.

@mdk

Okay, we don't have to construct a money sink. Problem solved.

2. 600 of 1900 miles, if my sources are any good (they're probably not) are currently walled. That's a LOT of open territory. Anyway if we had the sensible places all shored up then why do we still have illegal immigration?

You get your visa overstays and your people using coyotes. Yeh, you'll have people skipping through the desert, but what I am arguing is that the continuous cost of such a bizarre construct doesn't match the threat from this specific subset of illegal immigrants.

3. I mean I'm waiting to see what the project looks like before declaring it useless. One proposal involved covering the whole thing in solar panels -- I mean how badass would that be? We are, after all, talking about deserts. That could be huge. Another proposal worked in some mass transit (though I dunno how many passengers/goods take that route -- I mean I guess our own little land-borne panama canal could be neat).

I'm not sure of the practicality of constructing your solar farm as a straight line in terms of dollars spent. A highway along that route would be redundant since I-10 seems to fill that roll. I mean, these ideas sound neat on paper, but they kinda feel a lot like attempts to justify a money sink.

The reality of managing the upkeep of a mostly concrete and steel structure is minimal in a desert; it isn't like it is going to rust that much.

A simple cement boundary in the desert would be completely irrelevant. For a wall to be effective it has to be constantly manned and serviced, which is the primary cost involved. Without all that, it's just sort of an obstacle in what is already an obstacle course naturally speaking.

But again, I'm not opposing it. It's a pork project. Government has been dealing with pork projects since forever. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have dealt with any real issues either, so it's pretty much neither here nor there for me. Better than having him fuck up anything that matters.

[mdk]

snip

@Vilageidiotx

1. Short term, yeah. Long term, absolutely not.

2. 16,000 people in the month of December -- and that's just counting who we caught. Well over a hundred thousand annually. The cost of which is estimated to be in the many tens of billions (if not over a hundred billion) of dollars in programs, tax credits and law enforcement. And then there's cartel, gang, and god forbid someday terrorist groups exploiting the border. PLUS, hey, you know, uh, Mexico is toooootally going to pay for it anyway, so it's basically free, right? In every way this is worth the investment.

3. We'll see.

(4) the border has to be constantly manned anyway (and is). It's porous. Patrolling without a physical barrier is far more difficult and inefficient than with one. And remember -- it (kinda, for a while anyway) worked for China. It works in Israel. It's working in Hungary. This is a good idea. It has been for thousands of years.

[Penny]

And remember -- it (kinda, for a while anyway) worked for China.

@mdk

I feel like this analogy does all its own work.

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I feel like this analogy does all its own work.

@Penny

Yeah it won't protect us from the mongol horde. That's a weakness. Acknowledged.

[Penny]

I was thinking of a giant project that utterly failed to accomplish its goal and to which the eventual answer was assimilation :)

[Dolerman]

I love this thread

[mdk]

I was thinking of a giant project that utterly failed to accomplish its goal and to which the eventual answer was assimilation :)

@Penny

If it buys us 1500 years I'll take it.

[Dolerman]

@VilageidiotxSo to veer away from the topic a little, I noticed that you have somehow more posts than me and ive actually been on here two days longer.

How in the fuck did that happen, Ive never seen you post anywhere but here and occasionally spam, do you even roleplay? I'm starting to think you are only on this site to critique my memes and passively endorse communism.

[Dolerman]

Women's Health -- well I'm certainly not qualified to speak to that'n. My position begins and ends with "don't make people do things they don't wanna do."

@mdk

[mdk]

[Dolerman]

@Iuniper accept my discord request dammit

[Iuniper]

Bruh

As we share a server you can freely tag or message me already.