Thread: Armed Mexican troops turned back illegal aliens at U.S. border Why can't we

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Personally, I'd rather have troops or a Wall of Americans guarding our borders than a Wall, mainly because of the duality of the Wall. With the Wall you still need personnel to guard the Wall. Why not just put troops and a Wall of Americans on the border, something that doesn't require dual functions, wall + people, just people. Also, you avoid all the problems with the farmers down there and perhaps as important as anything, you avoid the adverse impact on the environment. Plus it creates nice jobs for Americans who need them and would work their hearts out protecting our country.

An efficient border wall or fence is a force multiplier. The more quality fencing provided, the fewer people necessary to secure the border. Your proposal of a "wall of Americans", while sounding good in theory, is not practical and would be less cost effective than a border wall with all the bells and whistles. Heck, we're having a hard enough time trying to get funding for a quality border wall. Could you imagine trying to get funding for hundreds of thousands, or maybe even a million, new BP agents? You're talking about an awful lot of money when you consider salaries, pensions, healthcare, dental plans, etc.

On sending active duty military to the border, that would not be a permanent solution. Besides that, our military is already spread thin and at the first sign of trouble elsewhere in the world the troops would be yanked so fast it would make Mexico's head spin.

Like I said, a quality wall is a force multiplier. It is more or less designed to be a permanent fixture. Securing our border will require a combination of quality fencing with all the bells and whistles and an ample supply of BP agents to patrol and monitor necessary sensors and surveillance equipment.

Oh, and one last thing regarding your troops to the border solution. Let's not forget the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Sending active duty military to the border would require an act of Congress. Good luck with that.

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Either you and nntrixie didn't bother to read what I wrote or you've both decided to ignore most of it. If you guys are set in your mind and don't care to listen to reason, that's on you. Moreover, I can't figure out what you really want anyway. One minute your support Trump's wall and the next you don't.

Originally Posted by MW

Either you and nntrixie didn't bother to read what I wrote or you've both decided to ignore most of it. If you guys are set in your mind and don't care to listen to reason, that's on you. Moreover, I can't figure out what you really want anyway. One minute your support Trump's wall and the next you don't.

I don't support the wall. I've never supported the wall. I didn't support the fence. But unless you secure the border with manpower, we're left with no choice but a wall plus manpower.

I only support the wall BECAUSE you looney tunes won't support the MANPOWER.

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't support the wall. I've never supported the wall. I didn't support the fence. But unless you secure the border with manpower, we're left with no choice but a wall plus manpower.

I only support the wall BECAUSE you looney tunes won't support the MANPOWER.

That is a personal attack.

Sometimes we get passionate and frustrated but please avoid name calling. Perhaps at times we best just agree to disagree. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Jean

Sometimes we get passionate and frustrated but please avoid name calling. Perhaps at times we best just agree to disagree. Thank you.

The looney tunes comment was not directed at anyone in particular. It was directed at those enemies of our cause who refuse to fund and support funding of manpower needed to secure our border, any and all of whom that may include. Am I misunderstanding our objective here? I thought we supported manpower on the borders. I thought we supported troops on the borders. I thought we supported more border patrol on the borders. I thought we supported securing our borders with manpower. Perhaps I need an update on exactly what our policy is on securing the border.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

That is a personal attack.

On whom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_Tunes

Originally Posted by Judy

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles . . .

Trump's Plan To Hire 15,000 Border Patrol And ICE Agents Won't Be Easy

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Oh, and one last thing regarding your troops to the border solution. Let's not forget the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Sending active duty military to the border would require an act of Congress. Good luck with that.

First off, if we have a law that states our military CANNOT defend our own border - then that needs to go.
I believe it was designed to keep the federal government from using the military against it's own people, not from defending us from invaders or drug dealers.

Now today, with our government of the last 50/60 years, I could believe they would pass a law that states we can't defend our own border, but not in 1878.

Also, I have read that deterring drugs is an exemption from the law.

A wall is just as good as the people standing behind it. It may be something to slow them down in order to be caught, but it will not work alone.

I believe our politicians know this, therefore, they keep talking about a wall, as if that is their only solution, knowing it will take 2 years or more to put in place.

They can play a lot of havoc with this country in 2 years time.

Lots more time to get more 'dreamers' into places of power and decision making in this country.

Remember, we were promised a fence after the failure of amnesty under George Bush.

As to our military being spread thin already - I have a very good solution.

Let's bring them home, and let them defend what is most precious to us - our own country and the future of our children and grandchildren.

The idea we can't defend our borders, the idea we CAN defend every other border in the world, is mind bogglling. We can't defend our border because our troops are all around the world, in other countries? They are fighting in wars that have no benefit for the US - has nothing to do with our freedom and safety - just the opposite. Those wars are being fought to make corporations and politicians wealthy.

So -- maybe it makes sense to keep them over there fighting for corporations, rather than guarding our border making us safe. Keeping the illegals out will be cutting into the profits of the corporations, and the income of the politicians - so in that case it makes sense - right?