Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

They can legit just climb over it. You can't stop surveilling that spot just because a wall got put in it. It doesn't force people anywhere.

The legal traffic is forced to cross the border elsewhere. The surveillance software can be used with the presumption that there is no legal traffic in that area. The surveillance software can be automated to a higher degree.

If it’s legal traffic it’s already crossing at border crossings anyway, by definition.

Also, automated surveillance still requires a human to look at it and go “yes this is something that requires action” when it triggers.

That doesn’t always work.

[Starver]

And 'legal crossing points' are notoriously jam-packed with those trying to legitimately cross (but just northwards..?). There are some who would 'illegally' transit for legally-sanctioned purposes, confusing the issue and adding opportunities.

Obviously that's not by design, merely a matter of logistics, which is why the monorail plan helps spread the load away from the border, perhaps making use of existing airport facilities to facilitate travel-checks well away from the linear border and its limited scope for bottlenecking crossing-points... You know it makes sense!

[MrRoboto75]

what about us brain-dead slobs?

[anewaname]

If it’s legal traffic it’s already crossing at border crossings anyway, by definition.

All registered businesses are legal by definition, [sarcasm]so they will follow the rules, like paying taxes, discarding of hazardous chemicals properly, consider worker health risks[/sarcasm]. I am saying that if you allow traffic at any point on the border, the entire border becomes a checkpoint, but if you put up a "wall", it provides the implication that crossing at that location is illegal.

Also, automated surveillance still requires a human to look at it and go “yes this is something that requires action” when it triggers.

Do you think the technology of high-altitude aerial photography used between the USSR and USA 50 years ago was not brought to the borders during the"war on drugs"? Do you think that pattern-matching of photos has not been improved to the point that technicians need to review fewer and fewer anomalies?

That doesn’t always work.

Of course it does not always work. Besides the issue of corrupt individuals within security organizations, there is incompetence and complacency, and a loss of technological advantage and loss of secrecy regarding the systems used.

=============
Separately, the mono-rail idea is pretty cool.

[dragdeler]

-

[MrRoboto75]

You're absolutely right

We should just line up and shoot every man, woman, and child that approaches the US Mexico border.  In either direction.

[Dunamisdeos]

Maybe the best option was not to fucking build the thing in the first place.

Good thing Mexico is paying for all of this or we might have a useless financial drain for decades to come. Ha ha ha my little boy would have to pay for that until he's my age. Ha ha.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

/s

[anewaname]

Errg....
You have no lock on your front door?
You give out your credit card data to everyone?
Offer your wallet to other people?

Borders.

Smugglers, smuggling drugs, enslaved people, guns, etc, use anyone they can coerce. Those coyotes are being used. Those migrants are being used.

Trump said "build a wall", but there already was 400 miles of vehicle-deterring wall. one. He added 50 miles more. From wikipedia on Trump wall

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The U.S. built new barriers along 455 miles,[6][7][8] 49 miles of which previously had no barrier.[7][8] Much of the remainder consists of 30-foot-tall steel fencing where previously there had been smaller fencing to deter automobiles.[6] 

Trump says "build a wall" and you act like he actually did something new. When he says he did something, why do you believe him?

Somewhat related, a 10 minute NPR radio blurb that explains changes to immigration from Bush Jr's administration to to 2017..

[dragdeler]

-

[MrRoboto75]

Who are we going to blame when it's the climate?

You know exactly who.

Them.  For not being us.

[dragdeler]

-

[Iduno]

And 'legal crossing points' are notoriously jam-packed with those trying to legitimately cross (but just northwards..?). There are some who would 'illegally' transit for legally-sanctioned purposes, confusing the issue and adding opportunities.

Obviously that's not by design, merely a matter of logistics, which is why the monorail plan helps spread the load away from the border, perhaps making use of existing airport facilities to facilitate travel-checks well away from the linear border and its limited scope for bottlenecking crossing-points... You know it makes sense!

With companies like Google and Apple lobbying to keep the number of immigrants allowed down (so they can buy up all of the visas, preventing anyone from getting into the country unless they agree to work for well below minimum wage - what are you going to do, put Google in jail?), it's difficult for most people to get into the country legally. That's why we *need* ICE to arrest and enslave people for use in agriculture. They can't get in to work otherwise.

what about us brain-dead slobs?

You'll be given cushy jobs

[anewaname]

In no way did I mean that the migrants are bringing the crime or the drugs. But I do mean that their ability to cross the border is limited or is controlled by groups that are smuggling. And in the case of undocumented immigrants, most will end up in economic slavery within the country. The "coyotes" are just the small dogs that heed the larger dog's bark and guide the migrants towards locations on the border.

Uhu and the state has do to manage money like a thrifty swabian housewife. Man I just can't follow this seducingly mundane logic. We put locks not because they are that good at inhibiting crime, we put locks to avoid crimes of opportunity.

We put locks because they provide the implication that crossing at that location is illegal. It is a border. A crime does not require an opportunity; a crime requires the intention to break that "written/unwritten law". You keep your wallet in your pocket, another border. You limit where your credit card info goes, another border.

The fundamental thinking error here is thinking immigrating without the correct paperwork is anything beyond a misdemeanor.

I am not sure what "correct paperwork" involves... but some guys filled in paperwork and received border VISAs and entered the US, then hijacked aircraft and used them to do bad things. This greatly changed US immigration policy and procedure.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I do not disagree that immigration should be easier, especially when those immigrants are fleeing famine and/or war, but immigrants are always stepping into a "political equation" and the politicians with power (not always the elected politicians) are determining who will get the money, which is how they balance the "political equation". If the current "political equation" involves "hardships at home, people will need to tighten their belts, etc", then bringing in migrants will not fit in their equation, so those politicians will find a reason to reject most of the refugees, even if they would provide more valuable labor than the cost to feed and shelter them. This article about rejected european jewish refugees during WWII includes a US diplomat's suggestion that France fell fast to Germany because France accepted a wave of Jewish refugees (search the article for "William Bullitt" to read this lovely quote, which can also be found in USA congressional records). Every potential immigrant to America is met at the door by a politician and his "business" friends who are asking, "what are you going to do for us? Want to be my economic slave?" The Irish fleeing the Potato Famine and the Italians fleeing the unification in Italy, entered America and went through this until they gained their own political power.

The notion that without limits there will be unlimited immigration flows is:

A: Fearmongering.
B: If it ever comes to migration flows where whole countries move, there is like a 99,9% likelyhood it's your moral duty to not ignore them.  I presume even in the USA there must be some forms of asylum law stating such. Like remember europe after WW2? Who are we going to blame when it's the climate?

Laws change as fast as the political situation does. Instead of meeting migration flows with moral duty, it will be with guns raised due to fear mongering. It is only after the "political equation" is solved that immigrant flows will be allowed any sort of freedom within the society, and that "political equation" certainly will not include a division of governing power. New people will be brought in at the bottom of the power structure.

... since our elites only concept forwards is to exclude more to be more greedy...

Greed? Power!

===============
I do not think migrants are the problem. I think politicians and businessmen are the problem, because they influence or control access to land, food, and water and their primary interests are power and business (legal or illegal).

There will be no easy method of immigration and the applications will remain complicated, because the only bar for citizenship is one where the "political equation" can be solved by the politicians, which usually means the politician needs to bring in new people "below" most of the current "citizens", which can only be done when the "economy" is up and the poorest are feeling good about their income and job security. I am not saying this because I believe this is the right thing, I am saying this because history has shown, this how it happens. No group of migratory people has entered another country/state without being brought into the power structure at or below the current bottom. And the more stressed the poorest are, the more likely the politicians will resist immigrants to avoid upsetting their power base.

I am not trying to be an ass.

[dragdeler]

-

[anewaname]

Everywhere in this world where humans live, there are "crimes of opportunity" waiting to be taken. If you were given an example where one person decides to steal some food from another person...
- Does it matter which person is "poorer"?
- Is the theft justified because it was "easy"?

I can get around to responding to the rest of your post after you answer those two questions. My answers to those two questions are "No" and "No", in all cases. But please answer the questions for yourself, separate from commenting on my answers.