Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Most parts of the border are lacking. I think they did less than 700 miles, and not all contiguous.

And where there are good barriers which are patrolled, the flow of people is channeled to legal crossings with check points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

The US-Mexico border is about 2000 miles total in length. That fence covers around 1/3 of the length of the border. That's not insignificant.

I've heard numerous things attributed to the US Border Patrol about the wall Trump wants. One of which was something about a chain link fence with irregular patrols being good enough, because realistically you will never be able to stop everyone.

I mean, there's a reason why military bases use chain-link fences with some observation posts, and they only use solid walls when they don't want people looking in. Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now.

in the end the wall is just a pipe dream and a huge waste of tax payers money. It's to expensive to build, and even more so to maintain, and it's so easy to just tunnel under the current walls more walls are laughable. they found 2 more tunnels recently, proving how ineffective they really are.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Most parts of the border are lacking. I think they did less than 700 miles, and not all contiguous.

And where there are good barriers which are patrolled, the flow of people is channeled to legal crossings with check points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

The US-Mexico border is about 2000 miles total in length. That fence covers around 1/3 of the length of the border. That's not insignificant.

I've heard numerous things attributed to the US Border Patrol about the wall Trump wants. One of which was something about a chain link fence with irregular patrols being good enough, because realistically you will never be able to stop everyone.

I mean, there's a reason why military bases use chain-link fences with some observation posts, and they only use solid walls when they don't want people looking in. Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now.

It is less than significant if the whole border is not secured.

You are correct, you can never stop EVERYONE. You can significantly decrease the 100s of thousands of illegal crossings though.

Your 'military bases use chainlink' is frankly a stupid comparison. There are not a gak ton of folks who want to break in to military bases and making it inconvenient and just delineating the border of the base prevents accidental intrusions. Folks who want to steal from a base generally need to bring a vehicle on, and figuring out where vehicles can come onto the base is not difficult and barriers to prevent that are put up.

When you state "Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now" I have to assume you didn't read what I typed. Here it is again:

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

 CptJake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Most parts of the border are lacking. I think they did less than 700 miles, and not all contiguous.

And where there are good barriers which are patrolled, the flow of people is channeled to legal crossings with check points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

The US-Mexico border is about 2000 miles total in length. That fence covers around 1/3 of the length of the border. That's not insignificant.

I've heard numerous things attributed to the US Border Patrol about the wall Trump wants. One of which was something about a chain link fence with irregular patrols being good enough, because realistically you will never be able to stop everyone.

I mean, there's a reason why military bases use chain-link fences with some observation posts, and they only use solid walls when they don't want people looking in. Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now.

It is less than significant if the whole border is not secured.

You are correct, you can never stop EVERYONE. You can significantly decrease the 100s of thousands of illegal crossings though.

Your 'military bases use chainlink' is frankly a stupid comparison. There are not a gak ton of folks who want to break in to military bases and making it inconvenient and just delineating the border of the base prevents accidental intrusions. Folks who want to steal from a base generally need to bring a vehicle on, and figuring out where vehicles can come onto the base is not difficult and barriers to prevent that are put up.

When you state "Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now" I have to assume you didn't read what I typed. Here it is again:

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

I did mention patrols and observation posts, didn't I?

 Pouncey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Most parts of the border are lacking. I think they did less than 700 miles, and not all contiguous.

And where there are good barriers which are patrolled, the flow of people is channeled to legal crossings with check points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

The US-Mexico border is about 2000 miles total in length. That fence covers around 1/3 of the length of the border. That's not insignificant.

I've heard numerous things attributed to the US Border Patrol about the wall Trump wants. One of which was something about a chain link fence with irregular patrols being good enough, because realistically you will never be able to stop everyone.

I mean, there's a reason why military bases use chain-link fences with some observation posts, and they only use solid walls when they don't want people looking in. Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally, if I really wanted to get into the USA, but there was an impenetrable wall along the border that there was absolutely no way through, over, or under, I'd go to the left or right, spend some time traveling to the coast, then get in a boat and, like, go around it, in the water, where the fence doesn't exist.

The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

 d-usa wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Most parts of the border are lacking. I think they did less than 700 miles, and not all contiguous.

And where there are good barriers which are patrolled, the flow of people is channeled to legal crossings with check points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_barrier

As folks who understand obstacles and barriers will tell you, any obstacle or barrier which is not watched/patrolled is NOT an obstacle or barrier.

Ignorant people focus on The Wall which Trump wants built, instead the focus should be on the policies (and resourcing) which accompany the wall which will ultimately determine how effective it is or is not.

The US-Mexico border is about 2000 miles total in length. That fence covers around 1/3 of the length of the border. That's not insignificant.

I've heard numerous things attributed to the US Border Patrol about the wall Trump wants. One of which was something about a chain link fence with irregular patrols being good enough, because realistically you will never be able to stop everyone.

I mean, there's a reason why military bases use chain-link fences with some observation posts, and they only use solid walls when they don't want people looking in. Humanity invented walls literally thousands of years ago, so we're pretty good at figuring out ways around them by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally, if I really wanted to get into the USA, but there was an impenetrable wall along the border that there was absolutely no way through, over, or under, I'd go to the left or right, spend some time traveling to the coast, then get in a boat and, like, go around it, in the water, where the fence doesn't exist.

The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

Stop ruining the narrative, you big meanie!

 d-usa wrote:
The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

...I think that's the best reason that the wall is a stupid idea that I've ever heard.

If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

 Pouncey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

...I think that's the best reason that the wall is a stupid idea that I've ever heard.

That's how my parents and I did it .

 d-usa wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

...I think that's the best reason that the wall is a stupid idea that I've ever heard.

That's how my parents and I did it .

You sound like a pretty bright family.

I was gonna go drive to the coast and rent a boat. That was my plan.

You just, like, drove through a checkpoint, gave the guard a completely believable and ordinary story about why you were going into the USA, and they let you in. The guard might've even told you to enjoy your visit.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

That's silly. The berlin wall did, indeed, work.

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

That's silly. The berlin wall did, indeed, work.

You sure about that?

I'm pretty sure I remember incredibly famous video of a crowd of civilians tearing it down on their own. The people on the other side were very happy to see them.

I think about 5000 people or so managed to slip through it over the years. Including a lot of guards. It definitely didn't stop people trying to get through that's for sure.

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

That's silly. The berlin wall did, indeed, work.

You sure about that?

I'm pretty sure I remember incredibly famous video of a crowd of civilians tearing it down on their own. The people on the other side were very happy to see them.

That's because E.Germany fell politically.

When it was up, it was pretty effective.

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border... only that, walls + manpower can effectively keep people out (or in). Only thing that remains is political-will power and $$$.

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

That's silly. The berlin wall did, indeed, work.

You sure about that?

I'm pretty sure I remember incredibly famous video of a crowd of civilians tearing it down on their own. The people on the other side were very happy to see them.

That's because E.Germany fell politically.

When it was up, it was pretty effective.

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border... only that, walls + manpower can effectively keep people out (or in). Only thing that remains is political-will power and $$$.

...By killing them.

Literally, the Berlin Wall only stopped anyone from defecting... by killing them. And it wasn't a strong deterrent to stop people from trying just because they might die.

The Mexicans who are trying to cross into the USA by getting past the wall are in such dire straits they cannot afford the documentation to get into the USA as a tourist. In many cases they are trying to get into the USA so they can earn enough money to send to their families so their families can, you know, afford enough food to stay healthy.

Those are the people who would be killed by defending the US-Mexico border as solidly as the Berlin Wall was.

The real way to reduce illegal immigration is to help Mexico improve their situation enough that people are doing well enough that they decide to just stay in Mexico. Helping them get rid of the drug cartels would be a damned massive improvement to the situation, from what I've heard, so if you're looking for a place to start...

Would legalising drugs in the U.S. undermine those cartels?

For my own part, I have no qualms about letting people into this country who are trying to escape dire circumstances, especially if those circumstances were created by this country.
The cartels in Mexico are a great example because the majority of their financing comes from drug users in this country who don't care who gets killed as long as they get their drugs.

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If the Berlin Wall didn't really work I don't think this one could either.

Yup.

The Berlin Wall had a thick concrete wall, land mines, razor wire, spot lights, and machine gun nests. The use of deadly force was authorized and practiced liberally.

Still didn't work.

That's silly. The berlin wall did, indeed, work.

You sure about that?

I'm pretty sure I remember incredibly famous video of a crowd of civilians tearing it down on their own. The people on the other side were very happy to see them.

That's because E.Germany fell politically.

When it was up, it was pretty effective.

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border... only that, walls + manpower can effectively keep people out (or in). Only thing that remains is political-will power and $$$.

...By killing them.

Correct. Hence it's effectiveness.

Literally, the Berlin Wall only stopped anyone from defecting... by killing them. And it wasn't a strong deterrent to stop people from trying just because they might die.

Incorrect. There are numerous books about this. That fething wall was incredibly effective in keeping the E.Berliners in... that's why it was such a big fething deal when that wall was torn down. I'm old enough to remember that, and it's truly one of those days where you remember when/where you were when this happened.

The Mexicans who are trying to cross into the USA by getting past the wall are in such dire straits they cannot afford the documentation to get into the USA as a tourist. In many cases they are trying to get into the USA so they can earn enough money to send to their families so their families can, you know, afford enough food to stay healthy.

Those are the people who would be killed by defending the US-Mexico border as solidly as the Berlin Wall was.

They're still breaking our laws. This should never be whitewashed.

The real way to reduce illegal immigration is to help Mexico improve their situation enough that people are doing well enough that they decide to just stay in Mexico. Helping them get rid of the drug cartels would be a damned massive improvement to the situation, from what I've heard, so if you're looking for a place to start...

Sure. We can help as long as our help is wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Would legalising drugs in the U.S. undermine those cartels?

Not really. What it'll do is reduce the number of vice-related crimes in the states. So, that's a good thing.

As for the cartels... they'll just shift to other illicit activities.

But surely whatever else they do won't be as profitable as the drugs trade in the U.S. right?

Relapse wrote:
For my own part, I have no qualms about letting people into this country who are trying to escape dire circumstances, especially if those circumstances were created by this country.
The cartels in Mexico are a great example because the majority of their financing comes from drug users in this country who don't care who gets killed as long as they get their drugs.

Aye.

Even Obama has expanded the asylum systems to account for this.

Not sure how effective this is... but, there's a system in place for these kinds of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But surely whatever else they do won't be as profitable as the drugs trade in the U.S. right?

Eh... I have family in DEA...

From what I gather, most drug cartels using drugs as "seed money" for other more lucrative activities.

Also, the US isn't the their only market. I'm sure it'd hurt them quite a bit if drugs were legalized, but they'll still be around.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But surely whatever else they do won't be as profitable as the drugs trade in the U.S. right?

I was watching some show last time I was TDY, it was focusing on the new burdens the Colorado police were facing with the legalization of Marijuana. The episode itself was focused on drug traffic. Running drugs out of Colorado, as well as into Colorado. When you have an industry who doesn't care about the employees involved in producing the product, you'd be surprised how low they'd price their goods to undercut legitimate competition. We've seen it in the last couple years with how Saudi Arabia has tanked oil prices to damage the growing US industry. They'll do the same thing in Mexico.

I feel things like Marijuana legalization will help to hurt the cartels, but it won't break them. There are ways for them to still drive profits from it, as well as all of the other illegal drugs they traffic in.

Well OK, even if it didn't cripple them, it might still be worth a try right? The current policy clearly isn't working. Oh, and instead of spending money fighting it, you could make money taxing it.

I'm saying this for anywhere by the way, not just the U.S.

@ djones520

I guess that's the problem with only legalising it in one state. I feel like it has to be all or nothing.

 whembly wrote:
They're still breaking our laws. This should never be whitewashed.

I, uh, wasn't aware that illegal immigration was worth killing someone over in the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Would legalising drugs in the U.S. undermine those cartels?

Honestly, if I thought I had an idea that would work that I didn't think the US government had already thought of and not done already, I wouldn't be arguing about it here, I'd be looking up the e-mail addresses of US Federal Agencies like the DEA and typing an e-mail about it to them.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Would legalising drugs in the U.S. undermine those cartels?

Not really. What it'll do is reduce the number of vice-related crimes in the states. So, that's a good thing.

As for the cartels... they'll just shift to other illicit activities.

Like what?

The only reason most of South America has anti-Drug laws is because the US requires it. The War on Drugs isn't a US thing. It's international. If that community legalized the most common drugs there would no longer be a black market for them. No black market no cartels. What other business will they go into? Money laundering? For whose illicit proceeds? Much of the black arms market in Western countries, money laundering, all of that depends almost completely on the drug trade. There isn't much of an economy for full auto AKs in the bookie business.

Sure there's some other things too, like illegal gambling, and prostitution but those will never support organizations like the cartels. There's not enough money in them. And the later should probably be legalized anyway, because the entire "War on selling sex unless there is a camera and the video goes on the internet" has got to be one of the dumbest of US policies.

The cartels won't realistically "die" because we're not gonna legalize Meth or Bath Salts. Those feth people up so badly it's insane to consider it. There's always going to be a market for illicit drugs, but there's a infinitely smaller one if we get control on cocaine, opium, and the prescription drug markets and the easiest way to do that is to just legalize and regulate them (probably end up with a lot fewer ODs on rat poison too).

 whembly wrote:

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border... only that, walls + manpower can effectively keep people out (or in). Only thing that remains is political-will power and $$$.

Unfortunately, you're not in Congress. Someone who is (Steve King), however, actually does want a solid wall, with additional fences on each side to establish a literal "no man's land".

 whembly wrote:

However, I'm not advocating the we'd "Berlin Wall" the southern border...

Then why are you arguing for one?

 Pouncey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The easy way is just to cross legally as a tourist, and then simply don't leave.

...I think that's the best reason that the wall is a stupid idea that I've ever heard.

That's how my parents and I did it .

You sound like a pretty bright family.

I was gonna go drive to the coast and rent a boat. That was my plan.

You just, like, drove through a checkpoint, gave the guard a completely believable and ordinary story about why you were going into the USA, and they let you in. The guard might've even told you to enjoy your visit.

Flew in actually. Simply landed in Memphis, went through border patrol there, told them we were visiting family. My step-dad held a US passport, I got my German passport stamped with a 60 day tourist stamp, as did my mother and my younger brother. A week later I was enrolled in high school. I didn't get my US passport issued until after the tourist visa expired, and a GOP congressman helped my mom and brother get a green card after they were caught.

 djones520 wrote:


I was watching some show last time I was TDY, it was focusing on the new burdens the Colorado police were facing with the legalization of Marijuana. The episode itself was focused on drug traffic. Running drugs out of Colorado, as well as into Colorado. When you have an industry who doesn't care about the employees involved in producing the product, you'd be surprised how low they'd price their goods to undercut legitimate competition. We've seen it in the last couple years with how Saudi Arabia has tanked oil prices to damage the growing US industry. They'll do the same thing in Mexico.

I feel things like Marijuana legalization will help to hurt the cartels, but it won't break them. There are ways for them to still drive profits from it, as well as all of the other illegal drugs they traffic in.

That's because its stupid to legalize and regulate these things state by state. But then, exactly how many people are getting killed running tobacco from Georgia to New York?

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Would legalising drugs in the U.S. undermine those cartels?

Not really. What it'll do is reduce the number of vice-related crimes in the states. So, that's a good thing.

As for the cartels... they'll just shift to other illicit activities.

Like what?

The only reason most of South America has anti-Drug laws is because the US requires it. The War on Drugs isn't a US thing. It's international. If that community legalized the most common drugs there would no longer be a black market for them. No black market no cartels. What other business will they go into? Money laundering? For whose illicit proceeds? Much of the black arms market in Western countries, money laundering, all of that depends almost completely on the drug trade. There isn't much of an economy for full auto AKs in the bookie business.

Sure there's some other things too, like illegal gambling, and prostitution but those will never support organizations like the cartels. There's not enough money in them. And the later should probably be legalized anyway, because the entire "War on selling sex unless there is a camera and the video goes on the internet" has got to be one of the dumbest of US policies.

The cartels won't realistically "die" because we're not gonna legalize Meth or Bath Salts. Those feth people up so badly it's insane to consider it. There's always going to be a market for illicit drugs, but there's a infinitely smaller one if we get control on cocaine, opium, and the prescription drug markets and the easiest way to do that is to just legalize and regulate them (probably end up with a lot fewer ODs on rat poison too).

The cartels also run operations much like the old-school mafia you see in the movies: collecting protection money, taking cuts of goods traveling through their territories, etc. In one region, I've read that they make a ridiculous amount of money off of the mining industry (can't remember if it was coal or iron).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


The cartels also run operations much like the old-school mafia you see in the movies: collecting protection money, taking cuts of goods traveling through their territories, etc. In one region, I've read that they make a ridiculous amount of money off of the mining industry (can't remember if it was coal or iron).

Yeah, but those things would happen regardless. Large "mega syndicates" like the Cartels need more money than such activities can provide.

We're talking about the difference between global crime networks that are working internationally and local crime networks. Running protection rackets isn't going to get you operating across an entire continent, especially since for the Cartels protection rackets are less about the money you get from them and more about how they support your other businesses. Places and means to move drugs and cash, and establishing power and control in the areas you operate in.