Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Why your wall is expensive and useless.

Underworld

How the Sinaloa drug cartel digs its tunnels.

"Guzmán’s method of escape should have surprised no one. Last year, in Culiacán, he evaded Mexican marines by disappearing into a network of subterranean passageways connecting seven houses. He did not invent smuggling tunnels—bank robbers, rumrunners, and guerrillas had used them for decades—but his criminal enterprise, the Sinaloa drug cartel, built the first cross-border narcotúnel, in 1989. Since then, Sinaloa has refined the art of underground construction and has used tunnels more effectively than any criminal group in history."

Web Link


Comments

>>Why your wall is expensive and useless.<<

A good fence may not stop the most sophisticated drug cartel operations but it will certainly impede the flow of millions of illegal border jumper along with minor drug smugglers.

A secured fence will more than pay for itself in terms of national security and sovereignty, disease control, drain on social services, resource depletion, environmental damage, jobs loss, cultural impact and overall quality of life for Americans.


^^^ A secured fence will more than pay for itself in terms of national security and sovereignty, disease control, drain on social services, resource depletion, environmental damage, jobs loss, cultural impact and overall quality of life for Americans. ^^^

You're mistaken if you believe that Democrats care about those issues.


You're mistaken if you believe that Democrats care about those issues.

I care a lot about it regardless of your partisan, sweeping generalizations, Honeybutt.

There are better, cheaper and more effective ways to manage immigration. If you want to live in a prison, build your stupid wall, but you'll still have your problem and be a $billion or three poorer for it. It's a panacea - primarily a symbolic gesture.

How about Congress pass legislation? Is there an issue with the Republicans in control?


>>If you want to live in a prison, build your stupid wall<<

We're not in a prison. We're not trying to sneak into Mexico. If we want to travel we can do so legally with endless possibles.

Mexicans aren't in a prison either. They have all the options to travel -legally- like everyone else.

Frankly, Mexico is a rotten neighbor that needs to stay on its own property, stop trespassing on ours and stop mooching off of us. Mexico even instructs its unwelcome 'emissaries' on how to rip off the US to send money to Mexico. Since they won't stop what they're doing we need to respond in kind. Happily that would decrease the illegal aliens from other countries that Mexico waves on through to the US.

The cost of a high tech fence, patrolling, automatic jail and deportation is a drop in the bucket compared to what the undeniable invasion of our country is costing us.

I don't really know what the hold up is in Washington but believe Obama has promised to veto any legislation that isn't his amnesty poison pill. But the Republican establishment is a also big part of the problem (and why there's a movement to dump Boehner and McConnell).

Right now we need to stop thinking in terms of one giant fix-everything bill that groans under its own weight and work on enforcing the pieces we already have.


^^^ Right now we need to stop thinking in terms of one giant fix-everything bill that groans under its own weight and work on enforcing the pieces we already have. ^^^

We need to start thinking about was is good for America and not the Democrat Party, the establishment Republicans or the crony capitalists that lobby them.

Congress has already passed legislation to build a wall. Demands from the increasingly shrill and contemptible "Coasters" for additional legislation that Obama will fail to enforce is laughable and not a solution to the problem.


* "A secured fence will more than pay for itself in terms of national security and sovereignty, disease control, drain on social services, resource depletion, environmental damage, jobs loss, cultural impact and overall quality of life for Americans."

* "Frankly, Mexico is a rotten neighbor that needs to stay on its own property, stop trespassing on ours and stop mooching off of us. Mexico even instructs its unwelcome 'emissaries' on how to rip off the US to send money to Mexico."

Don't you wish that when someone has something to say they just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush & sugarcoating it?

C'mon, uff, tell us what you really think.

Maybe uff will be the next Sarah? Maybe Trump reads TA and will tap uff's shoulder as VP?!

What a team that would be, huh? Heck, if we play our cards right, with the right people in the right places, maybe we could even build a case good enough to invade Mexico. We could suggest they have WMD, for example, and that if they didn't dump them, we'd invade - or better yet, nuke 'em.

Cheney and his hawk ilk would be in their heyday.


I saw a very dirty, barely dressed, very tan and very crazy homeless person occupying the vestibule of a restaurant near my office that closed a few years ago. He was arguing with someone at the top of his lungs.

Made me think of George, except that the crazy guy was more interesting and made more sense.


"In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants". Web Link

That has been the case for the last 10 years yet the right wing fanatics keep crying and weeping and refusing to discuss it.

"PRINCETON, N.J. -- Two in three U.S. adults favor a plan to allow immigrants who are living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country and become citizens if they meet certain requirements over time".

Some day, perhaps after the 2016 defeat, the wing-nuts will join the rest of Americans.


^^^ Some day, perhaps after the 2016 defeat, the wing-nuts will join the rest of Americans. ^^^

The far-Left wing-nuts can't distinguish between the issues of securing the border and a path to citizenship.


Most thinking people agree that the problem we are attempting (or as Republicans not) dealing with is two-fold. Part one is the reduction of those who are illegally enter our country. Part two is dealing with the approximately 12 million of those folks are currently here.

Senate bill S-744 dealt with both areas with the caveat that part 2 would not be addressed until part 1 was successful . Billions of dollars were approved for border security. The House Republicans refused to even discuss the issue.

Web Link


Apparently, "Coasters" isn't the only one that foolishly believes passing more immigration laws will work with a president that refuses to enforce existing law.

Besides, were the issue of immigration so important to the Democrats, they'd have dones something about it when they had complete and utter control of the House and the Senate for the first two years of Obama's presidency.

No one takes Democrats seriously on controlling the border because they cannot be trusted to do what's in the best interest of America and Americans.


There's nothing like over simplifying the complexity of economic driven immigration for the sake of partisan politics, I guess.

Building a fence or granting citizenship across the board both completely fail to deal with the actual problems that exist. It's like trying to reduce illegal drug consumption with mandatory minimum sentences: you're treating symptoms and ignoring root causes.

A discussion about immigration needs to start with "why" and go from there.


No one takes Democrats seriously on controlling the border because they cannot be trusted to do what's in the best interest of America and Americans.

At least half the country thinks entrusting Democrats with power is okee-doke. In fact, if you look at economics, Democrats are much better at running the economy than Republicans.

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

Web Link


So much hate all wrapped in such an insignificant package. The pain must be excruciating.

Poor soul.

And to eliminate any questions, allow me to put a finer point on it - francis, this Bud's for you!


Back to the topic:

Here's a slate.com piece re. fences - how they work and how to make them work better. The article doesn't agree with my PoV, but it does touch on a piece of what concerns me - the relationship with the neighbor.

"A wisely planned fence is capable of preventing almost every attempt to enter a country illegally. "

Web Link


"A discussion about immigration needs to start with "why" and go from there."

The subject at hand is not simply immigration, it is about "illegal immigration". If anyone is not aware that the primary, secondary, and tertiary reasons for illegal immigration is financial betterment they have had their head in the sand. This is not only the reason for the Hispanic (Mexican, Central and South American, Cuban, and Carribean) illegal immigration but also the problems that are prevalent in nearly all European countries.

Web Link

The American people want a solution. They want our borders closed. They want a path to citizenship available for those currently illegally residing in the United States. Why is Congress unwilling to do anything about it?


It is amazing the similarity of comments that are coming from Europe with those heard here.

""For us, today Europe is at stake," Orban said. "The survival, disappearance or, more precisely, the transformation beyond recognition of the European citizen's lifestyle, European values and the European nations."

"The question now is not only what kind of Europe we Hungarians would like to live in," Orban said. "Rather, will all that we now call Europe exist at all?"

"It is clear that we can't filter out the hostile terrorists in the huge crowds," Orban said, adding that there had been a "drastic increase" in crime where illegal migrants lived.

"We would like for Europe to keep belonging to the Europeans," Orban said. "We want to preserve the Hungarian Hungary."

"The European left sees the problem of immigration not as a source of danger but as an opportunity," Orban said. "They believe ... that the escalation of immigration can extremely weaken or even eliminate the national structures."

Web Link

Deja Vu All Over Again


^^^ A discussion about immigration needs to start with "why" and go from there. ^^^

You need to familiarize yourself with the great Milton Friedman regarding why the current state of immigration is problematic: Web Link


>>maybe we could even build a case good enough to invade Mexico. We could suggest they have WMD, for example, and that if they didn't dump them, we'd invade - or better yet, nuke 'em.<<

Sorry George, but yawn. Why do you launch into extreme and ridiculous scenarios that have no basis at all.

>>So much hate..<<

Come on. Not that tired routine again.


>>There's nothing like over simplifying the complexity of economic driven immigration for the sake of partisan politics, I guess. Building a fence or granting citizenship across the board both completely fail to deal with the actual problems that exist.<<

... by which I take it you mean figure out what's wrong with other countries that keep sending their illegals to access our services, or why we keep attracting them.

Our own well being and survival is our first priority. Do what's needed to stop the surge of illegals. Once that's managed then take a breath and see what more we can do to help other countries that we haven't already been doing. But as long as we're under assault it's irrational to expect us to fix the rest of the world too.

It's like this-- we have a hole in our hull and our GPS is on the blink too. Who's going to fiddle with figuring out the GPS when water is pouring into the engine room!


Hey Honeybatcher, Milton Friedman, after all his pontifications, said the Fed was a good idea.

It sucks to be you.


^^^ Milton Friedman, after all his pontifications, said the Fed was a good idea. ^^^

It's easy to take Milton Friedman out of context, which makes it easy for contemptible hacks like "Coasters" to deliberately misquote him. But if If I'm wrong, it will be easy for "Coasters" to note which minute mark in which video that Milton stated as much.

Friedman also said that were it up to him, he'd get rid of the Fed. I believe that was in one of the YouTube videos with Peter Robinson. I don't remember the particular context of the discussion, which is why I don't interrupt discussions to assert that Friedman wants to get rid of the Fed.

Back on topic, and back to the original video I linked, Friedman had some very interesting things to say about immigration that are just as valid today as they were when he gave that talk.

I encourage JustinStockman in particular to watch that series of videos so we can start with "why" and go from there. He may not be familiar with Phil Donohue or Milton Friedman and may like their "back and forth" discussion.


It's easy to take Milton Friedman out of context.

It's even easier to read Friedman's works and understand him. Friedman saw The Fed as a necessity, but also a danger if and when they implemented erratic economic policies. He (rightly) blamed The Fed for the Great Depression.

Honeygargle, you're not the only one who reads about economics. Some of us even have degrees in the subject.

Like you, Honeybunches, Friedman was an egomaniac. He LOVED the spotlight and bloviated on all sorts of topics of which he had opinions but no real technical knowledge. He was a free-market cheerleader.

...Friedman’s effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there’s an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While Friedman’s theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there’s much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public. --Paul Krugman


Paul Krugman also had this to say:"From Trump on Down, the Republicans Can’t Be Serious", Web Link

This was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide margin. What happened?

The answer, according to many of those who didn’t see it coming, is gullibility: People can’t tell the difference between someone who sounds as if he knows what he’s talking about and someone who is actually serious about the issues. And for sure there’s a lot of gullibility out there. But if you ask me, the pundits have been at least as gullible as the public, and still are.

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

Krugman, like Friedman, is also an economist - a well know highly regarded economist. I've posted some of his stuff before.

It will be interesting to see how pundits make the effort to hold Friedman high (they introduced him into this discussion after all) while tarring Krugman. Krugman's words can't be as important as Friedman's because Krugman thinks todays republican leadership and alleged candidates are beyond a joke; and I agree with Krugman, about that and many other things, including his quote just above.

Heck francis; what to do? what now?


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium