Best way for US govt shutdown to end?

psalms 91 said:

Again with the wall?

Click to expand...

Its not easy to separate the question of this thread from the wall, you know. I would say that if anyone among us doesn't care for the topic, there are others to choose from.

psalms 91 said:

So the answer is to appease the bully rather than make him retract it? I believe that he should be brought up on charges and I think as this goes on that will become a much more popular idea

Click to expand...

Hang on, let me get this straight. The Democrats make it clear they aren't budging at all and it's all Trump's fault? What charges do you think he should face for holding on for something? Should Nancy Pelosi face the same charges for holding on for something, or is it only Republicans who get blamed for stuff?

jsimms435 said:

Everything changes if there is a terrorist attack and it could have been prevented if the shutdown hadn't happened. It would take things to a whole different level

Click to expand...

Whether it could have been prevented were it not for the shutdown would end up being little more than another matter of speculation.

psalms 91 said:

Lets go back to the beginning: Trump claimed the shutdown and stated he would be proud to do it. The Dems have been straightforward since the beginning, is your idea of bargaining to give up and let the other person get what they want even though it is a bad idea. If thats your idea of bargaining then we need to bargain

Click to expand...

From what I can see the Dems have been straightforward - they've refused to allocate a dime to the wall.

I think the wall is a stupid idea that will cost a fortune and achieve little to nothing, but that's not the point. When there's a deadlock and neither side wants to move you can't blame one or the other. Trump claiming the shutdown seems like little more than bluster.

psalms 91 said:

Lets go back to the beginning: Trump claimed the shutdown and stated he would be proud to do it. The Dems have been straightforward since the beginning....

Click to expand...

The only way that statement makes sense is if you were pointing out that the Democrats have been 'straightforward' (and consistent) in saying that they will not negotiate.

tango said:

From what I can see the Dems have been straightforward - they've refused to allocate a dime to the wall.

I think the wall is a stupid idea that will cost a fortune and achieve little to nothing, but that's not the point. When there's a deadlock and neither side wants to move you can't blame one or the other. Trump claiming the shutdown seems like little more than bluster.

Click to expand...

I honestly do not get why people have bought into those two fictions.

First, 5 Billion is chicken feed to Congress. They just gave more money than that to several Central American countries.

Second, and worse, everybody who has worked on border issues knows that a physical barrier will help if not completely solve the problem. Several nations from other parts of the world have had almost total success from recently-built walls. The Pope, the President, Pelosi herself, Obama and a number of government buildings in Washington have walls of some sort surrounding their residences in order to prevent unauthorized persons from entering. Are they useless? If so, would they be there?

It takes only an IQ of 90 or so to realize that if you can channel or herd the invaders, it will make controlling them at the remaining crossing points easier. We do the same when controlling waterways. We do the same with livestock. It works. And before anyone gets offended at those comparisons, consider that you can no longer just wander around an airport; but it used to be the case that you could. There are turnstiles at subways and sports arenas, etc. All of that channels the crowd in a way that the Democrat are calling immoral.

Albion said:

I honestly do not get why people have bought into those two fictions.

First, 5 Billion is chicken feed to Congress. They just gave more money than that to several Central American countries.

Click to expand...

Yes, $5bn is pocket change in the national budget. Whether the wall can actually be built for that is another matter, not to mention ongoing maintenance costs. A civil engineering project of this size isn't the sort of thing where you get to the finishing line, write the last check and then forget about it.

Second, and worse, everybody who has worked on border issues knows that a physical barrier will help if not completely solve the problem. Several nations from other parts of the world have had almost total success from recently-built walls. The Pope, the President, Pelosi herself, Obama and other such people all have walls of some sort surrounding their residences. Are they useless? If so, would they be there?

Click to expand...

A physical barrier is great up to a point. Unless it is patrolled it won't do anything to stop people tunneling underneath it or flying over it. A wall around a small area (e.g. a house) works because you don't have hundreds of miles of it to monitor and maintain. A wall around a prison works because the inmates don't have unlimited access to digging tools, access to unmonitored sections of the wall and plenty of time to work unsupervised. A wall spanning hundreds of miles is a different matter.

It takes only an IQ of 90 to realize that if you can channel or herd the invaders, it will make controlling them at the remaining crossing points easier. We do the same when controlling waterways. We do the same with livestock. It works.

Click to expand...

And all this is great, were it not for the fact that any of them can take a commercial flight to LAX, say they are visiting their brother for a week, and then disappear. This is where the analogies to walls around houses fail - if I had a solid wall around my house but if someone showed up at the door and said they were there to fix the furnace, and I responded by just letting them in and left them in my house while I went shopping, those walls around my house would offer me precious little security.

ETA: Herding livestock is a very different proposition to restricting humans. If you want to keep cows in one place you just put a fence around the field. If you want to contain horses you need to consider their ability to jump a fence. If you want to contain birds you have to stop them flying out of the enclosure. If you want to contain rabbits you have to prevent them from digging their way out of the enclosure. Controlling waterways is also very different because water has no desire to be in any particular place - if a gently flowing stream encounters a barrier it merely deflects. If a fast-flowing river encounters an inadequate barrier it floods over the top.

The shutdown is apparently over now. At least temporarily

tango said:

Yes, $5bn is pocket change in the national budget. Whether the wall can actually be built for that is another matter, not to mention ongoing maintenance costs....A physical barrier is great up to a point. Unless it is patrolled it won't do anything to stop people tunneling underneath it or flying over it.

Click to expand...

The plan is to start building with $5 B and accomplish as much as possible. The Democrats previously approved of five times that much, but that was before opposing Trump at all times and in all ways became the overriding objective.

where did you get the notion that the plan of the president was to erect a wall and then disband the border patrol and count on the wall, fence, or whatever to do the job completely on its own? I think this is worth asking since the president has repeatedly said the opposite.

ETA: Herding livestock is a very different proposition to restricting humans. If you want to keep cows in one place you just put a fence around the field. If you want to contain horses you need to consider their ability to jump a fence. If you want to contain birds you have to stop them flying out of the enclosure. If you want to contain rabbits you have to prevent them from digging their way out of the enclosure. Controlling waterways is also very different because water has no desire to be in any particular place - if a gently flowing stream encounters a barrier it merely deflects. If a fast-flowing river encounters an inadequate barrier it floods over the top.

Click to expand...

...and you think that in the absence of any of those restraints, the cows or floods, or whatever will move in the exactly the same way as if they were in place. And also that it is just as easy to escape an enclosure by tunneling as is moving across a field that has no barriers at all.

How interesting.

Albion said:

and you think that in the absence of any of those restraints, the cows or floods, or whatever will move in the exactly the same way as if they were in place. And also that it is just as easy to escape an enclosure by tunneling as is getting out if there were no barrier at all.

How interesting.

Click to expand...

Of course not, you're really stretching to miss my point there.

A cow may or may not have any desire to leave the field. If its needs are being met in the field the chances are it's not going to wander very far, and hence a simple fence is probably all that is required to keep it in place. Imagine the cow having a specific desire to leave the field and a clear benefit in leaving the field. Now you need something stronger than a simple fence with a wooden post every 10 feet or so.

Now imagine that the cow has time and resources to dig under the fence or fly over the top of it. Or imagine that the cow could simply approach the gate and say it wanted to visit its friend in the next field, knowing the farmer would allow it out with few if any checks on exactly where it went once it was released.

As with most other things, where there's a will there's a way. Perhaps it would make more sense to figure why these people are seeking to come to the US and address that. If people want to come as law-abiding guest workers so they can pick tobacco or something, perhaps the answer is to let them do it, or to enforce the law rigidly and impose heavy fines on companies found to be hiring illegal labor. If they want to come to take advantage of a welfare system, cut the welfare and let it be well known in their host nations that there is no welfare for them.

The most problematic are the organized criminals and the wall will make little to no difference to their ability to come and go. The trouble is they are the ones with very deep pockets so even if you did have a wall that was adequately staffed, maintained and monitored, the big-time criminals can easily make it worth a border patrol cop's while to be distracted just as they cross the border. And hence the problem. The coyotes will continue to fly small aircraft over the wall. People running drugs and guns and stuff will continue to either fly over or tunnel under the wall - maybe they'll need to dig a new tunnel if the new wall goes up but it's not as if they don't have the budget or the motivation to do it. The wall may help keep out the casual border crosser but it makes more sense to make crossing the border less attractive than to build a physical monstrosity and hope it doesn't fall into disrepair.

tango said:

Of course not, you're really stretching to miss my point there.

Click to expand...

Not in the least. You were very clear.

Well, what can we say when the discussion seemed to start off on a serious note and then something as absurd as this (below) comes into the discussion?

tango said:

"The wall may help keep out the casual border crosser but it makes more sense to make crossing the border less attractive than to build a physical monstrosity and hope it doesn't fall into disrepair."

Click to expand...

Oh, yeh. There are no caravans. The border patrol didn't apprehend tens of thousands of illegal crossers last month alone.
There is only that "casual border crosser" who was out for a stroll after a big dinner. :lol:

Albion said:

Not in the least. You were very clear.

Well, what can we say when the discussion seemed to start off on a serious note and then something as absurd as this (below) comes into the discussion?


[/B][/COLOR]
Oh, yeh. There are no caravans. The border patrol didn't apprehend tens of thousands of illegal crossers last month alone.
There is only that "casual border crosser" who was out for a stroll after a big dinner. :lol:

Click to expand...

Sure, there are people coming here. Why are they coming here? If we could address that they might not be coming here in the first place.

If we build a honking great wall then perhaps they will stop coming, for a time. And then the wall will start to fall into disrepair (you know, like bridges and roads up and down the country) and before long they'll be coming again. Since the wall will have Trump's name all over it, what are the odds of the Democrats (who are fighting funding it now) agreeing to fund the ongoing maintenance of the wall? What are the odds that the next time the Dems have sufficient control of the government they'll either cut off funding completely and let it collapse, or actively pull it down?

I noticed you didn't address the problem of the coyotes and drug-runners. Why do you suppose these caravans have suddenly appeared?

tango said:

If we build a honking great wall then perhaps they will stop coming, for a time. And then the wall will start to fall into disrepair (you know, like bridges and roads up and down the country) and before long they'll be coming again.

Click to expand...

That has to be the lamest argument about the wall I have ever heard. OK, every bridge in the USA ought not to have been built, then, since all of them need maintenance after being erected, right? And highways get potholes, so we don't need them. LOL