Donald Trump

"

DalaiLama wrote:

As for hard data - many data that were previous collected are (by department policy or by law) omitted intentionally, or being prohibited from being collected. Why? The most likely reason is that the evidence will be damning.

Actually a good point about criminality in the refugee population. But my point was about economic migration. Unless you want to say that the UN manipulates the data (why would they?).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Maybe because the "Wall" already partially exists, and because it is an option that has long been considered viable by people who actually live in the region? Before Trump ever spoke of it, another 700 miles was being considered for funding by the US Senate.

There are other travel methods, druglords would go full Devil May Cry on a wall just to stick it to Trump, and Mexico won't pay for it (no, Trump can't force it).

Once the US forces have the authority, and have mobilized, it won't be hard to stop the majority of the flow of illegal immigrants. Not difficult at all. The cartels are in for a very rude awakening when it comes to strategic defense of the border. If you had any idea of the kind of human and technological assets that already operate and train in those areas (because of the open desert) you would know its a straightforward proposition.

They have already tested and validated that aspect of it. If it gets the green light, in six months, the naysayers will be wondering what sort of voodoo magic was performed. I wish I could say more.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

As for hard data - many data that were previous collected are (by department policy or by law) omitted intentionally, or being prohibited from being collected. Why? The most likely reason is that the evidence will be damning.

Actually a good point about criminality in the refugee population. But my point was about economic migration. Unless you want to say that the UN manipulates the data (why would they?).

No aspersions against the UN, or their data. My comments were on US policy on US collected data.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Once the US forces have the authority, and have mobilized, it won't be hard to stop the majority of the flow of illegal immigrants. Not difficult at all. The cartels are in for a very rude awakening when it comes to strategic defense of the border. If you had any idea of the kind of human and technological assets that already operate and train in those areas (because of the open desert) you would know its a straightforward proposition.

They have already tested and validated that aspect of it. If it gets the green light, in six months, the naysayers will be wondering what sort of voodoo magic was performed. I wish I could say more.

I'm going to be skeptical about that. Afghanistan and Iraq were failures because smashing enemies is easy, but after that it never ends. Militar superiority doesn't matter that much with non conventional combatants. It doesn't help there is a lot of profit to be made.

Also, there are some ways to bypass the border (specially for illegal immigrants) like coming as a tourist.

That being said, isn't more constructive to just treat addicts (and legalize the lesser stuff) rather than use violence to solve the drug problem? Cartels become powerful enough because of the demand in first place (and the restricted supply). And the demand exists because of the stupid politics of the War on Drugs. Even if it could work, it seems the most wasteful, violent path to take.

If illegal immigrants are a problem, wouldn't be more simple to go after employers of illegals rather than make a wall?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

No aspersions against the UN, or their data. My comments were on US policy on US collected data.

Well, my hard data comment was about the refugee crisis. There is a lot of problems with the whole thing, others are exagerated/created, I'd prefer to talk about facts as much as possible.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

This is such an infantile perspective. Pound for pound the US military would crush any earthly force thrown at it in a face to face battle. There's a reason they SNEAK around

Like they defeated terrorism in Iraq.

There is VAST difference between defending your own territory when you have the right resources, and trying to conduct policing in someone else's territory with inadequate resources and cooperation.

I really wish I could say more on this specific border scenario, but I am not going to dig through sources for weeks to see what has been declassified.

Short publicly available version of the story (you can find a few public sources if you dig) - It's already been tested.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

There is VAST difference between defending your own territory when you have the right resources, and trying to conduct policing in someone else's territory with inadequate resources and cooperation.

I really wish I could say more on this specific border scenario, but I am not going to dig through sources for weeks to see what has been declassified.

Short publicly available version of the story (you can find a few public sources if you dig) - It's already been tested.

Wouldn't the fight be in Mexico? I mean, if you put a wall, odds are that it will be there the fight. What about ships and planes that avoid the border? What happens if the border becomes more of a shithole that currently is?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I'm going to be skeptical about that. Afghanistan and Iraq were failures because smashing enemies is easy, but after that it never ends. Militar superiority doesn't matter that much with non conventional combatants. It doesn't help there is a lot of profit to be made.

Afghanistan was trained by US forces on how to deal with a larger superior invading forces, so that USSR could not take them over. Otherwise, they would be part of Russia now.

Iraq should have been a done deal, the FIRST Gulf War, but they walked away, instead of completing operations and instituting a modern version of the Marshall Plan. The seeds for disaster had been brewing a long time.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Also, there are some ways to bypass the border (specially for illegal immigrants) like coming as a tourist.

Not really. Other than a few tunnels, it's all easy to control for people. I've been across the border in a few places and they have plenty of time, people and space (you have to be able to pull several vehicles to the side at times) to do it.

Think about it this way, why would millions of current illegal immigrants risk getting shot, robbed, stabbed, dying of dehydration or heat stroke when you could just waltz across the border as a tourist?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

That being said, isn't more constructive to just treat addicts rather than use violence to solve the drug problem?

I'm not talking about stopping the flow of drugs. Even if they could and did accomplish that, it would simply shift to a local supply, and newer synthetic drugs.

I'm specifically talking about human smuggling, which the cartels also are heavily involved in.



Cartels become powerful enough because of the demand in first place. And the demand exists because of the stupid politics of the War on Drugs. Even if it could work, it seems the most wasteful, violent path to take.

Again, this is where paying attention to what is happening at the time, and watching it unfold later on pays dividends that Google will never supplant. I don't know your age and wouldn't expect you to be following this specific information at the time anyways, but this is the origin of the Mexican Drug Cartels explosion into power:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/oregon_sen_ron_wyden_pushes_fo.html

With his ill advised plan, Wyden shifted 20 billion dollars annually to Mexican drug lords. That huge influx of money (doubled the existing drug trade) required a lot of new people, forces and government bribery to sustain. A lot of people rose up through the ranks and wanted a bigger chunk of the pie, if not the whole pie. The Beltran cartel rose up and the explosion ensued.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

If illegal immigrants are a problem, wouldn't be more simple to go after employers of illegals rather than make a wall?

This is like baking a cake. It isn't a choice of mixing the flour and water OR putting the batter into the oven. You need to do both.

Arizona already did just what you mentioned, caught flak for being racists about it, but stuck to their plan and it did help a lot. One of the things I linked earlier (if you'll go back a few posts) was commentary from Mexican officials on just how well it worked, to their chagrin.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

No aspersions against the UN, or their data. My comments were on US policy on US collected data.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, my hard data comment was about the refugee crisis. There is a lot of problems with the whole thing, others are exagerated/created, I'd prefer to talk about facts as much as possible.

Sometimes you have to be on the ground where the action is. The facts alone are like reading the score of a game versus actually watching it unfold. The numbers on US immigration are woefully under reported. They are like saying "A few people here and there use Google occasionally" -Except that the statement about Google would be more accurate.

At the current rate, if things continue as they are, the US will be in the same financial situation as Greece in 2-3 generations.

Then we will see how much the world loves their new and improved Chinese overlords.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Wouldn't the fight be in Mexico? I mean, if you put a wall, odds are that it will be there the fight. What about ships and planes that avoid the border? What happens if the border becomes more of a shithole that currently is?

No, The US really wouldn't do anything about stuff happening on the Mexican side of the wall. Anyone on the US side of the wall would be dealt with. Most of the territory is vast open desert, the few exceptions being some border cities, which already have walls for the most part.

As I said, they have already tested it (they just haven't publicized it) and it works.

"

TheWretch wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Many: it doesn't adress the cause of the problem, it doesn't stop people from entering, and Mexicans won't pay for it at all. Dumb promise is dumb.

Na its obviously what the constituents want to hear.

If Trump promises he'll make dollar bills rain down from the sky instead of water is that going to be your defense too? :D

Too much to answer, and I actually think you'd be probably more informed (and right), but I wanted to adress this in particular:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Not really. Other than a few tunnels, it's all easy to control for people. I've been across the border in a few places and they have plenty of time, people and space (you have to be able to pull several vehicles to the side at times) to do it.

Think about it this way, why would millions of current illegal immigrants risk getting shot, robbed, stabbed, dying of dehydration or heat stroke when you could just waltz across the border as a tourist?

I've read that almost half of the illegals overstay their visas, but that number seems hard to estimate to be reliable.

I think it's easier to just work from the territory and discouraging people from coming rather than actively blocking them.

Also, it wouldn't be less of a necessity to block them if there was a saner immigration process in first place (from the outside, it seems a situation of the type "we need you but we don't want you", it's easier to sustain T15 maps than to stay in US for some reason).

As someone who lives in El Paso, Texas - immediately across from Juarez - I think all this war versus Mexico talk is silly. On both sides, but mostly Dalai's.

I think the important thing to understand is that, if the US actually declared war on Mexico, the insurgency in Mexico would be a non-issue compared to insurgency here, in my home city.

When I go to Walmart I see just about as many Chihuahua license plates as Texas ones (Chihuahua is a state in Mexico). From what I can tell Mexicans love coming over here and spending their converted dollars on Walmart products.

When the Pope visited Juarez recently, public schools closed for the day (take that, separation of church and state!). Traffic was so bad we didn't leave the house. And languages at my middle son's school change every week; English one week, Spanish the next. The language of the Pledge of Allegiance varies weekly.

Half of the radio stations have all of their songs and advertisements en espanol. I can tell when there is a Mexican election coming up, because the ads remind all the good people to turn up to vote in Mexico for whichever Mexican candidate is paying for US airtime.

I think it goes without saying that the border is relatively open to tourism. I'm not quite sure what the requirements are to cross over from Mexico, but it's probably just a passport. People love their passports in El Paso; the drug stores are always advertising their passport photo prices.

I see US Customs and Border Protection vehicles every day, in their distinctive white with green stripes. I assume they're keeping me safe somehow. Precisely how, I can't fathom.

The entire idea of a closed border, of a truly hard wall, is antithetical to what El Paso is. Of course there are walls, and security, but it's meant to be passed through, legitimately. And it is, by massive numbers of people, every day.

It's some kind of sick war-hawk delusion to believe that you can fight a war against another nation, much less one directly adjacent to you, and honestly believe the fighting would occur exclusively in the opposing country. This is only true of the most one-sided conflicts, and only of distant enemies without means to travel.

If there was actual conflict against Mexico, it would ravage the borderlands of the United States, and cost thousands if not millions of American civilian lives.

Perhaps more importantly, why the fuck would anyone want that?