Scioly.org

CrayolaCrayon wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

CrayolaCrayon wrote:

I wouldn't really call it a wall; I would call it segments of fence.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/02 ... mbo-v3.jpg

Yes, but combined with the natural geography of the border and the numerous drones and sensors, it's pretty dang hard to cross it.

For some, maybe.

For most... nah

https://www.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/201 ... border.cnn


I don't think a wall is the way to fix the problem; most of the people here illegally are those who just come in legally, and then overstay their VISAs.

That's a fair point. I'm just saying that people who cross the US-Mexico border often die in the desert (which is honestly the goal of Prevention Through Deterrence, to route people through into the desert), and we shouldn't forget that.

The problem with legal immigration from Mexico and Central America is that it is really dang hard to do. It's a process that takes years or even decades. The risk/reward to come to the US illegally versus waiting potentially 20+ years to do it legally is way out of whack, which is why we see so many people immigrating illegally. The easy solution is to just make the immigration process more streamlined and efficient, but instead he focus is on the immirants themselves. It's a misplacement of priority.

Lol, for those of you that have posted about immigration, you should do Policy debate... the topic this year is about immigration.

I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those whom are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

Pre-send edit: These sound alright, albeit a bit expensive to me, but I don't have the US's budget or sense of cost... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 3542c7568b

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those who are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

Pre-send edit: These sound alright, albeit a bit expensive to me, but I don't have the US's budget or sense of cost... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 3542c7568b

Confused here... when you say people who are not supposed to come in, you're referring to people who can't come in because legal immigration is too difficult/impossible for them, right?

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those who are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

Pre-send edit: These sound alright, albeit a bit expensive to me, but I don't have the US's budget or sense of cost... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 3542c7568b

Confused here... when you say people who are not supposed to come in, you're referring to people who can't come in because legal immigration is too difficult/impossible for them, right?

Not supposed to come in as in what's on this list...
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail ... to-the-u.s.
http://www.traveller.com.au/what-gets-y ... e-us-367s1
I'm not sure which list is better, or if the first even has a list...

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those whom are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

I'm not sure I agree with you about the risks of letting in people who are not supposed to get in. A vetting or checking process should take a time of a few months to maybe a year or two. Reducing the average time for legal immigration to a year would already reduce the amount of people attempting to immigrate illegally tremendously. Are there always going to be people who try to get around the system? Yes, of course; but an increase in the number of criminals getting around the system would pale in comparison to the number of regular people who just want an honest living.

Things2do wrote:

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F wrote:

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those who are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

Pre-send edit: These sound alright, albeit a bit expensive to me, but I don't have the US's budget or sense of cost... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... 3542c7568b

Confused here... when you say people who are not supposed to come in, you're referring to people who can't come in because legal immigration is too difficult/impossible for them, right?

Not supposed to come in as in what's on this list...
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail ... to-the-u.s.
http://www.traveller.com.au/what-gets-y ... e-us-367s1
I'm not sure which list is better, or if the first even has a list...

That's not regarding immigration. That's for tourism and the like.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those whom are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

I'm not sure I agree with you about the risks of letting in people who are not supposed to get in. A vetting or checking process should take a time of a few months to maybe a year or two. Reducing the average time for legal immigration to a year would already reduce the amount of people attempting to immigrate illegally tremendously. Are there always going to be people who try to get around the system? Yes, of course; but an increase in the number of criminals getting around the system would pale in comparison to the number of regular people who just want an honest living.

I don't think I had the proper wording... I meant that it shouldn't be too easy, your bolded wording sounds more like what I meant...

Things2do wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Things2do wrote:I think they should find the fine line between making legal immigration easier and making illegal immigration harder. There'll always be those who don't wanna go through the paperwork and such, but there'll probably be less of them if they make it harder to immigrate illegally. And if the legal immigration is too simplified and easy, it'll also be easier for those whom are not supposed to come in to get in. But you don't want too much of a wall, because eventually the cost will out-do the benefits. I'm not saying we don't need one, but...

I'm not sure I agree with you about the risks of letting in people who are not supposed to get in. A vetting or checking process should take a time of a few months to maybe a year or two. Reducing the average time for legal immigration to a year would already reduce the amount of people attempting to immigrate illegally tremendously. Are there always going to be people who try to get around the system? Yes, of course; but an increase in the number of criminals getting around the system would pale in comparison to the number of regular people who just want an honest living.

I don't think I had the proper wording... I meant that it shouldn't be too easy, your bolded wording sounds more like what I meant...

Ah, okay, apologies for misinterpreting. There's definitely some middle ground to be found, but it's clear that what we're doing right now isn't working. The "wall" is really just an empty distraction that won't fix the real problems for either side.