Author Topic: The Green New Deal  (Read 565 times)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
The Green New Deal
« on: February 07, 2019, 07:47:22 PM »
    From the genius of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, deep thoughts. Here’s some highlights:

Quote
  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy production so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?
  • A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.
  • Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.
    A salubrious diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).
  • A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.
  • Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.
  • Bonus insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

I love the idea that I never have to work again and can still go on cool vacations. You guys probably want to go straight to her page and check this out but, inexplicably, Ocasio-Cortez’s office has taken down their page describing the Green New Deal. Probably some guys in MAGA hats broke in, beat up the server or something.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2019, 09:07:19 PM »
Common problem for environmentalists and socialists alike. They propose "simple changes" that "will make everything better." But when you look at the nuts and bolts of what they're proposing, simple isn't simple and even a rudimentary knowledge of economics would demonstrate how such proposals are giant disasters waiting to happen.

Of course, I'm also laughing because this prompted me to do a Google search on "Green New Deal" that I've been hearing so much about for a few weeks now. NPR was a top result, figured there'd be some good information to be found there. Not really, lots of rhetoric, no detail.

The next hit Google gave me was from CNN, where I almost died laughing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal/index.html

Quote
Pelosi knows that AOC is a rising national power -- particularly among the most activist and liberal left. Given Ocasio-Cortez's profile -- and her influence among young, liberal members -- Pelosi knows she can't just ignore what the New York Democrat says and does. But she isn't going to kowtow to AOC either.
Earlier this year, Ocasio-Cortez was passed over for a spot on the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite the fact that Joe Crowley, who she beat in a primary last summer, had a seat on Ways and Means. That decision didn't come by accident -- and it didn't come without Pelosi knowing about it and likely directing it.

Duh. In Congress, Seniority matters. AOC has exactly zero seniority. If a person with seniority over her wants that now vacant position on Ways and Means, they get a chance at it before AOC does.

Quick check to wiki tells me that these are the new members in Ways and Means, Seniority Years were determined by clicking through to their respective wiki pages, which were hyperlinked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means#Members,_116th_Congress

Quote
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin's 4th, Assumed Office in 2005
Dan Kildee, Michigan's 5th, Assumed Office in 2013
Brendan Boyle, Pennsylvania's 2nd, Assumed Office in 2015
Don Beyer, Virginia's 8th, Assumed Office in 2015
Dwight Evans, Pennsylvania's 3rd, Assumed Office in 2016
Brad Schneider, Illinois's 10th, Assumed Office in 2017
Tom Suozzi, New York's 3rd, Assumed Office in 2017
Jimmy Panetta, California's 20th, , Assumed Office in 2017
Stephanie Murphy, Florida's 7th, Assumed Office in 2017
Jimmy Gomez, California's 34th, , Assumed Office in 2017
Steven Horsford, Nevada's 4th, Resumed Office in 2019; previously held a House seat from 2013-2015

 :o Clearly compelling evidence that Nancy Pelosi conspired with other Members of the House to deprive AOC of her "rightful" committee seat held by the Democrat she primaried in 2018.

Thanks CNN, I needed a laugh.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2019, 07:39:32 AM »
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warrem, and Kristen Gillibrand have endorsed this.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2019, 07:48:04 AM »
Propaganda:
Quote
As expected, support is strongest among Democrats (92%). But a large majority of Republicans (64%) – including conservative Republicans (57%) – also support the policy goals in our description of the Green New Deal.

There is no way it has this level of support.

Then, there this;
Quote
The FAQ's released by @AOC 's office regarding the "Green New Deal" include the following passage: "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast"
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 07:50:38 AM by Crunch »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2019, 10:40:09 AM »
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warrem, and Kristen Gillibrand have endorsed this.

Which will make 2020 all the more entertaining. IMO, $2Trillion is a gross under-estimation on the cost of trying to do what they're talking about.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/stracnet.htm

The Strategic Railway Network alone is about 38,800 miles. SLC light-rail is reported as the cheapest/mile in the US as of 2014. I'm not aware of anybody doing a buildout that is likely to be cheaper since then. They still averaged a cost of $50 Million/mile, and that was light-rail, not high-speed rail.

So the ballpark estimate on upgrading Strategic Rail, which leaves significant coverage gaps if we're trying to replace air travel within CONUS, would cost about $1.92 Trillion on its own. (Of course, she probably expects the Railroads themselves to front the costs for most of those upgrades)

This also ignores the costs of replacing power-plants with less reliable Green Options, particularly when it comes to figuring out how such a Grid is going to work if Natural Gas and Nuclear is completely off the table as well. (And raises the question of what Municipal and County sewage and waste management organizations are then supposed to do with the methane produced there) But that's easily going to be another multi-Trillion dollar undertaking that makes about zero economic sense.

The list goes on and on.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2019, 11:52:27 AM »
The deal requires you pee in a jug, set it in the sun for 6 hours, and then drink it. AOC recommends you mix with juice or something to mask the remaining “pee taste”.

That’s not a joke, no kidding. That’s the future AOC envisions for America, drinking your own urine.

Just amazing. I mean, seriously, WTF? And major influencers of the Democratic Party, genuine presidential candidates in 2020 some of which are likely front runners, are getting on board with this.

2019 is just an incredible year for Democrats so far.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2019, 12:06:50 PM »
Propaganda:
Quote
As expected, support is strongest among Democrats (92%). But a large majority of Republicans (64%) – including conservative Republicans (57%) – also support the policy goals in our description of the Green New Deal.

There is no way it has this level of support.

Depends entirely on how they polled it.

A number of its line-items are ones I'm inclined to support, in theory at least. The 10 year time-frame is impractical however.

I would fully support an effort to heavily subsidize high speed rail to reduce dependence on air travel within CONUS(as it would likewise change the nature of surface travel along the way), but that's a massive undertaking. And ironically enough, a large part of the PROBLEM with such buildouts will be local Environmental Groups throwing up roadblocks and other obstructions as they pursue their micro-scale agenda items. That also isn't to mention other NIMBY groups who aren't going to be amenable to changing the alignment of existing railways because it might require relocating/demolishing "Significant Structures" and/or because they're concerned about the noise it will introduce into their local neighborhood. They're more than happy to support building it, just so long as it isn't built near them.

The Green-Energy initiative is laughable for other reasons. I mean yeah, I'm looking to see about transitioning into a Green Energy job in the next couple years, but it's a grid supplement to the power grid at best. It will never be the baseline. Even with an amazing breakthrough in power storage that was 100% efficient in every way would not make the needed build out for Solar & Wind to do what they're talking about be something that should make any Conservationist run away screaming in terror. The sheer scale of what would be involved in doing so would be an environmental catastrophe in its own right.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 12:13:14 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2019, 01:01:16 PM »
Propaganda:
Quote
As expected, support is strongest among Democrats (92%). But a large majority of Republicans (64%) – including conservative Republicans (57%) – also support the policy goals in our description of the Green New Deal.

There is no way it has this level of support.

You're right. look at the question they asked:

"Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy. How much do you support or oppose this idea?"

 ::)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2019, 01:07:09 PM »
The deal requires you pee in a jug, set it in the sun for 6 hours, and then drink it. AOC recommends you mix with juice or something to mask the remaining “pee taste”.

That’s not a joke, no kidding. That’s the future AOC envisions for America, drinking your own urine.

I'll drink a jar of my own urine if you can actually show me a credible source where AOC advocates this.

I did find a link to a 4chan post, I assume that's where you got this from, but the thread was deleted.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2019, 01:40:18 PM »
I tend to agree with the WSJ on this, this looks like something the Republicans would have written to parody AOC's nuttiness.  The fact that big ticket Democratic candidates have signed off on supporting it pretty much disqualifies them from public office.

After what the Republicans went through with the Tea Party (i.e., trying to deal with hard core extremists that prevented good Republican solutions from happening by insisting on fringe demands and 'all or nothing' negotiations), I'm loving the idea of AOC's and Bernie's adherents being super active and accepting  no compromise.  The backlash on that might actually help sensible people get elected.

The high speed rail idea makes me laugh.  We can't afford a $5 billion wall and the legal issues with eminent domain are impossible, but somehow we can do a $2 trillion upgrade program with even worse eminent domain issues.  Look at the NYC to Boston corridor.  You'll have to leave the local commuter rails in place (can't efficiently run high speeders for 5 mile stops the whole way - particularly not with the existing 2 track bridges and 4 track easements), so you're talking about using eminent domain in the most expensive and heavily lawyered places in the country.  All of which are currently facing budget problems.

Not to mention this will increase the freight usage which means the existing numbers of tracks are far far under where they need to be.  Think of every truck on the roads being on freight instead.  That's solid walls of frieght unless you have way way more lines than we do.  You'd not be talking about replace rail lines, but rather the Interstate road ways.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2019, 02:40:41 PM »
Not to mention this will increase the freight usage which means the existing numbers of tracks are far far under where they need to be.  Think of every truck on the roads being on freight instead.  That's solid walls of frieght unless you have way way more lines than we do.  You'd not be talking about replace rail lines, but rather the Interstate road ways.

Yes and no. Also it wouldn't be every truck, just "the last mile" which actually would likely work out to variations between 100 Miles or less(due to how Federal regulations play in), to somewhere between 250 to 600 miles(again due to federal freight regulations for truckers). Railroad would actually be likely to favor a 600 mile or more option when talking intermodal, as it adds too much overhead otherwise. The Railroad Industry in general seems to have a weird love/hate thing going on with intermodal specifically so that's hard to gauge.

It does mean doubling up more track, and possibly additional (miles long) sidings in busy corridors(as they're now pulling freight consists that can get up into the 3+ miles long range already). At a local level, it also means communities are going to desire increasing amounts of grade separation between roads and railroads. Although for High Speed Rail, grade separation is basically needed from the onset.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2019, 03:04:50 PM »
Here is the actual "Green New Deal" non-binding resolution,

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

Haven't read it yet.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2019, 04:15:39 PM »
It does mean doubling up more track, and possibly additional (miles long) sidings in busy corridors(as they're now pulling freight consists that can get up into the 3+ miles long range already).

It means even more than that, a lot of the interstates are graded in ways that a train won't be able to handle and high speed trains (in particular) have limits on turn radius that were not built in to the plans. 

So many communities are not directly serviced by trains today but run on a park and ride mechanic.  If local transport is getting seriously curtailed then the need for tracks grows at a very fast rate.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2019, 07:21:12 PM »
It means even more than that, a lot of the interstates are graded in ways that a train won't be able to handle and high speed trains (in particular) have limits on turn radius that were not built in to the plans.

I was looking at existing rail infrastructure. It could absorb a LOT more truck freight using existing rail with comparatively minor upgrades to existing track. From discussions with local and not-so-local railroaders passing through my neck of the woods, the local "National" Operator in this neck of the woods has strategic railway which is both speed and weight loading restricted because there is a particular RR Bridge crossing a river which has been needing replacement for over a decade now. Forget "High Speed rail" that bridge doesn't even handle the speeds they currently operate at.

But your points are valid that High Speed Rail would be greatly limited as to how useful even interstate right-of-way would be for it. Even Musk's Hyperloop would be unable to operate within the geometry that many Interstate Highways make use of. Of course, his solution to a mountain grade would likely be to try to tunnel through it at this point.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2019, 07:23:54 PM »
Here is the actual "Green New Deal" non-binding resolution,

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf

Haven't read it yet.

It's a love letter to feminists(Income inequality), and labor unions(right to unionize, etc), and the list goes on and on. Including trying to "improve economic opportunity" for minority groups. If you wanted to create a bingo card with just about every significant interest group present under the DNC's "Big Tent" you'll probably get pretty close to a blackout while going through that document.

Alternately, if you made a drinking game of it, you'd be pretty hammered by the end of it.

Edit: It also is lacking in any substance other than it having the objective of implementing/achieving everything within 10 years.  ::)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2019, 05:50:43 PM »
The high speed rail idea makes me laugh.  We can't afford a $5 billion wall and the legal issues with eminent domain are impossible, but somehow we can do a $2 trillion upgrade program with even worse eminent domain issues.  Look at the NYC to Boston corridor.  You'll have to leave the local commuter rails in place (can't efficiently run high speeders for 5 mile stops the whole way - particularly not with the existing 2 track bridges and 4 track easements), so you're talking about using eminent domain in the most expensive and heavily lawyered places in the country.  All of which are currently facing budget problems.

Not to mention this will increase the freight usage which means the existing numbers of tracks are far far under where they need to be.  Think of every truck on the roads being on freight instead.  That's solid walls of frieght unless you have way way more lines than we do.  You'd not be talking about replace rail lines, but rather the Interstate road ways.

Acela is already a high speed rail at 150 mph, so you don't really have to do anything there. The vast majority of travelers already choose that option over flying from Ny to Boston. It takes 3.5 hours, which is about the same time as flying when you factor in security, baggage, boarding. Plus, you can keep your beverages and you have high speed wifi.

It would be a good idea to stop subsidizing air travel, however. The taxpayers fund air travel to 163 rural communities, taxes fund airport expansions and renovations, etc. Instead of spending money to end air travel, how about not spending money to end it? I'd also be delighted if they added a tax to double the cost of air travel and send it back to the days when only the elite could afford to fly, instead of having to share the cabin with the great unwashed traveling to see Aunt Beatrice.

Very little freight travels by air, I would think, especially domestic.

As for the wall, we actually get something for spending on infrastructure as opposed to a phallic waste of time.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2019, 04:17:16 AM »
Acela is already a high speed rail at 150 mph, so you don't really have to do anything there. The vast majority of travelers already choose that option over flying from Ny to Boston. It takes 3.5 hours, which is about the same time as flying when you factor in security, baggage, boarding. Plus, you can keep your beverages and you have high speed wifi.

So far as High Speed Rail is concerned, 150MPH is peanuts these days. And once you get west of the Mississippi River, you really need to be able to kick it up past 200 MPH to be competitive with flight.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2019, 12:32:33 PM »
To be clear, I was only talking about the north east corridor. The fastest mag lev trains are indeed double that speed, but it still comes up short versus air travel for speed. I don't really see a viable coast to coast train. Even for carbon, imagine how much it costs to transport and manufacture all that rail. Then your still probably running your train on net positive. But it should be possible to replace regional flights, like DAL, AUS, HOU, SAT.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2019, 02:51:54 PM »
To be clear, I was only talking about the north east corridor. The fastest mag lev trains are indeed double that speed, but it still comes up short versus air travel for speed. I don't really see a viable coast to coast train. Even for carbon, imagine how much it costs to transport and manufacture all that rail. Then your still probably running your train on net positive. But it should be possible to replace regional flights, like DAL, AUS, HOU, SAT.

Well, you should be going for an interconnected grid of regional transportation systems so the option exists at the least.

For the "Great Basin" region in the Western US, SLC to Las Vegas should be doable by HSR, distance wise, I think that roughs out to about the same as LA to San Francisco. Vegas in turn could pass you along to LA, San Diego, Phoenix, etc. While SLC could continue to Denver, Boise, and points in Montana. Boise in turn connects to Spokane, Seattle, Portland and Reno.

But for those lines to be viable/competitive with Air, it needs to be a 200+ mph train to compete on time. More generally, short of Hyperloop planning out and pulling 600+MPH, a trip across half of North America or more will always be faster by plane.

That said, Hyperloop-like systems has other options for those with the resources. Provision a private car with a micro-studio and travel in (cramped, private) comfort from point A to point B and not have to worry about interconnections, while getting to sleep in a real bed.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 02:57:00 PM by TheDeamon »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2019, 06:24:38 PM »
Acela is already a high speed rail at 150 mph, so you don't really have to do anything there. The vast majority of travelers already choose that option over flying from Ny to Boston. It takes 3.5 hours, which is about the same time as flying when you factor in security, baggage, boarding. Plus, you can keep your beverages and you have high speed wifi.

Acela from NYC to Boston takes between 3 hours 45 minutes and 4 and 30 minutes.  The drive - without traffic is under 4 hours, the flight is less than an hour.  Of course, the drive has traffice which adds a couple hours and the flight has security and the annoyance of getting to the airport.

I think even more travel by car than by train  The train is clearly the most comfortable and connects on both ends to public transit.  I haven't found the internet it offers to be "high speed" or even reliable but some trains may be better than others.

My issue with this though, is you are ignoring the point about infra structure.  It would take serious upgrades to that corrider to use high speed trains.  You'd have to expand the base considerable, including multiple tracks and bridges or all you'd be doing is creating bottle necks.  The Acela already does not run full speed because of congestion on the trip, adding more trains only makes it worse unless you more than double the number of tracks.  You are talking about a full rebuild, and with modern costs, way more than the original build cost. 

Quote
It would be a good idea to stop subsidizing air travel, however. The taxpayers fund air travel to 163 rural communities, taxes fund airport expansions and renovations, etc. Instead of spending money to end air travel, how about not spending money to end it?

Please suggest it.  Who needs fly over country and their electoral college votes any way?  ;)

Quote
Very little freight travels by air, I would think, especially domestic.

Agreed on air freight, the big concern is replacing 2 million semis and 15 million other trucks that are on our roads almost constantly.

Quote
As for the wall, we actually get something for spending on infrastructure as opposed to a phallic waste of time.

Well again, the wall is totally affordable and - as of yet - the only suggestion that targets stopping illegal immigrants outside of the borders.  That's a completely legitimate position to take. 

I have yet to see one of you take up the challenge of why we should prefer an illegal immigration "system" to a controlled legal one.

Asserting a wall is a phallic symbol is not remotely an argument.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2019, 09:44:20 AM »
Wall :

That's not where most Illegals cross. Those that used to cross there would just divert. I do prefer legal immigration as I've stated time and again. Open up 500,000 guest worker visas, grant asylum in a timely fashion, and you won't need a wall.without a wall, our border patrol is already grabbing the majority of crossers in those areas.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2019, 10:36:09 AM »
Wall :

That's not where most Illegals cross. Those that used to cross there would just divert.

Just reading yesterday that there are now organized buses in Mexico that use existing Mexican highway systems to drop immigrants where there are no walls.  They then proceed across the border and wait for pick up.

That to me pretty much moots every argument that you can make that doesn't include a way to stop illegal entries.

Quote
I do prefer legal immigration as I've stated time and again. Open up 500,000 guest worker visas, grant asylum in a timely fashion, and you won't need a wall.without a wall, our border patrol is already grabbing the majority of crossers in those areas.

We have almost 1.5 million guest worker VISAs today.  Why do you think that is too few?  Until Trump became president we had job shortages not labor shortages.  Bringing in super low wage workers is a deliberate exploitation of illegal workers not legal ones as the economies only make sense when you undercut US labor laws.

I'd be happy to agree to resolve asylum cases promptly.  Add more judges.  But let's be clear, more than 50% of requests are currently invalid and that number is increasing.  So long as the deportations are just as fast I'm okay with this.  No more releases into the US of anyone with a pending claim.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2019, 11:42:54 AM »
Just reading yesterday that there are now organized buses in Mexico that use existing Mexican highway systems to drop immigrants where there are no walls.  They then proceed across the border and wait for pick up.

Reading where, Breitbart? I know Trump made this claim in his speech, but like so many other things Trump says, it is made up out of whole cloth.

Quote
Dr. Tony Payan, Director of Mexico Center at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, says no Mexican cities or states are busing immigrants to the U.S-Mexico border. Instead Mexico's president is offering immigrants 1-year visas to stay and work in Mexico.

So far, 11,500 have accepted the Mexican government's officer.

Apologies if there is a credible source on this, but I couldn't find anything. Anyway, we've been down this road before and I don't really have anything new to offer.

Lloyd Perna

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2019, 12:08:03 PM »
I haven't seen anything about them getting picked up on the other side but, Reuters is reporting that US Border Patrol agents are saying
Quote
Large bus loads of individuals are being bussed up to the border and we don't have any infrastructure in that area

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PX28R

Lloyd Perna

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2019, 12:20:37 PM »
Oh, Just found this.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/migrants-arizona-arrests/index.html

Seems to support Seriati's story.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2019, 12:28:25 PM »
Thanks for finding that, Lloyd. Despite the lower vehicle barrier, none of those people are getting away with it. They're not trying to evade, they're trying to get asylum. If you want to stop that kind of crossing, then you process everybody in a timely way at ports of entry.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2019, 12:33:10 PM »
Just reading yesterday that there are now organized buses in Mexico that use existing Mexican highway systems to drop immigrants where there are no walls.  They then proceed across the border and wait for pick up.

Reading where, Breitbart? I know Trump made this claim in his speech, but like so many other things Trump says, it is made up out of whole cloth.

Is CNN an acceptable source?  Not where I originally read it (and less recent than what I read)..

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/migrants-arizona-arrests/index.html

Quote
Dr. Tony Payan, Director of Mexico Center at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, says no Mexican cities or states are busing immigrants to the U.S-Mexico border. Instead Mexico's president is offering immigrants 1-year visas to stay and work in Mexico.

What's notable is what he didn't say.  Did he make any claims about whether activists were paying for and organizing bus trips?  Did he make any claims about whether he knew of the buses?  Private Mexican citizens?

He did not.  He said there was no official government bus.  Whooped'dee do!

I mean if you reject CNN so be it.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2019, 12:34:42 PM »
Thanks for finding that, Lloyd. Despite the lower vehicle barrier, none of those people are getting away with it. They're not trying to evade, they're trying to get asylum. If you want to stop that kind of crossing, then you process everybody in a timely way at ports of entry.

The goal is to get into the country and take advantage of a system that doesn't work.  You stop it with a wall or you stop it with an automatic writ of deportation within a reasonable time (60-90 days). 

Thanks Lloyd, I hadn't quote your post when I first responded.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2019, 12:38:49 PM »
Quote
Is CNN an acceptable source?  Not where I originally read it (and less recent than what I read)..

My apology applies. I googled on bus, busing, mexico, migrant, etc. The only thing I found was about official busing. Not sure why the search came up so empty.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2019, 02:31:15 PM »
Quote
Is CNN an acceptable source?  Not where I originally read it (and less recent than what I read)..

My apology applies. I googled on bus, busing, mexico, migrant, etc. The only thing I found was about official busing. Not sure why the search came up so empty.

Internet bubbles. Google tailors your search results based on prior searches and what it knows of your browsing history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2019, 03:07:49 PM »
That is fascinating, and here my wife makes fun of me because I don't accept cookies and have information sharing set up to be as minimal as I can manage.  Maybe that's why when I google things I get the liberal-standard sites instead of conservative ones.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2019, 05:15:03 PM »
It is fascinating.
I’ve read a few papers of how computers, smart phones… are replacing our memory. The theory goes that the more we rely on our devices the less we rely on our brain to discern information.

With regards to consciousness; When an event happens, the brain filters the experience through our expectations, fears, hopes, memory of our past experience… and makes it conscious to which we react or respond. (the whole mindfulness stuff is an attempt to become conscious of our filters so that we might see and respond to the event in the moment as is.)
If Google is playing the part of the filtering properties consciousnesses, showing each of us what it thinks we want and expect to see, it could explain some of the pavlovian reactions to information events were witnessing today.   

As we move towards AI is it possible that organic ‘intelligence’ becomes more AI like?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2019, 05:25:59 PM »
I’ve read a few papers of how computers, smart phones… are replacing our memory. The theory goes that the more we rely on our devices the less we rely on our brain to discern information.

It isn't new, and also has anecdotal evidence ranging back to the advent of literacy and the ability to write things down becoming increasingly available.

So in a way post-it notes are just as much to blame as Smart-Phones.

And getting back on topic, evidently we're now on the Nth round of "We are 10 years away from Climate Disaster" according to a Congress Critter. In fine keeping of the tradition started by then Senator Al Gore nearly 30 years ago.

Of course, whatever also happened to "We are 10 years away from Climate Castrophe" as announced in a Joint Press Conference involving President Barack Obama and the President(? might have been the PM) of France, among others, is not to be contemplated. Climate Doomsday has evidently been delayed and clock has been reset back to 10 years and counting.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 05:43:09 PM »
Quote
So in a way post-it notes are just as much to blame as Smart-Phones.
Just as much blame? efficacy of post it notes verses Smart phones... :)


I remember the predictions for oil to run out. With tech changes and new discovers those dates keep changing as well.
Who would think that investigations and new discoveries might change outcomes?  10 years... maybe we should keep trying to change outcomes :)

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2019, 06:46:08 PM »
The goal is to get into the country and take advantage of a system that doesn't work.  You stop it with a wall or you stop it with an automatic writ of deportation within a reasonable time (60-90 days). 

I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2019, 06:52:28 PM »
I remember the predictions for oil to run out. With tech changes and new discovers those dates keep changing as well.
Who would think that investigations and new discoveries might change outcomes?  10 years... maybe we should keep trying to change outcomes :)

Speaking of changing outcomes. 15 to 30 years ago, environmentalists wanted us the shift the Natural Gas from Coal and Oil. But evidently Natural Gas is now out of favor, even though it hasn't killed Coal off, and is the single biggest thing making Wind and Solar even somewhat market viable at this time. Now AOC wants to kill it too.

That has to be having a slight chilling effect on companies looking to replace coal plants with Natural Gas plants operating in conjunction with Wind and Solar. Might cause some plans to get delayed until after the 2020 presidential election cycle completes, just to make sure they're not building something that is about to be taxed out of existence. Which means 2 more years of the Coal plant operating. Brilliant.

At the same time though, for AOC's crowd, I guess that might be intended, as it might slow down the rate of decarbonization happening in the US, allowing them to make it more of an issue for them to run on... Particularly since economic growth is evidently causing CO2 to increase in the US once more.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2019, 06:54:27 PM »
I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

It doesn't stop it so much as divert a lot of it. That's the proven track record to date. What ICE needs to be doing is figure out where they want to divert that traffic to so they can better manage it. As it is, it can't be managed at all.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2019, 07:02:06 PM »
I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

They have an answer to the ladder issue, apparently it is row upon row of razor wire. Never mind that the mayor of Nogales wants it out because of the hazard it poses to American residents, and local zoning that prohibits such wire lower than 6 ft off the ground. Not to mention making their town look like a prison camp.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2019, 07:27:09 PM »
I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

They have an answer to the ladder issue, apparently it is row upon row of razor wire. Never mind that the mayor of Nogales wants it out because of the hazard it poses to American residents, and local zoning that prohibits such wire lower than 6 ft off the ground. Not to mention making their town look like a prison camp.

The Answer to the ladder issue is multiple tiers of walls, and presumably a change to US Laws(possibly by constitutional amendment if a court wants to get plucky) as it relates to anyone caught/detained in those areas.

It doesn't even really need to be walls though, it can be earthen berms and obstacles setup in such a manner that they're left wandering around in a proverbial maze until Border Patrol can be there to welcome them at the exit, or get at them by crane/helicopter.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2019, 07:45:51 PM »
Quote
The Answer to the ladder issue is multiple tiers of walls, and presumably a change to US Laws(possibly by constitutional amendment if a court wants to get plucky) as it relates to anyone caught/detained in those areas.

All along the Texas border, migrants that get across the Rio Grande are already in US territory, wall or no wall. So it wouldn't just be the interior of multiple walls, it would be all that US territory between the river and the wall. I suppose we could just give all that land to Mexico, I guess that would fix it.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2019, 12:13:21 AM »
Quote
The Answer to the ladder issue is multiple tiers of walls, and presumably a change to US Laws(possibly by constitutional amendment if a court wants to get plucky) as it relates to anyone caught/detained in those areas.

All along the Texas border, migrants that get across the Rio Grande are already in US territory, wall or no wall. So it wouldn't just be the interior of multiple walls, it would be all that US territory between the river and the wall. I suppose we could just give all that land to Mexico, I guess that would fix it.

Not what I was talking about. I was alluding to a codification under law that stipulates certain areas within United States Terrritory where "different" legal processes are applied to persons apprehended there both without proper authorization for being there, and also found to not be a US Citizen.

As it is, it seems rather silly that there is an invisible line in the desert along our Southern border that magically entitles a person to a whole slew of legal processes not otherwise available to them. All they have to do is get across it.

The National Border needs to exist, and it needs to protected.

The Magic Line of Legal Entitlements however? That needs to be fixed.

I'm game for not building a wall, but that means we get to deal in the much messier realm of what to do about that magic invisible line.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2019, 07:58:16 AM »
Technically, those legal entitlements, for the most part, are supposed to exist at ports of entry as well. But we've chosen to stonewall people there and refuse to accept applications for asylum.

This is why the Supreme Court blocked the administration's attempt to say they will instantly deport anyone they find in the desert. It's certainly possible for Congress to amend the INA, and there could certainly be a debate about that. It might lose Florida, though, because I don't think a lot of Cuban-Americans came through a designated port of entry.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2019, 10:04:43 AM »
The goal is to get into the country and take advantage of a system that doesn't work.  You stop it with a wall or you stop it with an automatic writ of deportation within a reasonable time (60-90 days). 

I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

I'm also having trouble with understanding your mind set.  What data set are you looking at that shows you that walls - used in multiple places both by governments and individuals for most of human history - are not effective?  I get you think it's easy to scale a 20 foot wall with a ladder.  It's not as easy as you think, especially when you have to get down the other side.  But it's certainly not impossible. 

It's enough of a barrier though that where we have walls today, people choose to go around them adding hours to their travel time (sometimes days) and often being forced to cross in dangerous desert conditions and to hire people who themselves may be dangerous.  Why do you think they choose to risk their lives in such a manner rather than simply take 15 minutes to scale the wall with a ladder?  It's not because they are trying to escape custody - many of the people who cross the desert border simply wait for agents to pick them up.  Just as possible if you scale the wall.  If you can't answer that question it already tells me you're not making a serious argument about whether a wall works or not.  If your claim about "15 minutes" is believable than every single desert crosser should be putting your thinking in question

Why against all evidence, and logic, and the deliberate choices of the people trying to cross that border, do you seem to think that walls don't work?

But more, I find the whole way of how you are arguing to be based on fallacious thinking.  You seem to be asserting that because a ladder can allow egress over a wall it means that having a wall is a complete waste of time.  That's like thinking that because a thief can easily steal welfare benefits from a poor person, it would be a waste and ineffective to provide benefits.  The fact is there has never been any perfect system for anything, but we can have systems that solve a big part of a problem.  The "logic" that you seem to be relying on is that of a puzzle game player, because there is a answer to a single form of the puzzle, the same version of the puzzle showing up later in the game would just be useless repetition.  That's only true for games though.   

But life isn't a game.  There is every reason to believe that putting up a wall will significantly curtail illegal immigration.  The Democrats are not fighting this with every trick they can muster because they believe the wall won't work and they don't want to spend $5b.  They are fighting it because they know it will work.

And again.  I'm not aware of any - and I mean any - Democratic proposal that actually stops people from crossing the border illegally.  Or really that even tries.  Nor is there any serious proposal for effectively dealing with the large number of illegal crossers.  Releasing people into the US is not a legitimate solution to the problem of people being here without being entitled. 

It's literally an incentive to break our laws.  Why are you insisting we incentivize people to break the law?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2019, 03:05:12 PM »
Seriati, walls are effective in places where there are plenty of border patrol agents to respond to those trying to scale/cut through/go under them.

Around cities, where there are many people and agents can respond within minutes, it makes sense to slow crossers with a wall.  By the time they get over the wall, the border patrol is there.  The few minutes it takes to scale the walls is enough for the patrol to respond.

In wilderness areas, where it takes hours to get to and get out of, walls make little sense.  In the few minutes it takes for immigrants to scale the wall, patrol agents are still miles away.  What is the difference between seeing someone cross the border without a wall, and pick them up a few hours later, verses seeing them climb a wall, and pick them up a few hours later?  Either way, it will be hours before they are picked up.  What effectively guards the border is NOT the wall, but the eyes to see them cross and the patrol that picks them up.

So why waste the money on a wall that just slows them down in areas where it takes a long time to respond?

Walls are effective when there are guards nearby to respond to them.  So unless you propose to put border patrol agents along the wall every few miles (and pay their salaries), so that they can respond quickly enough to make a wall effective, then you are just repeating the empty doctrine of faith that "walls stop people."  They don't.  People stop people.  Walls only slow them down a bit.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2019, 03:14:55 PM »
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.  Stop listening to the lying Conservative media and the lying President.  They are fools, and will make you look like one, too.  >:(

The people who told you that are the same ones who told Crunch about the Green New Deal requiring people to drink their own urine.  They are shameless liars who prey upon weak-minded partisans who will believe anything they hear as long as it agrees with their prejudices.  You're smarter than that.  Don't be fooled.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2019, 05:28:04 PM »
Seriati, walls are effective in places where there are plenty of border patrol agents to respond to those trying to scale/cut through/go under them.

So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

Quote
Around cities, where there are many people and agents can respond within minutes, it makes sense to slow crossers with a wall.  By the time they get over the wall, the border patrol is there.  The few minutes it takes to scale the walls is enough for the patrol to respond.

Given the number that want to be caught, wouldn't that easier result that achieves what they want - getting caught - be their choice?

Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?   

There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released. 

The truth is the Democrats know a wall will greatly reduce illegal migration and that's why they don't want it.

Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2019, 05:53:24 PM »
This seemed useful timing given the Green New Deal discussion on trains.  CA - which no one would mistake as a conservative state - cancelling their bullet train project.  Over budget, late and not able to find a path between 2 points in expensive areas.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-to-pull-plug-on-billion-dollar-bullet-train-cites-ballooning-costs

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2019, 04:00:43 PM »
Seriati, walls are effective in places where there are plenty of border patrol agents to respond to those trying to scale/cut through/go under them.

Quote
Around cities, where there are many people and agents can respond within minutes, it makes sense to slow crossers with a wall.  By the time they get over the wall, the border patrol is there.  The few minutes it takes to scale the walls is enough for the patrol to respond.

Given the number that want to be caught, wouldn't that easier result that achieves what they want - getting caught - be their choice?
So let me get this straight.  Your argument is that people are going in the desert, crossing and waiting for the border agents for hours because there are too many agents where the wall is?  I hope you're kidding, cause it doesn't sound you've listened to anything I said, or actually thought that through.

I would suppose that those who want to get caught find it safer and easier to cross where there is no wall rather than to risk scaling it.  So I would have to agree, for those who want to get caught (women, children, those who are not physically able), walls are a good deterrent--at least until there are no other places to cross.  Then some will probably risk it.

Of course, why are you worried about those who want to turn themselves in?  Because then you are talking about those who believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that they have a good chance of being admitted to our country legally.  Those who don't think so, or have criminal intentions, won't wait.  You know, terrorists, criminals, and such.  I thought the main reason for the wall was to stop all those people, to make us all safer.  Did I miss something in the justification for the wall?  ???

Quote
Quote
They are fighting it[the wall] because they know it will work.

BTW, that is a stinking lie and I am sick and tired of hearing it.

I'm going to keep repeating the truth even if you're "sick of it."  Will you stop repeating the truth about global warming just because some deniers refuse to hear it?

Helps if you have facts on your side.

Quote
There is NO - ZERO - NADA - Democratic proposal that keeps people out of the country or facilitates them being deported without being released into the country.  Heck the latest "compromise" proposal is a strict limit on the number of people that can be detained at once, which means even criminal illegal aliens will be released.

None of which actually addresses whether the wall will work or not.

Quote
The truth is the Democrats know a wall will greatly reduce illegal migration and that's why they don't want it.


Then why did the Obama Administration have more deportations than any other President?  2.5 million, not including those simply turned back across the border (saving time and money).  If all those nasty Democrats want all those illegal immigrants in our country, why did they go to so much trouble to throw them out when they were in power?

Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Show me the Democratic proposal that keeps illegal immigrants out and/or that expedites their deportation without release into the country.

Your stuck on this, aren't you?  You can't imagine that treating refugees decently isn't the same as open borders and letting everyone in.  You can't wrap your head around the concept that you don't have arrest every single illegal, keep them in cages, separate them from their children, etc. and still control the border, do you?  You seem to think that if we don't come down as hard as we can on anyone who illegally steps across the imaginary line, then we are coddling them and want them all to come.

Remember--a vast majority of illegal immigrants are not a threat to our country.  They are people trying to find a better life.  We can't allow all of them in, but we don't need to punish them for just wanting a better life.  Why do you want to treat them as all wanting to steal from us and perhaps kill us?

Quote
I really think the idea that a wall doesn't work is pretty much another example of pernicious liberal anti-science (as in, the facts cause cognitive dissonance, ergo they can't be facts).

This is the second time you've mentioned "science" proves the wall works.  Can you show me the respected, peer-reviewed journal that has the study?  I haven't heard of it.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2019, 04:31:24 PM »
 
It's enough of a barrier though that where we have walls today, people choose to go around them adding hours to their travel time (sometimes days) and often being forced to cross in dangerous desert conditions and to hire people who themselves may be dangerous.

Ah, ok this explains your reasoning.  You've heard that people are crossing in the desert, and thus assuming it was because of walls, etc. at other locations making the crossing more difficult at those locations, and thus deterring people from those crossings and diverting them to the desert.  Therefore by putting walls up in the desert they will have a similar effect and thus reduce total immigration.  A reasonable assumption given your knowledge.

Quote
Why do you think they choose to risk their lives in such a manner rather than simply take 15 minutes to scale the wall with a ladder?  It's not because they are trying to escape custody - many of the people who cross the desert border simply wait for agents to pick them up.  Just as possible if you scale the wall.  If you can't answer that question it already tells me you're not making a serious argument about whether a wall works or not.  If your claim about "15 minutes" is believable than every single desert crosser should be putting your thinking in question.

The cartels control most of the Mexican border and charge a crossing fee if you try and cross at any location that is under their control.  This is on top of the fee charged by smugglers.  The cartels have extremely tight control of all places it is fairly easy to cross, but don't over the desert.  So human traffickers looking to save significant money choose the more dangerous and difficult route.

Quote
Why against all evidence, and logic, and the deliberate choices of the people trying to cross that border, do you seem to think that walls don't work?

Hopefully you now understand where your reasoning led you astray, you were simply missing a rather critical piece of information that lead to a wrongful assumption.  The desert crossings have nothing to do with walls, and everything to do with avoiding the high charges that the cartels require for crossing at the easier illegal border crossings.

Also you noted that people were "waiting at the border to be picked up" - again this is economics.  A family can be left at the border because they have better odds of asylum, therefore they are charged only a crossing fee.  An individual has to be smuggled well beyond the border since if they are caught they are likely to be deported.

Quote
But more, I find the whole way of how you are arguing to be based on fallacious thinking.  You seem to be asserting that because a ladder can allow egress over a wall it means that having a wall is a complete waste of time.

That actually isn't what I've argued.  I've argued that if people crossing have a choice between two routes, they will choose the route with the greatest success.  The routes with a wall are still substantially easier routes and more likely to succeed than the places without a wall.  The only reason that the more difficult wall-less routes are taken is when the family or individual can't afford the additional fees required by the cartels.

Also the walls are not in any way a deterrent to crossing, except to the extent that they impact total transit time and how that impacts getting caught.  They aren't "diverting" people to the desert.  So putting them up in the desert won't deter them from crossing.


This article covers some of this,

Quote
[Kevin McAleenan, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner,] said smugglers are steering families into “new and remote areas” to avoid paying crossing fees to the cartels that control more popular routes.

[...]

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a professor of policy and government at George Mason University, said her research shows that cartel control of the Rio Grande Valley is indeed driving up the price of crossing there.

“Kids are dying because now the families are trying to make it through other points,” she said.

And more migrants are traveling with children because smugglers are telling them families have a better chance of receiving asylum, Correa-Cabrera said: “They are promising the families if you bring the children with you, you have a ticket to the United States.”

Monday, at an El Paso shelter Roberto Ramirez Diaz, 32, said he brought his 17-year-old son, Darinel, north from the highlands of western Guatemala last month because a smuggler told them it would be easier to cross as a family.

Darinel explained that the price of crossing was also less for a family than for a single adult — $4,600 compared to $8,000 — because families could be left at the border to claim asylum whereas individuals must be guided deeper into the country.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-migrants-desert-20190101-story.html

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Green New Deal
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2019, 04:58:48 PM »
The cartels control most of the Mexican border and charge a crossing fee if you try and cross at any location that is under their control.  This is on top of the fee charged by smugglers.  The cartels have extremely tight control of all places it is fairly easy to cross, but don't over the desert.  So human traffickers looking to save significant money choose the more dangerous and difficult route.

LR, this may be the most bizarre explanation proffered yet.  I'm arguing for a wall as a border security measure, many are implying that we don't have a dangerous border, yet you are now arguing that the reason a wall can't work is because the border is controlled by Mexican criminal cartels.

Do you not see how that argument pretty much says that everything I'm proposing is insufficient because we should be going way past it.  Multiple walls, border guards security, etc.

I'm almost reading that as, as much of a self own as Jim Acosta doing a live broadcast from in front of the wall.

I think you've fallen down an information hole.  There's almost no evidence that the reason existing walls actually work is because of Mexican criminal cartels on the other side.  Even suggesting that says that your grabbing at things that exude confirmation bias.