Better Solution For Border Security

[tazhorn 139]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

He is referring to the 4th Amendment. Making American citizens go through checkpoints to travel between cities and towns is unconstitutional.

Do you have any idea how many people traverse I-10 on a daily basis? The commute between San Antonio and Houston is bad as it is, I can't imagine the shit show it would be if everyone had to funnel through checkpoints?

This idea is ass.

San Antonio and Houston are on I10.  Why do you need a checkpoint between them?  The checkpoints would be at state lines on I10 if you had them at all.  Those checkpoints are already on I10 now in the Southwest states..The check points on the state highways/  Interstates that feed into or out of  I10 outside the cities and towns would be the ones with slow downs depending on which highway or Interstate...How many people come into San Antonio or Houston from the South to hit I10? That's where slowdowns would be..

Edited February 5, 2019 by tazhorn

[HenryJames 66068]

Worth reading.

[Dahobbs 17535]

8 hours ago, tazhorn said:

San Antonio and Houston are on I10.  Why do you need a checkpoint between them?  The checkpoints would be at state lines on I10 if you had them at all.  Those checkpoints are already on I10 now in the Southwest states..The check points on the state highways/  Interstates that feed into or out of  I10 outside the cities and towns would be the ones with slow downs depending on which highway or Interstate...How many people come into San Antonio or Houston from the South to hit I10? That's where slowdowns would be..

Uh, millions? You realize i10 is right in the fucking center of Houston, right? I mean, all of fucking downtown is south of i10. Your idea is illegal and beyond stupid. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

I live north of I-10 but work south of it in Houston.  Would I have to go thru a checkpoint every commute home?  

this idea should also include a wall along I-10 from at least Beaumont to Los Angeles.  If everyone is stopped at i10 checkpoints, won’t the bad guys avoid the checkpoint?    This wall should be higher than the one at the border but the bad guys will have shown they can get over a 25 ft wall.  Make I-10 50 feet.  That would be a scary tall ladder to use.  

[Bat Guano 359]

Put some teeth into the laws against hiring illegals. They don't get jobs, they don't come, except for the relative few who are applying for asylum.

Of course, you'd need a hugely expanded guest-worker program, or half the agricultural, restaurant, landscaping, domestic, and construction work in the country would not get done.

[tazhorn 139]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh, millions? You realize i10 is right in the fucking center of Houston, right? I mean, all of fucking downtown is south of i10. Your idea is illegal and beyond stupid. 

Yes, putting a checkpoint in the center of Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc on I10 would be crazy and retarded, that is why I said it would be OUTSIDE  the cities and towns on the interstates and state highways thst feed into I10.  So basically if you lived in Houston now nothing would change for you.  You could hop on I10, exit I10, etc all day long while in Houston without hitting a checkpoint at all.  You could hop on I10 and drive to San Antonio without hitting a checkpoint, no problem.  You could exit I10, get back on I10 in San Antonio all day long without hitting any checkpoint... The only time you would hit a checkpoint is if you exited I10 to get on one of the Interstates or highways headed south or north, and that would be only if you went far enough outside the city to hit the checkpoint....

Edited February 5, 2019 by tazhorn

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

Do you people not realize there already are checkpoints? You cannot drive north from the border and not go through a checkpoint. There is even one on I-10, which has busted Willie and Snoop Dogg for mj. Some are 50 miles or more from the border. There are already people who have to drive through theses checkpoints on their daily commute. Everything south of these checkpoints, (millions of square miles of US territory) is commonly referred to as the "Constitution Free Zone."

The OP is suggesting something that already exists. BP agents routinely breaks the law and their own guidelines at these checkpoints, which in many cases means a violation of somebody's civil rights.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should point checkpoints on I-10 going in and out of Houston. If more people realized what a load of shit they are, maybe something would be done about them.

[Dahobbs 17535]

26 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

Yes, putting a checkpoint in the center of Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc on I10 would be crazy and retarded, that is why I said it would be OUTSIDE  the cities and towns on the interstates and state highways thst feed into I10.  So basically if you lived in Houston now nothing would change for you.  You could hop on I10, exit I10, etc all day long while in Houston without hitting a checkpoint at all.  You could hop on I10 and drive to San Antonio without hitting a checkpoint, no problem.  You could exit I10, get back on I10 in San Antonio all day long without hitting any checkpoint... The only time you would hit a checkpoint is if you exited I10 to get on one of the Interstates or highways headed south or north, and that would be only if you went far enough outside the city to hit the checkpoint....

So... how does having the checkpoint somewhat nearer to i-10 than now accomplish anything? And, when you say outside the city, do you mean the city limits? The greater metro-area? Is NASA a part of Houston? Is Pearland? League City? Sugar Land? Pasadena? Again, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens live technically south of and outside of Houston, but for all practical purposes are part of the city.  Your solution is dumb. It aims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It solves it by either invoking a solution that already exists or by screwing up a major metropolitan area. Oh, and again, not constitutional. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Dahobbs

[tazhorn 139]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So... how does having the checkpoint somewhat nearer to i-10 than now accomplish anything? And, when you say outside the city, do you mean the city limits? The greater metro-area? Is NASA a part of Houston? Is Pearland? League City? Sugar Land? Pasadena? Again, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens live technically south of and outside of Houston, but for all practical purposes are part of the city.  Your solution is dumb. It aims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It solves it by either invoking a solution that already exists or by screwing up a major metropolitan area. Oh, and again, not constitutional. 

Maybe it wouldn't work in more populous areas now until the technology the border patrol uses improved to the point where a checkpoint would be just a minor slowdown for traffic.  It would definitely work in less populous areas though now because a lot of drug traffickers and human smugglers dont come through the checkpoints down near the border...They come across the border in remote areas that have no checkpoint.  Use dirtroads, or just hike across desert to get to a place to be picked up by people on this side of the border... But, at some point, to get to the interior US, no matter how they get into the country, they would have to cross I10 with the drugs or people they smuggle...So, if checkpoints were closer to I10 they would catch more people like that...

[hayden_horn 11362]

maybe we can also shift the uniform for border patrol from green to brown, too!

[InkaUtexas 25951]

Wonder what this wall, with all those checkpoints would cost....  

[NowThis 931]

chop the military in half, get $350 billion extra cash EVER YEAR, spend on health care and everything you complain about.

Spoiler

DUH 

 

[Dahobbs 17535]

1 hour ago, tazhorn said:

Maybe it wouldn't work in more populous areas now until the technology the border patrol uses improved to the point where a checkpoint would be just a minor slowdown for traffic.  It would definitely work in less populous areas though now because a lot of drug traffickers and human smugglers dont come through the checkpoints down near the border...They come across the border in remote areas that have no checkpoint.  Use dirtroads, or just hike across desert to get to a place to be picked up by people on this side of the border... But, at some point, to get to the interior US, no matter how they get into the country, they would have to cross I10 with the drugs or people they smuggle...So, if checkpoints were closer to I10 they would catch more people like that...

Those check points already exist. 

[tazhorn 139]

38 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those check points already exist. 

Not everywhere.  There are vast areas of open desert in the southwest with networks of dirt roads/ jeep trails to get around the checkpoints on the highways coming up from the south.   Besides that, the smugglers use lookouts on the mountains in the desert southwest to watch the movements of the border patrol.  Once they get cargo past the border patrol, there is not much to stop them once they hit I10.  There are checkpoints on I10 itself, but mostly just at the state lines.  They could easily hop off I10 and head north before even going through those checkpoints.   If there were checkpoints closer to I10 on both the south and north side of it on all the highways and interstates they would catch a lot more people...

Edited February 5, 2019 by tazhorn

[Brisketexan 105147]

2 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

Not everywhere.  There are vast areas of open desert in the southwest with networks of dirt roads/ jeep trails to get around the checkpoints on the highways coming up from the south.   Besides that, the smugglers use lookouts on the mountains in the desert southwest to know when checkpoints are unmanned or to watch the movements of the border patrol.  Once they get cargo past the border patrol, there is not much to stop them once they hit I10.  There are checkpoints on I10 itself, but mostly just at the state lines.  They could easily hop off I10 and head north before even going through those checkpoints.   If there were checkpoints closer to I10 on both the south and north side of it on all the highways and interstates they would catch a lot more people...

OR.....we could....and follow me on this, it's SUPER-complicated....effectively eliminate the need/desire for people to cross illegally.

Want to keep drug smugglers from penetrating the border?  Legalize drugs.  Legalizing booze destroyed the bootlegging industry, practically overnight.

Want to keep folks from sneaking over here to hang sheetrock?  Let them come in to hang sheetrock.  Legally.  Let them submit paperwork, pay a $500 permit fee, and obtain a short-term work permit.  They then cross over a bridge, legally, scan their permit, and come on in.  They then show up at their job, have their permit entered into the system, pay taxes, etc.  They go home for Christmas to see the family.  Maybe after they've made enough money to build a house in San Luis Potosi, they stay there and don't come back for more work.

Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to smuggle drugs.  Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to work.  Oh, and we get the added benefit of collecting permit revenue and taxes from the people who would otherwise be here illegally and off the grid.  And now, we're taxing recreational drugs, and instead of funding a massive incarceration complex, we're funding a treatment system for half the cost.

Is that solution PERFECT?  Of course not.  There is no clean and perfect in the real world.  It's just a shitload more effective, cheaper, and humane for both Americans and the foreigners who would come here.

[Chooky 13307]

Instead of concrete or steel, we could build the wall out of Mexican children just sitting around the detention centers.  Bind them together with blue tape.  Take the materials of your problems and turn them into solutions!

[tazhorn 139]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

OR.....we could....and follow me on this, it's SUPER-complicated....effectively eliminate the need/desire for people to cross illegally.

Want to keep drug smugglers from penetrating the border?  Legalize drugs.  Legalizing booze destroyed the bootlegging industry, practically overnight.

Want to keep folks from sneaking over here to hang sheetrock?  Let them come in to hang sheetrock.  Legally.  Let them submit paperwork, pay a $500 permit fee, and obtain a short-term work permit.  They then cross over a bridge, legally, scan their permit, and come on in.  They then show up at their job, have their permit entered into the system, pay taxes, etc.  They go home for Christmas to see the family.  Maybe after they've made enough money to build a house in San Luis Potosi, they stay there and don't come back for more work.

Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to smuggle drugs.  Pretty much nobody crossing illegally to work.  Oh, and we get the added benefit of collecting permit revenue and taxes from the people who would otherwise be here illegally and off the grid.  And now, we're taxing recreational drugs, and instead of funding a massive incarceration complex, we're funding a treatment system for half the cost.

Is that solution PERFECT?  Of course not.  There is no clean and perfect in the real world.  It's just a shitload more effective, cheaper, and humane for both Americans and the foreigners who would come here.

I agree with some of what you are saying; except, I think you underestimate the sheer number of people that could want to come here that want to escape whatever bad shit is going on in their own country at any given time..What would stop them?  The drug part, im torn their, do you think our country would ever get the price point to a low enough level on the really dangerous hard drugs to compete with the cartels?  Especially, given the chemicals used to make that stuff, and you want to tax it too?  What slave labor are you going to use to make that dangerous crap?... Alcohol is made from natural stuff and fire, no real comparison their...Like comparing apples and oranges...If you wanted to legalize something like pot that's grown, then sure I could see it...

Edited February 5, 2019 by tazhorn

[achooloco 1072]

35 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

I agree with some of what you are saying; except, I think you underestimate the sheer number of people that could want to come here that want to escape whatever bad shit is going on in their own country at any given time..What would stop them?  The drug part, im torn their, do you think our country would ever get the price point to a low enough level on the really dangerous hard drugs to compete with the cartels?  Especially, given the chemicals used to make that stuff, and you want to tax it too?  What slave labor are you going to use to make that dangerous crap?... Alcohol is made from natural stuff and fire, no real comparison their...Like comparing apples and oranges...If you wanted to legalize something like pot that's grown, then sure I could see it...

Ah ok, this is a bit. A two page troll is good but not great. C effort 

[Brisketexan 105147]

28 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

I think you underestimate the sheer number of people that could want to come here that want to escape whatever bad shit is going on in their own country at any given time..What would stop them? 

Oceans do a good bit to stop "everyone."  People fleeing North Africa can hardly make it across a calm Med.  As for more local sources, that's another piece of my plan -- help stabilize the failing nation states in Central America (many of which we have helped create, both due to outright interference, and/or supporting the illegal drug trade).  30 years ago, there weren't caravans of Hondurans fleeing for their lives.  Because, while Honduras wasn't a paradise, it was livable.  People want to stay in their home country, if they can survive it.

31 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

The drug part, im torn their, do you think our country would ever get the price point to a low enough level on the really dangerous hard drugs to compete with the cartels? 

When there is profit to be made, ALWAYS bet on corporate America.  Seriously, legal cultivation and trade is tailor-made for American corporate operations.

32 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

Especially, given the chemicals used to make that stuff, and you want to tax it too?  What slave labor are you going to use to make that dangerous crap?

Dude.  We have massive manufacturing processes with incredibly dangerous and volatile chemicals all up and down the Texas coast (benzene and chlorine ring a bell?). And, by and large, they are pretty damned safe.  Manufacturing drugs safely....shit, that's what we do 'round here.  We work with all kinds of nasty shit.  No need for slave labor at all.  Seriously, take a trip down to Freeport one day....

One of the side roads into the Dow plant (although I'm not positive -- it may be the BASF plant) is called "Chlorine Road."  

A big part of so many of our problems is that we do a shitty job of defining our problems in the first place.  Which is largely on purpose.  Because we aren't actually interested in solving those problems.  We're only interested in useful demagoguery.

[InkaUtexas 25951]

Quote

Oceans do a good bit to stop "everyone."  People fleeing North Africa can hardly make it across a calm Med.  As for more local sources, that's another piece of my plan -- help stabilize the failing nation states in Central America (many of which we have helped create, both due to outright interference, and/or supporting the illegal drug trade).  30 years ago, there weren't caravans of Hondurans fleeing for their lives.  Because, while Honduras wasn't a paradise, it was livable.  People want to stay in their home country, if they can survive it.

Cannot agree with more. I grew up in the 1980's in Central America. It was rough, it was very poor, it was dangerous. There as no mass exodus after the 1986 San Salvador earthquake except for the rich, but they always run to their apartments in Brickell when it gets bad. But It was not like today. Add to that you now have a familiy support network in the US and it is an attractive option. 

The only way to "secure" the border is to improve that region. Get US companies to invest there, fuck up the cartels or figure out a way to make them part of society, and support the growth of what should be a good trade partner for us. 

[elfenix 34248]

11 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Worth reading.

dan crenshaw is giving sjl a run for her money in stupidity and attention whoring.

 

7 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Cannot agree with more. I grew up in the 1980's in Central America. It was rough, it was very poor, it was dangerous. There as no mass exodus after the 1986 San Salvador earthquake except for the rich, but they always run to their apartments in Brickell when it gets bad. But It was not like today. Add to that you now have a familiy support network in the US and it is an attractive option. 

The only way to "secure" the border is to improve that region. Get US companies to invest there, fuck up the cartels or figure out a way to make them part of society, and support the growth of what should be a good trade partner for us. 

this was where we fucked up in our rush to trade with china in the late 90s.  we should have kept improving trade between the rio grande and the darien gap.

Edited February 5, 2019 by elfenix

[tazhorn 139]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oceans do a good bit to stop "everyone."  People fleeing North Africa can hardly make it across a calm Med.  As for more local sources, that's another piece of my plan -- help stabilize the failing nation states in Central America (many of which we have helped create, both due to outright interference, and/or supporting the illegal drug trade).  30 years ago, there weren't caravans of Hondurans fleeing for their lives.  Because, while Honduras wasn't a paradise, it was livable.  People want to stay in their home country, if they can survive it.

When there is profit to be made, ALWAYS bet on corporate America.  Seriously, legal cultivation and trade is tailor-made for American corporate operations.

Dude.  We have massive manufacturing processes with incredibly dangerous and volatile chemicals all up and down the Texas coast (benzene and chlorine ring a bell?). And, by and large, they are pretty damned safe.  Manufacturing drugs safely....shit, that's what we do 'round here.  We work with all kinds of nasty shit.  No need for slave labor at all.  Seriously, take a trip down to Freeport one day....

One of the side roads into the Dow plant (although I'm not positive -- it may be the BASF plant) is called "Chlorine Road."  

A big part of so many of our problems is that we do a shitty job of defining our problems in the first place.  Which is largely on purpose.  Because we aren't actually interested in solving those problems.  We're only interested in useful demagoguery.

I think i didn't  expand enough on the slave labor part.  My meaning was cartels are basically using close to slave labor to make that dangerous crap and distribute it......  How would we compete with that?  I realize a lot of Americans deal with dangerous jobs everyday, but they get paid damn well to do it and usually have dang good health insurance that is not cheap.  You think the cartels are paying someone as much as an American company would have to pay to make and disfribute this stuff given all the regulations on dangerous chemicals?  Plus you are going to slap a tax on top of that.  I still don't see how they could ever compete...

[Brisketexan 105147]

36 minutes ago, elfenix said:

dan crenshaw is giving sjl a run for her money in stupidity and attention whoring.

1) EXCELLENT twitter thread.

2) this response had me cracking up: "Dan is going to need an patch for his asshole after this thread."

[Brisketexan 105147]

4 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

My meaning was cartels are basically using close to slave labor to make that dangerous crap and distribute it......  How would we compete with that?  I realize a lot of Americans deal with dangerous jobs everyday, but they get paid damn well to do it and usually have dang good health insurance that is not cheap.  You think the cartels are paying someone as much as an American company would have to pay to make and disfribute this stuff given all the regulations on dangerous chemicals?  Plus you are going to slap a tax on top of that.  I still don't see how they could ever compete...

Then you understand very little about a market economy, and manufacturing.

US Big Pharma Co has economies of scale that the cartels can only dream of.  They pay 20 guys jack shit to manufacture 100 pounds of meth.  Big Pharma builds a factory where 1 guy manning the equipment can manufacture 1000 pounds of meth in 1/10th the time.  And because they no longer have to deal with 1) the cost of attempting illegal shipments, or 2) the loss-rate of interdictions of illegal shipments.....come on.

It's the same reason that we're not overrun with bootlegged whiskey.  Cartels could build their own slave-labor distilleries, but their Q/C would suck, their rate of production would never be what a capital-backed legit operation can produce, they'd have to spend more money trying to smuggle it in, and they would lose a decent percentage of their product to interdiction.  It's not economically viable for them.  The cartels leave it to legit market actors.  That's exactly how it unfolded when prohibition ended.

There's a reason that booze and tobacco companies are starting to dabble in the marijuana industry..... https://observer.com/2018/03/legalization-has-tobacco-companies-interested-in-marijuana-industry/

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Brisketexan

[tazhorn 139]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Then you understand very little about a market economy, and manufacturing.

That's why 2/3rds of the shit we buy is made in China right or somewhere else? Because these awesome American companies figured out a way to do it cheaper?  That's alright, instead of making the dangerous drugs here or getting them from Mexican cartels, we can just have the slave labor in China make them and get them to export them to us....Then when Trumps trade deals go through, we can tax them...

Edited February 6, 2019 by tazhorn

[Brisketexan 105147]

3 minutes ago, tazhorn said:

That's why 2/3rds of the shit we buy is made in China right or somewhere else? Because these awesome American companies figured out a way to do it cheaper?  That's alright, instead of making the dangerous drugs here or getting them from Mexican cartels, we can just have the slave labor in China make them and get them to export them to us....Then when Trumps trade deals go through, we can tax them...

Now you're getting it.

Policy will change when very, very rich people conclude that they can get richer off of the new policy than they can off of the old one.

Our only play is to work on ways of manipulating them into choosing paths of insane enrichment that harm the rest of us the least.  Everything else (including the "crisis" of "BORDER SECURITY") is a purposeful distraction.  Don't go for the sleight-of-hand.  Just keep your eye on the ball.

[InkaUtexas 25951]

And if you do want to go after the big boys and the illicit drug trade, target the precursor manufacturers. 

[elfenix 34248]

I think i didn't  expand enough on the slave labor part.  My meaning was cartels are basically using close to slave labor to make that dangerous crap and distribute it......  How would we compete with that?  I realize a lot of Americans deal with dangerous jobs everyday, but they get paid damn well to do it and usually have dang good health insurance that is not cheap.  You think the cartels are paying someone as much as an American company would have to pay to make and disfribute this stuff given all the regulations on dangerous chemicals?  Plus you are going to slap a tax on top of that.  I still don't see how they could ever compete...

It's like Purdue pharma doesn't exist in your world

[tazhorn 139]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Now you're getting it.

Policy will change when very, very rich people conclude that they can get richer off of the new policy than they can off of the old one.

Our only play is to work on ways of manipulating them into choosing paths of insane enrichment that harm the rest of us the least.  Everything else (including the "crisis" of "BORDER SECURITY") is a purposeful distraction.  Don't go for the sleight-of-hand.  Just keep your eye on the ball.

Except we become the laughingstock of the world.  Admit we couldn't stop another much poorer country from destroying our society because of an insatiable  appetite for drugs...Couldnt  control our own damn border, etc...

Plus we really piss on Mexicos drug fueled economy our neighbors to the South..Seems smart..

[Zavala 1384]

On 2/2/2019 at 2:52 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Legalize drugs.  Invest in education and treatment facilities.

Meth and Fentanyl too?

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/us-border-patrol-seizes-ultralight-aircraft-loaded-methfentanyl

[elfenix 34248]

9 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Meth and Fentanyl too?

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/us-border-patrol-seizes-ultralight-aircraft-loaded-methfentanyl

guess the wall's gonna need to be a lot taller

[Brisketexan 105147]

41 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Meth and Fentanyl too?

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/us-border-patrol-seizes-ultralight-aircraft-loaded-methfentanyl

All of it.

We've tried and are currently trying the "make it illegal and attack it with harsh laws and criminal penalties" approach....how's that working out for us?

[gmr548 16580]

lol what a thread to necrobump