U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 5, 2019

After you complained about Striker using a strawman, why did you think that your strawman here was going to be the more persuasive argument?

You would be killing at least 99 innocent people because one of them might be a terrorist. And yes, I say "might", because if cannot find out which one is the terrorist, how do you even know that one of them is a terrorist? That isn't helping security, that's just gambling with people's lives, and justifying ethnic cleansing. You're using hypothetical scenarios to appeal to fear, rather than anything factual.

They're not forced to come through the non-ports of entry. They only do so if they have something to hide and don't want an inspection. I also don't think you know what ethnic cleansing is.

These people are bringing Drugs and Human trafficking, and a large portion of them are Rapists. There's no way to avoid that fact Roxas. These are not good people.

Here's a hint: if a terrorist were covered in a chemical agent designed to kill people, it would come off in the river and you would spot them right away and hopefully be able to save the other 99.

Not always accurate, and wouldn't work if it was a biological agent

By the way, I noticed that Winter never answered your question here.

I thought I answered this already. Yes, cuz those cartel members are going to lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans

Horu · April 5, 2019

You have to understand that while we are fighting to minimize drug traffic into the US, we are also trying to minimize casualties as well. So openly killing everyone that crosses illegally isn't the best option either. Ethnic cleansing is a bad practice and has no place in law enforcement.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 5, 2019

You have to understand that while we are fighting to minimize drug traffic into the US, we are also trying to minimize casualties as well. So openly killing everyone that crosses illegally isn't the best option either. Ethnic cleansing is a bad practice and has no place in law enforcement.

It's not ethnic cleansing. We're not targeting a particular racial or religious group for expulsion or liquidation

Since President Duterte started his hard line policies towards opiates, you have seen a pretty significant decrease in drug related crimes. Most pieces about the successful war in the Philippians will hand wring over the bodies. But it's as you said, we're trying to minimize casualties as well. So I ask you to answer for the thousands of dead Americans. Are their lives worth less than the lives of accomplices to their murders, who had NO right being in this country to start with?

Again, people with genuine reasons to seek refuge in the country can do so in a port of entry, and the US is legally obligated to hold them for atleast the period of their claim processing.

There's no excuse to sneak across the dessert in the middle of the night

Horu · April 6, 2019

It's not ethnic cleansing. We're not targeting a particular racial or religious group for expulsion or liquidation

Since President Duterte started his hard line policies towards opiates, you have seen a pretty significant decrease in drug related crimes. Most pieces about the successful war in the Philippians will hand wring over the bodies. But it's as you said, we're trying to minimize casualties as well. So I ask you to answer for the thousands of dead Americans. Are their lives worth less than the lives of accomplices to their murders, who had NO right being in this country to start with?

Again, people with genuine reasons to seek refuge in the country can do so in a port of entry, and the US is legally obligated to hold them for atleast the period of their claim processing.

There's no excuse to sneak across the dessert in the middle of the night

Ok. So let's say the situation is reversed and you need to get out of the country asap. If you're running from the cartels/gangs for example, would a port of entry in a country where the cartel/gangs pay off law enforcement be your safest bet? Or would you opt for the fastest way to get across the border and seek asylum? This is likely the case for the people who cross illegally. They are simply no longer safe in their own country and need a quick way out.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 6, 2019

Ok. So let's say the situation is reversed and you need to get out of the country asap. If you're running from the cartels/gangs for example, would a port of entry in a country where the cartel/gangs pay off law enforcement be your safest bet? Or would you opt for the fastest way to get across the border and seek asylum? This is likely the case for the people who cross illegally. They are simply no longer safe in their own country and need a quick way out.

The trek over is clearly not safe since some 80% of migrants get raped that way, and many coyotes are on the payroll of cartels. POEs are fairly safe in the US

Horu · April 6, 2019

The POE is safe when you cross the US/Mexico border. Same as crossing illegally. Coyotes are paid to bring you through the POE and just ditch you in the nearest town. The folks that can't afford to pay a coyote unfortunately either have to cross illegally on their own or find a way to get through a POE fast. I'm not supporting illegal immigration by any means because I don't think it should be necessary by any means. I'm just saying that I understand. Besides, coyotes aren't employed by the cartel, they work independantly but for a fair enough price, they would hand somebody over to the cartel or even allow somebody to transport drugs. So even then, crossing via coyote isn't safe if they're trying to get away from the cartel. The trouble with getting to a POE if you live in a town that doesn't have one and you have no viable transportation. Again, most people crossing the river are likely folks that couldn't afford to pay the coyote to get them to the POE safely. I mean, US officials are in no way obligated to help them or detain them until they actually step foot on US soil. So technically, Border Patrol could just wait for them to make it across and detain them then. But the fact is this: People are a lot slower in the water and thus easier to detain.

vla1ne · April 6, 2019

vla1ne, I did respond directly to your point. Demanding that I keep doing so, even after I've already done it, is a pointless circlejerk that gets us nowhere. Either accept the answer already or stop repeating the same questions over and over again. You stated that "They are all capable of being implemented at the same time." I didn't "attack" anything, I responded to that by saying that we have literally seen that the government is incapable of doing that.

If you ask a question. and I answer it, and you ask the exact same question again, and I give you a new answer that second time, and you still ask that same question again, because I didn't answer it the "right" way, don't expect me to waste my time answering it a third time.

Jesus Christ.

You specifically asked me to address your points, which included "controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become americans"

I addressed it.

It's part of the argument.

vla1ne, if you ask me to answer your question, and I do, and then you state that the answer I give you is "pointless to the context of this discussion", why are you even asking me to address your argument in the first place?

My point was the actual effectiveness of the three combined instead of just one or two of them. You have not affirmed or denied this. You have only attacked the wall as a cost. I have refuted the cost point, citing multiple areas we could easily draw from, such as the 10 billion yearly plan that was intended to be sent to central/south america that could be used to build the wall instead if they refuse to enforce their own borders. I have also pointed out the funds drained by sanctuary cities prior in this thread, which would go a long way to both cleaning up the streets, and saving government money were such programs removed. If cost the only thing you have against it, then i can assume we're done there, because that can be covered very simply.

I called it pointless, but i still responded to it directly. i cited the exact reason within your own link, and added that onto my own argument that even were that not the case, no country is under no obligation to accept anybody at all from anywhere else. that was my response. to your point. me calling it irrelevant to the discussion was because no matter how large the backlog, they do not have the right to come over illegally. as for those in the country on visa, or awaiting the paperwork to be done, as your own article stated, they were still being completed at the same pace, the workload just increased, as it likely had an additional backlog of asylum seekers whom may have applied for citizenship on top of the normal numbers at the time of that article.

I called your point pointless to the context because it apples only to people who are already trying to come in legally. I trust we can both agree that they deserve proper haste in the handling of their paperwork? and if that's so, then we need not go over it, because we both agree on at least that much already.

Phantom Roxas · April 6, 2019

It's not ethnic cleansing. We're not targeting a particular racial or religious group for expulsion or liquidation

Actually, yes, that is exactly what you want to do. I do know what ethnic cleansing is, and considering that you cited the Trail of Tears as a precedent that should be followed in this instance, to target a particular racial group, it is an appropriate label for your goal.

My point was the actual effectiveness of the three combined instead of just one or two of them. You have not affirmed or denied this. You have only attacked the wall as a cost. I have refuted the cost point, citing multiple areas we could easily draw from, such as the 10 billion yearly plan that was intended to be sent to central/south america that could be used to build the wall instead if they refuse to enforce their own borders. I have also pointed out the funds drained by sanctuary cities prior in this thread, which would go a long way to both cleaning up the streets, and saving government money were such programs removed. If cost the only thing you have against it, then i can assume we're done there, because that can be covered very simply.

I called it pointless, but i still responded to it directly. i cited the exact reason within your own link, and added that onto my own argument that even were that not the case, no country is under no obligation to accept anybody at all from anywhere else. that was my response. to your point. me calling it irrelevant to the discussion was because no matter how large the backlog, they do not have the right to come over illegally. as for those in the country on visa, or awaiting the paperwork to be done, as your own article stated, they were still being completed at the same pace, the workload just increased, as it likely had an additional backlog of asylum seekers whom may have applied for citizenship on top of the normal numbers at the time of that article.

I called your point pointless to the context because it apples only to people who are already trying to come in legally. I trust we can both agree that they deserve proper haste in the handling of their paperwork? and if that's so, then we need not go over it, because we both agree on at least that much already.

The only way it would actually be effective is if it could be affordable, and while you have claimed that there are areas that could be "easily" drawn from, we have seen firsthand that it's simply not true. Your solution seems to be that money allocated to one source can simply be redirected to other sources at the flip of a switch. The United States has thus far failed to coordinate all three of them. What's happening is that you're asking me to judge the effectiveness of a hypothetical scenario, and I am stating the reality of the situation, which includes how they have failed to recruit adequate personnel, which I did cite, so claiming that I've only attacked the cost of the wall is yet another lie, but what else should I expect from you?

Your hypothetical scenario is not worth denying any further because this administration has consistently failed to get anywhere close to it. If they have failed thus far, then they have not proven in any way that it would truly be effective. You're asking me to ignore the evidence that exists and just assume that your idea will somehow work. If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them.

You said that America needs to ensure that those coming into America have an actual desire to become Americans. You were the one who brought up that people need to come in legally, and you asked that I addressed that point. So I did. It was not "pointless to the context", it was the context. You brought up an argument about legal immigration, so I responded to it accordingly. And I responded by showing that the administration has failed to control the border. You asked for a response about controlling the border, and I gave you one that was directly related. Do you not demand an answer, and then call that answer pointless when it directly addresses the argument as you asked me to. It just further highlights how your arguments are completely dishonest.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 6, 2019

Nope, I don't care which race or religion tries to invade my country. They're all going to get the same treatment ideally.

Roxas you're just being dishonest now. I cited the Cherokee Nation case because it was a clear example of the president overruling the courts when he felt the courts were out of line. I was not endorsing the action at all, and I stated that clearly.

Stop gaslighting

The POE is safe when you cross the US/Mexico border. Same as crossing illegally. Coyotes are paid to bring you through the POE and just ditch you in the nearest town. The folks that can't afford to pay a coyote unfortunately either have to cross illegally on their own or find a way to get through a POE fast. I'm not supporting illegal immigration by any means because I don't think it should be necessary by any means. I'm just saying that I understand. Besides, coyotes aren't employed by the cartel, they work independantly but for a fair enough price, they would hand somebody over to the cartel or even allow somebody to transport drugs. So even then, crossing via coyote isn't safe if they're trying to get away from the cartel. The trouble with getting to a POE if you live in a town that doesn't have one and you have no viable transportation. Again, most people crossing the river are likely folks that couldn't afford to pay the coyote to get them to the POE safely. I mean, US officials are in no way obligated to help them or detain them until they actually step foot on US soil. So technically, Border Patrol could just wait for them to make it across and detain them then. But the fact is this: People are a lot slower in the water and thus easier to detain.

Right, but to your earlier point, I don't think anyone has a "RIGHT" to come to the US

vla1ne · April 7, 2019

The only way it would actually be effective is if it could be affordable, and while you have claimed that there are areas that could be "easily" drawn from, we have seen firsthand that it's simply not true. Your solution seems to be that money allocated to one source can simply be redirected to other sources at the flip of a switch. The United States has thus far failed to coordinate all three of them. What's happening is that you're asking me to judge the effectiveness of a hypothetical scenario, and I am stating the reality of the situation, which includes how they have failed to recruit adequate personnel, which I did cite, so claiming that I've only attacked the cost of the wall is yet another lie, but what else should I expect from you?

Your hypothetical scenario is not worth denying any further because this administration has consistently failed to get anywhere close to it. If they have failed thus far, then they have not proven in any way that it would truly be effective. You're asking me to ignore the evidence that exists and just assume that your idea will somehow work. If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them.

Allocating the funds from any of the areas i mentioned, would be enough to turn the wall into a 2-4 year process. The 7 billion that trump is working towards with his executive order, the 10 billion in foreign aid that trump is pulling from foreign aid. The billion from the reopening, the money saved pulling out of wars, the billion that the pentagon was willing to allocate towards the border wall, that's 19 billion already. 10 billion would be more than enough to make things progress smoothly on a yearly budget. That would be 3-4 years total. The refusal of congress to do so does not change that. The wall costs 25 billion tops (by the estimates of most professionals) for a standard wall. You are not telling me how a wall+surveillance+personnel would not work, you are telling me that we are hitting roadblocks towards getting them. I 100% agree that trump is hitting funding roadblocks that's not something that we disagree on, that does not mean there is nowhere that we cannot pull from, it merely means that congress is playing at the same old song and dance in that area, where they obstruct instead of work together. I am talking about the actual effectiveness of said combination once implemented. But i can see where you may be making this mistake, and you claim to not want to try making some simple hypotheticals on the topic

[spoiler="So i" ll break it down point by point to avoid any misunderstanding this time]

I'm gonna make a smaller scale example, so that you can see where i'm coming from ok? I want to make sure we end on the same page this time, since we seem to be missing each other each time by your statements.

1) First up, imagine an american football field. (120 x 53 yards). Still with me? ok.

2) Now flip it sideways so that instead of 120 x 53, it will be 53 x 120.

3) Now, divide it so that each side is 26.5 x 120. Hypothetical situation is almost set up we're getting there.

4) Next up, place 25 people on one side, we'll call them Border Patrol, and we'll place 50 people on the other side. We'll call them the illegal immigrants. We can now begin the sampling.

5) For test 1, lets imagine border patrol is trying to stop as many people as possible on the other side from crossing illegally. there is no barrier, it's just the 25 of them vs the 50 immigrants trying to cross. the immigrants can move however they like up and down the border to avoid the patrol.

6) For test two, let's imagine there's a steel barrier right down the middle of the border, same build as trumps wall, and instead of 50, there's 75 people on the opposing side this time. Same rules as the last time otherwise.

The argument of cost that you are attempting to use against it has nothing to do with the question i am posing, and you seem to not have grasped this yet. I have explained to you how that cost can be compensated, the actual funding method that i have laid out is 100% feasible, and the current funding is merely being stalled in congress due to the current feud between sides.

The troubles in congress do not mean that the solution would not work once implemented. You have still only attacked the funding, you have still said nothing about the actual combination, and you appear to have been unwilling to think about the hypothetical, so i have done it for you. I have laid it out as simply as possible for you now, and there should be no misunderstandings left on my question.

But to make sure...

@@Horu Ishayuki @Winter @@Nathaniel D. Striker @@Flame Dragon

I ask that you all read the hypothetical above in relation to my question. Please tell me if, in the scenario i laid out in the spoiler, which situation would be better for the border patrol. Even if handling the larger numbers, my opinion is that in the second one, with the barrier in the center, managing the patrol side would be FAR simpler, but roxas and i appear to be misunderstanding each other. so i ask to make sure i'm not missing any detail in my example. now back to roxas.

But let's make this easier for you to understand: Do not mention money. At all. That is not in any way related to the current question i am asking. Now from the top: Using just basic logic, once implemented, would the combination of wall+border+surveilance not be far more effective than simply having people and cameras? Would a wall not delay the people who try to cross long enough for people to actually arrive more often? would cameras not allow people to be detected earlier? would beolple be under less strain with a wall granting a buffer and cameras detecting more locations? wouldn't the individual workload of each person decrease with a wall and cameras, meaning fewer people could do a job to greater effect? these are the things i am asking you to refute. you seem to not want to answer the question as if it were a hurdle beyond common sense. I asked the same question to horyu and he understood and responded immediately. I laid it out the same way, and only you seem to be stuck on money alone. that is not the topic, the topic is potential effectiveness. it's not that hard.

You serious with that last bit? I don't control the money unanimously, Nor does trump outside of executive order, and that's a last ditch use, to ensure that the power isn't overly abused. If I did, or if trump did, this wall would be getting built already. It's being blocked by his opposition, But a block does not mean it would not work, it simply means the people blocking will not even allow you the ability to try and complete the task.

You said that America needs to ensure that those coming into America have an actual desire to become Americans. You were the one who brought up that people need to come in legally, and you asked that I addressed that point. So I did. It was not "pointless to the context", it was the context. You brought up an argument about legal immigration, so I responded to it accordingly. And I responded by showing that the administration has failed to control the border. You asked for a response about controlling the border, and I gave you one that was directly related. Do you not demand an answer, and then call that answer pointless when it directly addresses the argument as you asked me to. It just further highlights how your arguments are completely dishonest.

Did you not read my statements with this one?

[spoiler=I am going to list my recent comments that relate to your immigration comment(s), first to last, and in relation to your comments]

1) "Slow is not an excuse for illegal though. There is also no such thing as too slow in regards to immigration (aside from asylum, which is far faster than standard citizenship, but requires far more specific circumstances) Even if the U.S. had a 10 year waiting period (so long as they were actually filing properly), not a single non citizen has the right to be here in the first place. It's at the discretion of the country whether or not it even accepts immigrants. I would agree that the process should be far smoother, no question, and 10 years is definitely unreasonable for immigration as far as that goes. The thing about that though is, even if it were dozens of times slower, it would be america's right to do so, and entering illegally would still be against the rules of the country."

2) "Nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum."

3) "Your citation is about legal immigrants. The discussion here is about the negatives of illegal immigrants. Don't make that mistake please. As far as legal immigrants are concerned, the US has no obligation to accept any, but it is completely acceptable, and very logical, to accept people who pass the requirements as citizens, as i've agreed with and stated prior."

4) "I agree, the backlog is large and should be worked on, but it's pointless to the context of this discussion, and isn't something that actually affects the rest of the argument. [spoiler=in addition] your own citation has the reason explained bluntly by an actual worker.

"A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman strongly contested the reports findings Monday afternoon.

"The truth is that the total number of people the U.S. naturalizes each year has remained virtually unchanged. What we’re looking at is a dishonest and desperate attempt by open borders advocates to undermine the work of Homeland Security officials, law enforcement and the administration to protect the integrity of our immigration system and uphold the rule of law," said spokesman Michael Bars in a statement. "The current pending workload does not equate to a backlog — it’s a statistic used in the USCIS report to include every application for naturalization filed including those filed in recent days and weeks — and is being inaccurately portrayed as evidence of delays"

"Many of these cases, which can remain pending from one quarter to the next, are well within the processing time goal established by the agency with variances being a direct result of geography and capacity. USCIS will continue to process all applications and petitions in a judicious and comprehensive manner and will do so as efficiently and expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law," he added. "We reject the inaccurate claims of those fundamentally opposed to this effort."

The agency naturalizes approximately 700,00 to 750,000 as citizens a year, according to USCIS, and naturalized 716,000 people in fiscal year 2017."

The number of people admitted year to year has remained relatively static, the sheer number of applicants has risen though among other things. He even explained how the number is a standard one given often, and that things were being twisted to attack trump. that seems to check out properly, as the issue is generally unrelated to trump at the time the article was written (the whole immigration problem was a thing, but he had yet to make any major moves relating to the southern border)

5) I called it pointless, but i still responded to it directly. i cited the exact reason within your own link, and added that onto my own argument that even were that not the case, no country is under no obligation to accept anybody at all from anywhere else. that was my response. to your point. me calling it irrelevant to the discussion was because no matter how large the backlog, they do not have the right to come over illegally. as for those in the country on visa, or awaiting the paperwork to be done, as your own article stated, they were still being completed at the same pace, the workload just increased, as it likely had an additional backlog of asylum seekers whom may have applied for citizenship on top of the normal numbers at the time of that article.

I called your point pointless to the context because it apples only to people who are already trying to come in legally. I trust we can both agree that they deserve proper haste in the handling of their paperwork? and if that's so, then we need not go over it, because we both agree on at least that much already.

Now, going by my own statements, word for word, in response to your own, let's go step by step to break up any misunderstandings you may have.

1) I stated in my first comment, that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. I stand by that, even if The U.S. had paperwork and people backed up to a million, we would be under no obligation to accept anybody. people get rejected for citizenship daily, and people are accepted just as often. I Personally believe that we should have a better immigration policy, to make sure things are better streamlined, but that does not mean the U.S. is under obligation to accept people from different countries. understand me so far?

2) In my second comment, I said controlling the borders of your country is a standard rule for any country. Letting anybody in, and sheltering any and everybody is not a sustainable practice in any capacity. Can we agree on that much?

3) This is the third reply in relation to your line of comments about legal immigrants. I have already established that this country has no obligation to accept anybody. It could even refuse everybody, and remain well within it's rights. You cited a backlog of citizens well after knowing that i made the above two statements that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. You have clearly misunderstood me, but this goes on further.

4) This is my comment right after your own relating to the backlog. Now going by my three prior comments, what exactly would make you come under the assumption that a backlog would be relevant as an argument against my points? I have stated that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody from another country, I have stated that I agree the legal immigration process should be reformed, and While i do not believe this country has to accept people, I have never defended the current immigration system, and i have advocated countless times that better laws are needed in this very thread. I cited the reasoning from the official spokesman for the backlog, within your own citation, and the logic of it checks out well enough from where i'm sitting.

5) The thing i asked you to respond to was: "There is only so much room in america, there are only so many opportunities, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become Americans, makes perfect sense"

This fits well within my prior statements, and does not conflict with either of my prior points. Those points being:

A) The U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody

B) The immigration laws and process should be reformed to make the process work better so long as we are allowing it, as it will improve the country's image as a whole to have a more effective immigration process.

America having such a slow system is something i already said should be corrected, and the fact that said people have even been given a shot is something that america did not have to grant them, but has don. In short, I have been saying from the start that we need to refine the process, that way if we are willing to accept people, we have less tangle for both the U.S. and any immigrants.

There we go. I have given you ample amounts of logic and reasoning. I have literally built a hypothetical step by step to demonstrate what i was talking about and ensure that we are on the same page. I have given you no unattainable requests like ["If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them." To which i have responded by explaining to you multiple areas we have money, and could siphon from without damaging any essential programs] I have done everything in my power to avoid further misunderstandings, and i have addressed your points in extreme detail. even addressing your citations, line by line in many cases to ensure that i fully refute your points.

Horu · April 7, 2019

Allocating the funds from any of the areas i mentioned, would be enough to turn the wall into a 2-4 year process. The 7 billion that trump is working towards with his executive order, the 10 billion in foreign aid that trump is pulling from foreign aid. The billion from the reopening, the money saved pulling out of wars, the billion that the pentagon was willing to allocate towards the border wall, that's 19 billion already. 10 billion would be more than enough to make things progress smoothly on a yearly budget. That would be 3-4 years total. The refusal of congress to do so does not change that. The wall costs 25 billion tops (by the estimates of most professionals) for a standard wall. You are not telling me how a wall+surveillance+personnel would not work, you are telling me that we are hitting roadblocks towards getting them. I 100% agree that trump is hitting funding roadblocks that's not something that we disagree on, that does not mean there is nowhere that we cannot pull from, it merely means that congress is playing at the same old song and dance in that area, where they obstruct instead of work together. I am talking about the actual effectiveness of said combination once implemented. But i can see where you may be making this mistake, and you claim to not want to try making some simple hypotheticals on the topic
[spoiler="So i" ll break it down point by point to avoid any misunderstanding this time]
I'm gonna make a smaller scale example, so that you can see where i'm coming from ok? I want to make sure we end on the same page this time, since we seem to be missing each other each time by your statements.

1) First up, imagine an american football field. (120 x 53 yards). Still with me? ok.

2) Now flip it sideways so that instead of 120 x 53, it will be 53 x 120.

3) Now, divide it so that each side is 26.5 x 120. Hypothetical situation is almost set up we're getting there.

4) Next up, place 25 people on one side, we'll call them Border Patrol, and we'll place 50 people on the other side. We'll call them the illegal immigrants. We can now begin the sampling.

5) For test 1, lets imagine border patrol is trying to stop as many people as possible on the other side from crossing illegally. there is no barrier, it's just the 25 of them vs the 50 immigrants trying to cross. the immigrants can move however they like up and down the border to avoid the patrol.

6) For test two, let's imagine there's a steel border right down the middle of the barrier, and instead of 50, there's 75 people this time. Same rules as the last time.
Now, to repeat the statement

The argument of cost that you are attempting to use against it has nothing to do with the question i am posing, and you seem to not grasp this yet. I have explained to you that cost can be compensated, the actual funding method that i have laid out is 100% feasible, and is merely being stalled in congress due to the current feud between democrats and republicans.

The troubles in congress do not mean that the solution would not work once implemented. You have still only attacked the funding, you have still said nothing about the actual combination, and you appear to have been unwilling to think about the hypothetical, so i have done it for you. I have laid it out as simply as possible for you now, and there should be no misunderstandings left on my question.

But to make sure...

@@Horu Ishayuki @Winter @@Nathaniel D. Striker @@Flame Dragon
I ask that you all read the hypothetical in relation to my question. please tell me if, in the scenario i laid out in the spoiler, which situation would be better for the border patrol. Even handling the larger numbers, my opinion is that in the second one, with the border in the center, managing the patrol side would be FAR simpler, but roxas and i appear to be misunderstanding each other. so i ask to make sure i'm not missing any detail in my example. now back to roxas.

But let's make this easier for you to understand: Do not mention money. At all. That is not in any way related to the current question i am asking. Now from the top: Using just basic logic, once implemented, would the combination of wall+border+surveilance not be far more effective than simply having people and cameras? Would a wall not delay the people who try to cross long enough for people to actually arrive more often? would cameras not allow people to be detected earlier? would beolple be under less strain with a wall granting a buffer and cameras detecting more locations? wouldn't the individual workload of each person decrease with a wall and cameras, meaning fewer people could do a job to greater effect? these are the things i am asking you to refute. you seem to not want to answer the question as if it were a hurdle beyond common sense. I asked the same question to horyu and he understood and responded immediately. I laid it out the same way, and only you seem to be stuck on money alone. that is not the topic, the topic is potential effectiveness. it's not that hard.

You serious with that last bit? I don't control the money unanimously, Nor does trump outside of executive order, and that's a last ditch use, to ensure that the power isn't overly abused. If I did, or if trump did, this wall would be getting built already. It's being blocked by his opposition, But a block does not mean it would not work, it simply means the people blocking will not even allow you the ability to try and complete the task.

Did you not read my statements with this one?
[spoiler=I am going to list my recent comments that relate to your immigration comment(s), first to last, and in relation to your comments]
1) "Slow is not an excuse for illegal though. There is also no such thing as too slow in regards to immigration (aside from asylum, which is far faster than standard citizenship, but requires far more specific circumstances) Even if the U.S. had a 10 year waiting period (so long as they were actually filing properly), not a single non citizen has the right to be here in the first place. It's at the discretion of the country whether or not it even accepts immigrants. I would agree that the process should be far smoother, no question, and 10 years is definitely unreasonable for immigration as far as that goes. The thing about that though is, even if it were dozens of times slower, it would be america's right to do so, and entering illegally would still be against the rules of the country."

2) "Nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum."

3) "Your citation is about legal immigrants. The discussion here is about the negatives of illegal immigrants. Don't make that mistake please. As far as legal immigrants are concerned, the US has no obligation to accept any, but it is completely acceptable, and very logical, to accept people who pass the requirements as citizens, as i've agreed with and stated prior."

4) "I agree, the backlog is large and should be worked on, but it's pointless to the context of this discussion, and isn't something that actually affects the rest of the argument. [spoiler=in addition] your own citation has the reason explained bluntly by an actual worker.
"A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman strongly contested the reports findings Monday afternoon.

"The truth is that the total number of people the U.S. naturalizes each year has remained virtually unchanged. What we’re looking at is a dishonest and desperate attempt by open borders advocates to undermine the work of Homeland Security officials, law enforcement and the administration to protect the integrity of our immigration system and uphold the rule of law," said spokesman Michael Bars in a statement. "The current pending workload does not equate to a backlog — it’s a statistic used in the USCIS report to include every application for naturalization filed including those filed in recent days and weeks — and is being inaccurately portrayed as evidence of delays"

"Many of these cases, which can remain pending from one quarter to the next, are well within the processing time goal established by the agency with variances being a direct result of geography and capacity. USCIS will continue to process all applications and petitions in a judicious and comprehensive manner and will do so as efficiently and expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law," he added. "We reject the inaccurate claims of those fundamentally opposed to this effort."

The agency naturalizes approximately 700,00 to 750,000 as citizens a year, according to USCIS, and naturalized 716,000 people in fiscal year 2017."

The number of people admitted year to year has remained relatively static, the sheer number of applicants has risen though among other things. He even explained how the number is a standard one given often, and that things were being twisted to attack trump. that seems to check out properly, as the issue is generally unrelated to trump at the time the article was written (the whole immigration problem was a thing, but he had yet to make any major moves relating to the southern border)