Lilly Posted June 18, 2016 #1 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Wait a minute here, there's to be new taller/stronger wall around the White House? See here: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/16/federal-agency-approves-new-higher-fence-surrounding-white-house/ But President Obama told graduates (during a commencement speech) that walls won't work to solve our ills. See here: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/15/obama-tells-graduates-that-walls-wont-solve-ills/ So which is it, do walls help with security or not? And if not, why is the White House wall being re-vamped? 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted June 18, 2016 #2 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Lol. I like how the article said they put barricades around the fences because they were easily scaled. I'm beginning to think the idea is to make any intruders run an obstacle course before getting inside so that they are tired before running into the secret service. It doesn't take a genius to see that the fence didn't work before. I guess they are doing it for aesthetics as well. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Unicorn Posted June 19, 2016 #3 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It's a fence not a wall like Berlin or China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 19, 2016 Author #4 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Agreed, it will be more of a fence with a concrete foundation (obviously the term "wall" references the current debate over border security). The whole thing will be over 11 feet in height. The issue is, do stronger/higher 'barriers' add to the security of a location? Do said 'barriers' work to deter those who do not have legal access to the location? If the answer is, 'yes', then should we not be looking at protecting against illegal entry into our Nation with equally sound barriers? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 19, 2016 #5 Share Posted June 19, 2016 20 minutes ago, Lilly said: Agreed, it will be more of a fence with a concrete foundation (obviously the term "wall" references the current debate over border security). The whole thing will be over 11 feet in height. The issue is, do stronger/higher 'barriers' add to the security of a location? Do said 'barriers' work to deter those who do not have legal access to the location? If the answer is, 'yes', then should we not be looking at protecting against illegal entry into our Nation with equally sound barriers? The obvious answer is no. Doors and fences just keep honest people honest, they never were any good to deter people wanting to break the law. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 19, 2016 Author #6 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Ok, then why are they increasing the fence/wall/barrier around the White House? I mean, why even put one up in the first place? Why is a fence/wall/barrier 'just fine' in one location but not in another location? This all seems highly irrational to me. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 19, 2016 #7 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Lilly said: Ok, then why are they increasing the fence/wall/barrier around the White House? I mean, why even put one up in the first place? Why is a fence/wall/barrier 'just fine' in one location but not in another location? This all seems highly irrational to me. Because the Secret Service, after 3 incidents in as many months, is pooing their pants. No other real reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted June 19, 2016 #8 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It's for looks. The place is a tourist attraction and it makes the place appear secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted June 19, 2016 #9 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Lilly said: Ok, then why are they increasing the fence/wall/barrier around the White House? I mean, why even put one up in the first place? Why is a fence/wall/barrier 'just fine' in one location but not in another location? This all seems highly irrational to me. exactly. Many of these elected that are calling him all kinds of names over this wall, not long ago supported the idea themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted June 19, 2016 #10 Share Posted June 19, 2016 7 hours ago, Lilly said: Agreed, it will be more of a fence with a concrete foundation (obviously the term "wall" references the current debate over border security). The whole thing will be over 11 feet in height. The issue is, do stronger/higher 'barriers' add to the security of a location? Do said 'barriers' work to deter those who do not have legal access to the location? If the answer is, 'yes', then should we not be looking at protecting against illegal entry into our Nation with equally sound barriers? Scale, cost, effectiveness, target of crossover, existing barriers. Essentially completely different. Apples and Oranges. Both fruit but otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted June 19, 2016 #11 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Because putting a higher wall around the white house is the exact same thing as building a wall hundreds of miles long. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent0range Posted June 19, 2016 #12 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Lilly said: Ok, then why are they increasing the fence/wall/barrier around the White House? I mean, why even put one up in the first place? Why is a fence/wall/barrier 'just fine' in one location but not in another location? This all seems highly irrational to me. I truly believe that it does not seem irrational to you. If it does seem irrational to you, then you probably shouldn't be a mod. The fact that you can't see the difference between a fence at the White House which the main purpose is TO SLOW DOWN AN INTRUDER until the Secret Service can respond to a breach, and a thousands of miles long border wall MEANT TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT is the only thing irrational about the whole thing. Edited June 19, 2016 by Agent0range 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted June 19, 2016 #13 Share Posted June 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, Agent0range said: I truly believe that it does not seem irrational to you. If it does seem irrational to you, then you probably shouldn't be a mod. The fact that you can't see the difference between a fence at the White House which the main purpose is TO SLOW DOWN AN INTRUDER until the Secret Service can respond to a breach, and a thousands of miles long border wall MEANT TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT is the only thing irrational about the whole thing. Because we have no need to even try to "slow down intruders" at our southern borders, yes? I think Saru decides who the mods are - take it up with him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 19, 2016 #14 Share Posted June 19, 2016 The purpose of the White House fence and the purpose of the Mexico Border fence are exactly the same. To cause casual people to turn around, and to cause those who want to cross to consider if they want to try or not. If there was no White House fence, we'd see kids, dogs, homeless... wandering onto the grounds all the time. Probably thousands of people who wouldn't know any better would wander right over to the Rose Garden. You'd need hundreds of security personnel wandering around to keep people off the grass. The fence, by default, implies not to go into the WH grounds. Everyone should understand that. The fence is necessary at the WH. The border fence likewise is necessary. Without it, you basically are telling those who want to migrate here that they just need walk across. Even a symbolic fence, such as two strands of barb wire would symbolize the border and people who respect law would turn back. The facts that I've read say that of those who are here today illegally in the US, came by way of a visa, which is a legal way of entrance. Thirty years ago 75% came by way of the border. The reason for this difference is the pieces of the border fence which were constructed near urban areas, leaving only the desert as a open crossing point. Completely the border fence will not prevent 100% of crossings, but it will take that 25% of illegals who crossed to get here and reduce that to 5% in the future. I'd rather have my illegals here be visa jumpers, who were screened in some way, then random criminals who crossed a desert in the middle of the night. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted June 19, 2016 #15 Share Posted June 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, DieChecker said: I'd rather have my illegals here be visa jumpers, who were screened in some way, then random criminals who crossed a desert in the middle of the night. The majority of illegals here are visa jumpers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 20, 2016 Author #16 Share Posted June 20, 2016 2 hours ago, DieChecker said: The purpose of the White House fence and the purpose of the Mexico Border fence are exactly the same. To cause casual people to turn around, and to cause those who want to cross to consider if they want to try or not Exactly what I was thinking. If the purpose of a fence/wall/barrier isn't to cause people to stop and consider if they want to try the action (illegal entry) then what is the purpose? It sure as hell isn't for decoration or to placate nervous nellies. No, barriers send a very clear message and serve a very specific purpose. Denying this obvious reality is what seems irrational to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted June 20, 2016 #17 Share Posted June 20, 2016 That's pretty much the same as when Q said, "to keep honest people honest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 20, 2016 Author #18 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Oh, since I notice there appears to some confusion; it's not necessary to place a wall/fence/barrier along the entire southern border of the United States. The geography of the region provides some natural deterrents and increasing the wall/fence/barrier in specific locations along with increasing border patrol agents would be a good start. See link here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp113D27x6&r_n=sr040.113&dbname=cp113&&sel=TOC_255088 From that link: Southern Border Fencing Strategy to Congress and the U.S. Comptroller General to identify areas of the Southern border where fencing--including double-layer fencing, infrastructure, and technology, including at ports of entry--should be put in place. The Secretary is required to consult with appropriate Federal agencies and State and local public and private stakeholders in determining the proper location for placement of fencing. Now, of course this won't stop all illegal immigration. Imaginarynumber1 has pointed out that most illegal immigration comes from visa jumping. What a stronger barrier coupled increased patrolling can do is to deter the movement of drugs into the United States. Notice I said, "deter" (not stop) but making it difficult for these drug cartels to operate is a good thing. Trump has latched onto this and made it into something laughable (he's good at doing that) but the basic concept (of a fence/wall/barrier) is still quite valid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 20, 2016 #19 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Lilly said: Oh, since I notice there appears to some confusion; it's not necessary to place a wall/fence/barrier along the entire southern border of the United States. The geography of the region provides some natural deterrents and increasing the wall/fence/barrier in specific locations along with increasing border patrol agents would be a good start. See link here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp113D27x6&r_n=sr040.113&dbname=cp113&&sel=TOC_255088 From that link: Now, of course this won't stop all illegal immigration. Imaginarynumber1 has pointed out that most illegal immigration comes from visa jumping. What a stronger barrier coupled increased patrolling can do is to deter the movement of drugs into the United States. Notice I said, "deter" (not stop) but making it difficult for these drug cartels to operate is a good thing. Trump has latched onto this and made it into something laughable (he's good at doing that) but the basic concept (of a fence/wall/barrier) is still quite valid. You are still talking about around 1900 miles, add to that a 12' fence (wrought iron) costs around $100 per foot and that a mile has 5280 of them you can really fast see how dumb the idea is. If we ever have a billion left over it would be better to pay down the debt.than something that makes as much sense as the Tower of Babylon. Besides that, 12' hardly makes an unsurpassed obstacle. Edited June 20, 2016 by questionmark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 20, 2016 Author #20 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Who said that 1,900 miles would be needed? I'm pretty sure there are specific areas where drug running is far more prevalent. Who said that it would totally stop the problem? Making it more difficult for the cartels to operate would certainly be beneficial to us as a nation. Basically, Trump's idea of a "great big wall" everywhere is indeed silly (and just a political move) but there can be a case made for better barriers in certain locations. This remind me of the 'Guns vs Terrorism' arguments...like only one issue needs to be addressed when we need to address both of these issues. I see lots of politically based thinking but far less rational thinking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 20, 2016 #21 Share Posted June 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, Lilly said: Who said that 1,900 miles would be needed? I'm pretty sure there are specific areas where drug running is far more prevalent. Who said that it would totally stop the problem? Making it more difficult for the cartels to operate would certainly be beneficial to us as a nation. Basically, Trump's idea of a "great big wall" everywhere is indeed silly (and just a political move) but there can be a case made for better barriers in certain locations. This remind me of the 'Guns vs Terrorism' arguments...like only one issue needs to be addressed when we need to address both of these issues. I see lots of politically based thinking but far less rational thinking. If you leave a hole (because it is not like there are no fences there now , in fact there are quite a few of them) they will come through the hole, even if that means over the Llano Estacado. You either do the whole thing or you don't waste your money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted June 20, 2016 #22 Share Posted June 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, questionmark said: If you leave a hole (because it is not like there are no fences there now , in fact there are quite a few of them) they will come through the hole, even if that means over the Llano Estacado. You either do the whole thing or you don't waste your money. Oh, I dunno.. I think that if fences/walls were placed strategically, it could potentially be useful to corral or funnel people. We could also do other fortification methods too, like what is done on battlefields to slow people down. And there is also the problem of if there are walls above, people can tunnel under- so then one can get into underground fortifications. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that planning complete fortifications would be rational, and may not be effective because we tend not to go whole hog with this sort of thing. And it would be likely to be darned expensive too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted June 20, 2016 Author #23 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Wait a minute, if the drug dealers have to literally skirt urban areas and move their product over road less desert areas it isn't more difficult for them? Because this is what it's actually about, making it more difficult. Even a new barrier around the White House won't be an 'absolute' but it will only make entry more difficult. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 20, 2016 #24 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Just now, rashore said: Oh, I dunno.. I think that if fences/walls were placed strategically, it could potentially be useful to corral or funnel people. We could also do other fortification methods too, like what is done on battlefields to slow people down. And there is also the problem of if there are walls above, people can tunnel under- so then one can get into underground fortifications. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that planning complete fortifications would be rational, and may not be effective because we tend not to go whole hog with this sort of thing. And it would be likely to be darned expensive too. African use rubber boats to get to Europe, why do you suppose it would be any different if there was a fence? The whole thing is a placebo to calm down those who don't bother to think about it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted June 20, 2016 #25 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Lilly said: Wait a minute, if the drug dealers have to literally skirt urban areas and move their product over road less desert areas it isn't more difficult for them? Because this is what it's actually about, making it more difficult. Even a new barrier around the White House won't be an 'absolute' but it will only make entry more difficult. The fence, so far, has done very little to stop drug dealer, they just tunnel under it: Edited June 20, 2016 by questionmark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now