PDA

View Full Version : Border fence. Why such disparity in how much it would cost?



garhkal
06-30-2014, 08:32 PM
On one of my right wing sites i go to (great comics), i saw someone post a link to an NBC article that gives the "Average" price of making a border fence at 1 Million dollars a mile. Doing a google search, Forbes quoting a congressional research office report, pegged a 700 mile fence at 49 Billion? And yet another one saying 29 billion..

So why is it so hard to
A) come up with a concise cost for a proper secure border fence
and B) so damn pricy??

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19062298-price-tag-for-700-miles-of-border-fencing-high-and-hard-to-pin-down?lite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/07/18/the-border-fence-horrible-deal-at-cost-up-to-40000-per-illegal-immigrant-apprehended/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-13/the-price-tag-for-sealing-the-u-dot-s-dot-border-isnt-pretty

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/politics/border-fence-raises-cost-questions.html?_r=0

sandsjames
06-30-2014, 08:39 PM
On one of my right wing sites i go to (great comics), i saw someone post a link to an NBC article that gives the "Average" price of making a border fence at 1 Million dollars a mile. Doing a google search, Forbes quoting a congressional research office report, pegged a 700 mile fence at 49 Billion? And yet another one saying 29 billion..

So why is it so hard to
A) come up with a concise cost for a proper secure border fence
and B) so damn pricy??

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19062298-price-tag-for-700-miles-of-border-fencing-high-and-hard-to-pin-down?lite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/07/18/the-border-fence-horrible-deal-at-cost-up-to-40000-per-illegal-immigrant-apprehended/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-13/the-price-tag-for-sealing-the-u-dot-s-dot-border-isnt-pretty

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/politics/border-fence-raises-cost-questions.html?_r=0

I hear ya...if we did it right we'd hire a bunch of illegals to build it for pennies on the dollar.

Rainmaker
06-30-2014, 09:29 PM
On one of my right wing sites i go to (great comics), i saw someone post a link to an NBC article that gives the "Average" price of making a border fence at 1 Million dollars a mile. Doing a google search, Forbes quoting a congressional research office report, pegged a 700 mile fence at 49 Billion? And yet another one saying 29 billion..

So why is it so hard to
A) come up with a concise cost for a proper secure border fence
and B) so damn pricy??

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19062298-price-tag-for-700-miles-of-border-fencing-high-and-hard-to-pin-down?lite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/07/18/the-border-fence-horrible-deal-at-cost-up-to-40000-per-illegal-immigrant-apprehended/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-13/the-price-tag-for-sealing-the-u-dot-s-dot-border-isnt-pretty

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/politics/border-fence-raises-cost-questions.html?_r=0

Fences designed to keep people out can eventually be used to keep people in. If we enforced the laws we already have, then we wouldn't need to talk about building fences.

efmbman
06-30-2014, 10:00 PM
So why is it so hard to
A) come up with a concise cost for a proper secure border fence
and B) so damn pricy??

"A" can probably be answered by uncovering the affiliation / agenda of whoever is answering at the time.

"B" : well... I looked at putting a fence around my land (9.5 acres). Pretty pricey. The undefended border between USA and Mexico is a tad longer. Materials are secondary to the extreme location and lack of amenities there.

Measure Man
07-01-2014, 01:51 AM
I hear ya...if we did it right we'd hire a bunch of illegals to build it for pennies on the dollar.

Brilliant!

garhkal
07-01-2014, 06:50 AM
"A" can probably be answered by uncovering the affiliation / agenda of whoever is answering at the time.

"B" : well... I looked at putting a fence around my land (9.5 acres). Pretty pricey. The undefended border between USA and Mexico is a tad longer. Materials are secondary to the extreme location and lack of amenities there.

Then why not dig a ditch, say 200 meters DEEP and 200 meters wide? That would work just as good imo.

Capt Alfredo
07-01-2014, 11:44 AM
Then why not dig a ditch, say 200 meters DEEP and 200 meters wide? That would work just as good imo.

Not really the ethos upon which our country was founded, is it? Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free...but by all means, dig a ditch or build a wall.

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 12:20 PM
Not really the ethos upon which our country was founded, is it? Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free...but by all means, dig a ditch or build a wall.

Actually, that ethos changed awhile back. It became "Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to live for free..."

Capt Alfredo
07-01-2014, 12:31 PM
Actually, that ethos changed awhile back. It became "Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to live for free..."

I don't know...some of the hardest-working people I see are immigrants. They do a lot of the work "regular" Americans don't want to do.

hustonj
07-01-2014, 01:56 PM
Actually, that ethos changed awhile back. It became "Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to live for free..."

Actually, the line being reworked in this conversation had nothing to do with the ethos that founded our nation.

Do we want to talk about European greed, sending colonists over to acquire resources and wealth? Do we want to talk about people fleeing from religuous oppression (sometimes to become oppresive themselves)? Do we want to talk about indentured servitude and slavery as alternatives to open immigration? Do we want to talk about the push for traditional liberalism versus bent knee obedience?

The call for immigrants is a poem written as a fund raiser. It does not represent anything about why people origianlly came to America, about why the colonies rebelled, or about the goals of founding our nation. It addresses a romantic notion of the opportunity our nation represented, and the hopes of those who were choosing to immigrate.

Just as a frame of reference.

WILDJOKER5
07-01-2014, 03:14 PM
Fences designed to keep people out can eventually be used to keep people in. If we enforced the laws we already have, then we wouldn't need to talk about building fences.

And how do we enforce the rules already in play? Its harder to find illigals after they cross over than to monitor the border. I've got an idea, how about we bring all those trops stationed all around the world home and get rid of our empire and monitor our borders?

These are freaking kids crossing over now and flooding our nation. Of course its with the help of La Raza and the administration to break down the system so it can be remade in their immage. But come on, no one from the left is calling for Obama to put an end to the sex trafficing and child abuse that is going on when these kids are marching through Mexico alone or with harder drug cartels?

WILDJOKER5
07-01-2014, 03:39 PM
Not really the ethos upon which our country was founded, is it? Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free...but by all means, dig a ditch or build a wall.

This is a misconception. That "ethos" was when we had a worker shortage and encouraged the poor to come to America and work for super dirt cheap labor costs. Do we have a worker shortage right now?

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 04:18 PM
I don't know...some of the hardest-working people I see are immigrants. They do a lot of the work "regular" Americans don't want to do.

Indeed many of them do. That does not change the fact that one hardworking illegal trying to support his family on the wages illegals get paid just ends up costing the taxpayer. And, yes, they are willing to work.

We always talk about "fair wages" on this site. I know many people who would be willing to take the jobs you speak of if it was a fair wage. However, why would the "employer" pay a fair wage when he knows that the income isn't getting turned in for tax purposes anyway.

So, back to my original point. They may be hardworking. However, they are not taxpayers which means anything they recieve other than the crappy income is free benefits, as they don't pay anything into the system.

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 04:19 PM
Actually, the line being reworked in this conversation had nothing to do with the ethos that founded our nation.

Do we want to talk about European greed, sending colonists over to acquire resources and wealth? Do we want to talk about people fleeing from religuous oppression (sometimes to become oppresive themselves)? Do we want to talk about indentured servitude and slavery as alternatives to open immigration? Do we want to talk about the push for traditional liberalism versus bent knee obedience?

The call for immigrants is a poem written as a fund raiser. It does not represent anything about why people origianlly came to America, about why the colonies rebelled, or about the goals of founding our nation. It addresses a romantic notion of the opportunity our nation represented, and the hopes of those who were choosing to immigrate.

Just as a frame of reference.

Dude, chill. It was a response to Capt Alfredo bringing up the ethos. I notice you didn't comment on his statement.

hustonj
07-01-2014, 06:03 PM
Dude, chill. It was a response to Capt Alfredo bringing up the ethos. I notice you didn't comment on his statement.

How many intentional misquotes should I quote when responding to a series of posts? I tried to be clear that I was challenging the source fo authority attributed to the core quote in question.

I don't even remember, or care, honestly, if you or he was the guy who claimed that the core quote represented an ideal involved in the founding of our nation. I just felt the need to point out that such a claim is patantly false.

The nation was founded by immigrants, of course. But it wasn't founded with the intent of welcoming all comers. The Federal government was expressly forbidden from interfering with a State's sovereign right to control immigration until the year 1808 (Article 1, Section 9). Technically, all that sentence granted the Federal government in 1808 was the right to refuse immigrants that a State determined acceptable. Far cry between that and today's purely Federal immigration process, hunh?

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 06:40 PM
How many intentional misquotes should I quote when responding to a series of posts? I tried to be clear that I was challenging the source fo authority attributed to the core quote in question.

I don't even remember, or care, honestly, if you or he was the guy who claimed that the core quote represented an ideal involved in the founding of our nation. I just felt the need to point out that such a claim is patantly false.

The nation was founded by immigrants, of course. But it wasn't founded with the intent of welcoming all comers. The Federal government was expressly forbidden from interfering with a State's sovereign right to control immigration until the year 1808 (Article 1, Section 9). Technically, all that sentence granted the Federal government in 1808 was the right to refuse immigrants that a State determined acceptable. Far cry between that and today's purely Federal immigration process, hunh?

Since you like to try to educate people on stuff all the time, let me educate you on something:

It does make a difference who you quote on a forum, otherwise your entire point can be invalid. For instance, you responded to mine, which was an obvious mockery of the "Bring us your tired...". If you want a conversation with someone, the easiest way is to quote them...that way they know as soon as they log in that you have responded. If you don't properly quote the post you are responding too, your response may get missed altogether by the person in the conversation with you. When that happens, you might at well be talking to yourself.

Not that you care as it's obvious you are only interested in "hearing" your own voice and trying to make people think you're educated. Response...no response...doesn't matter, as long as you get to put your words out there.

hustonj
07-01-2014, 06:44 PM
Not that you care as it's obvious you are only interested in "hearing" your own voice and trying to make people think you're educated. Response...no response...doesn't matter, as long as you get to put your words out there.

Not completely true. I try to put my words out there in a respectful manner. Like anybody else, sometimes I fall short, but I try. That is an indication that I care about more than just putting my words out there, I think.

I also try to ensure that the words go into a thread (or subthread) where they are relevant. Are you denying that your post was part of the subthread which sparked my comments?

Edit: I also don't expect everybody to agree with my words. I don't expect them to be taken as gospel passed down from on high. I present them, and wait to see how people choose to respond. Are they abusive, thoughtful, working to provide another insight, or what? You, good sir, seem to be intent on whether I am paying attention to you or not and are ignoring the message I attempt to provide. An interesting choice.

sandsjames
07-01-2014, 06:49 PM
Not completely true. I try to put my words out there in a respectful manner. Like anybody else, sometimes I fall short, but I try. That is an indication that I care about more than just putting my words out there, I think.

I also try to ensure that the words go into a thread (or subthread) where they are relevant. Are you denying that your post was part of the subthread which sparked my comments?

It is the relevant thread, just not the relevant quote. It does make a difference.

Though I wouldn't want you to feel as if I'm DEMANDING you following forum etiquette, so I'll drop it.

Rainmaker
07-01-2014, 09:46 PM
And how do we enforce the rules already in play? Its harder to find illigals after they cross over than to monitor the border. I've got an idea, how about we bring all those trops stationed all around the world home and get rid of our empire and monitor our borders?

These are freaking kids crossing over now and flooding our nation. Of course its with the help of La Raza and the administration to break down the system so it can be remade in their immage. But come on, no one from the left is calling for Obama to put an end to the sex trafficing and child abuse that is going on when these kids are marching through Mexico alone or with harder drug cartels?

pretty simple, By deporting them and putting any company that knowingly employs them out of business. it would probably be a lot cheaper than what we're doing right now. But, it won't be done because our bought and paid for pols want to suppress wages and change the demographics of the country. Look it's risk vs. reward. I don't fault them for coming. But, to encourage illegal immigration while maintaining a liberal welfare state during a depression (yep), is the height of lunacy. We need a moratorium on all immigration illegal and Legal, until employment gets back to normal 4%, after that you want to come. then, follow the law and apply for citizenship. The majority of the country wants the law enforced. But, we are no longer represented in this one party, socialist state.

Capt Alfredo
07-02-2014, 12:36 AM
This is a misconception. That "ethos" was when we had a worker shortage and encouraged the poor to come to America and work for super dirt cheap labor costs. Do we have a worker shortage right now?

Arguably, yes. "Regular" Americans are, for the most part, unwilling to do the work immigrants do. They would indeed rather get "free shit" than go out and pick vegetables for 12 hours a day.

Capt Alfredo
07-02-2014, 12:38 AM
Indeed many of them do. That does not change the fact that one hardworking illegal trying to support his family on the wages illegals get paid just ends up costing the taxpayer. And, yes, they are willing to work.

We always talk about "fair wages" on this site. I know many people who would be willing to take the jobs you speak of if it was a fair wage. However, why would the "employer" pay a fair wage when he knows that the income isn't getting turned in for tax purposes anyway.

So, back to my original point. They may be hardworking. However, they are not taxpayers which means anything they recieve other than the crappy income is free benefits, as they don't pay anything into the system.

Debatable. They pay sales tax. They pay property taxes (via rent). They subsidize low costs leading to cheaper produce, etc. They may not pay income tax, but a large number of "regular" Americans do not, either.

Capt Alfredo
07-02-2014, 12:44 AM
pretty simple, By deporting them and putting any company that knowingly employs them out of business. it would probably be a lot cheaper than what we're doing right now. But, it won't be done because our bought and paid for pols want to suppress wages and change the demographics of the country. Look it's risk vs. reward. I don't fault them for coming. But, to encourage illegal immigration while maintaining a liberal welfare state during a depression (yep), is the height of lunacy. We need a moratorium on all immigration illegal and Legal, until employment gets back to normal 4%, after that you want to come. then, follow the law and apply for citizenship. The majority of the country wants the law enforced. But, we are no longer represented in this one party, socialist state.

Really? I'd say quite a lot of the employers who make use of immigrant labor are firmly on the right side of our system of government. I thought the "conservatives" were the party of small business owners? Majority of illegals are working day labor jobs in the agriculture, construction, and landscaping industries. Those are not known as hotbeds of Liberal or Socialist thought.

I'm not sure I agree that the majority of politicians (of either party) are looking to change the demographics of the country. I would agree that both sides are ultimately in favor of wage suppression, though.

garhkal
07-02-2014, 12:58 AM
Not really the ethos upon which our country was founded, is it? Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free...but by all means, dig a ditch or build a wall.

True, but when that Ethos was the 'rage' those coming here, came LEGALLY and did things LEGALLY to stay.


pretty simple, By deporting them and putting any company that knowingly employs them out of business.

Exactly. Enforce the laws we have, rather than make new ones which won't get enforced any more than the existing ones are.
As to the losing the business for those who hire illegals, i much prefer hurting the one DOING The hiring (by massive fines) than the entire company which would cause all the other legal workers to lose out.


We need a moratorium on all immigration illegal and Legal, until employment gets back to normal 4%, after that you want to come. then, follow the law and apply for citizenship. The majority of the country wants the law enforced. But, we are no longer represented in this one party, socialist state.

Me and you see eye to eye on that aspect RM. Stop immigration, both legal and illegal till our own citizenry are ok, THEN reopen things up.

sandsjames
07-02-2014, 02:58 AM
Debatable. They pay sales tax. They pay property taxes (via rent). They subsidize low costs leading to cheaper produce, etc. They may not pay income tax, but a large number of "regular" Americans do not, either.

The cost of education, medical care, etc, far outweigh any benefit.

sandsjames
07-02-2014, 03:00 AM
I would agree that both sides are ultimately in favor of wage suppression, though.I think this is one of the biggest conspiracy theories going on. No matter how dishonest I think politicians are, I just can't see any of them, Dem or Rep, sitting in a little room with an evil laugh talking about how they need to keep people from making more money. I just don't buy it.

Capt Alfredo
07-02-2014, 03:12 AM
I think this is one of the biggest conspiracy theories going on. No matter how dishonest I think politicians are, I just can't see any of them, Dem or Rep, sitting in a little room with an evil laugh talking about how they need to keep people from making more money. I just don't buy it.

Didn't say there was a secret cabal of Stonecutters out there who are conspiring to keep the people down. But I do think that since most politicians are rich, they would like to stay rich or get richer.

Rainmaker
07-02-2014, 04:15 AM
Really? I'd say quite a lot of the employers who make use of immigrant labor are firmly on the right side of our system of government. I thought the "conservatives" were the party of small business owners? Majority of illegals are working day labor jobs in the agriculture, construction, and landscaping industries. Those are not known as hotbeds of Liberal or Socialist thought.

I'm not sure I agree that the majority of politicians (of either party) are looking to change the demographics of the country. I would agree that both sides are ultimately in favor of wage suppression, though.

the GOP is largely responsible. which is why they've lost the middle class. They like to protest and use Obama as a punching bag. But, when you look at their actions rather than words, you can see there is no conservative party left in this country and what we have is effectively a one party system. there is no right side of government as you say. Why are they doing this? simple. greed. It's law of supply and demand. There can be no stabilization of demand until there is stabiliization of supply. wages cannot rise until the supply of labor is stabilized. labor cannot stabilize so long as you have millions of people flooding the country willing to work for peanuts. this undertow sucks ALL wages down. deny services and cut off the benefits and they couldn't afford to do it. wages would have to rise. agriculture is big business. there are very few small farms left.

And by the way. yes many illegal aliens work pretty hard. But, we don't need em and would be better without it. With stretched resources, we are sitting on a powder keg and King Obama is fanning the flames intentionally creating a humanitarian disaster and trying to goad a Conservative overreaction so he can paint them as radical bigots. Luckily, so far, they are not taking the bait.

MikeKerriii
07-02-2014, 05:44 AM
Then why not dig a ditch, say 200 meters DEEP and 200 meters wide? That would work just as good imo.
I really hope you are Joking

That would make the panama canal look like a weekend Honey-do handyman project in be the largest construction job in human history.

BTW that would reg quire moving 125,800,000,000 cubic meters of dirt and rock,

sandsjames
07-02-2014, 11:16 AM
Didn't say there was a secret cabal of Stonecutters out there who are conspiring to keep the people down. But I do think that since most politicians are rich, they would like to stay rich or get richer.I would agree with that. Just as I would like to stay at my current income level or higher, I think others would also.

CORNELIUSSEON
07-05-2014, 11:03 PM
I would think that America - and the rest of the world - has already learned the lesson of the Berlin Wall. That lesson says that no matter how much money we spend in fencing people in or fencing them out, in the long run the builder of the fence will ultimately fail to fulfill the intended job, and it will be the people being fenced who will win in the end.

garhkal
07-06-2014, 07:33 AM
SO what.. Don't even bother securing the border cause it would IYO be futile?

BENDER56
07-06-2014, 11:40 PM
SO what.. Don't even bother securing the border cause it would IYO be futile?

What if it could be shown to be futile? This is not unlike the argument in the Iraq thread.

garhkal
07-07-2014, 06:30 AM
in that case, don't bother having a designated border, Border patrol agents, INS, hell any sort of Immigration laws.