There are 176 nations in the world approxiametely. They all have defined geographically borders. Some choose to guard those borders tightly. Some even put up fences, and/or land mine fields. Others don't.

The problem is illegal immigration, and the illegal employment of illegal immigrants. If the people crossing th border were all tourists, it wouldn't be such a problem, but they come in order to get employment and suppossedly use up social services at an exorbitant rate. Their motivation is a job , not free medical care. (Since Mexico has free medical care. )
So the question isn't, how do you seal the borders but how do you most effectively and efficiently control illegal employment of illegal immigrants.
Spending trillions of dollars to recreate North Korea on your southern border would be an ineffeective and inefficient way to accomplish control over illegal employment of illegal immigrants. Its akin to the drug war rounding up marijuana users and throwing them in jail. And it would immediatly add to the deficit and debt unless you propose a direct tax increase to pay for the construction, maintenance and guard manpower?
Better, that employers face the cost of verifying that they are following the law ...
At the same time, although US employment is high, withtin the industries that use the most illegals there is going to be labour shortage if they stop employing illegals... Since that isn't a welcome outcome there will need to be some outcome where long term illegals can remain, and gain a legal status in order to meet that labour requirement...
Who is most resistant of enforcement at the employer level? The industries. Primarily becasue they fear that having to pay legal residents for their labour will increase the labout costs. In Meat Packing this might mean a return to the $25 an hour labour of 20 years ago instead of the current $10 an hour...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of people?

What is a nation without borders?

If a nation is purely a geographical construct, the it is defined by its borders. However, that does not imply that the borders have to be impermeable, they just describe the limits of that nation's sovereignty. I still am no wiser as to which part of the Consitution restricts free movement of people.

Brad has a reasonable point with 'commen defense', although that could simply be taken as a restriction of foreign power. So I amand my question slightly:

What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of civilians?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of people?

What is a nation without borders?

If a nation is purely a geographical construct, the it is defined by its borders.

Rejected for false premise. I never said "a nation is purely a geographical construct . . ."

However, that does not imply that the borders have to be impermeable, they just describe the limits of that nation's sovereignty. I still am no wiser as to which part of the Consitution restricts free movement of people.

Because it has nothing to do with the issue. And, it happens to be an asinine question. Do we have borders? Yes. Are there limits on who may enter the country? Are there limitations on who may remain in the country? Yes. Is the President enforcing those laws? No. Is he violating his oath of office? Yes.

What part of the Constitution restricts the free movement of civilians?

What does this have to do with illegal immigration? It is a false construct designed for some distracting purpose. Answer it yourself.

Is it illegal for some people to enter the United States?

Yes.

rickyp wrote:There are 176 nations in the world approxiametely. They all have defined geographically borders. Some choose to guard those borders tightly. Some even put up fences, and/or land mine fields. Others don't.

The problem is illegal immigration, and the illegal employment of illegal immigrants. If the people crossing th border were all tourists, it wouldn't be such a problem, but they come in order to get employment and suppossedly use up social services at an exorbitant rate. Their motivation is a job , not free medical care. (Since Mexico has free medical care. )

Then, since our economy is so bad, why are they coming for jobs that don't exist?

Spending trillions of dollars to recreate North Korea on your southern border would be an ineffeective and inefficient way to accomplish control over illegal employment of illegal immigrants.

1. Compare and contrast the Korean DMZ (North Korean side) to ANY model of the border fence that has been proposed by a Republican office holder.

2. Show me any proposed fence estimated to cost $1T

If you can't do either one, stop your stupidity.

Oh, get a life, Doc. You 'reject as a false premise' a conditional statement? The point is that 'having a border' is not the same thing as requiring that it be sealed.

An amnesty is not a gross violation of the Constitution. It's not even a minor one. There are all kinds of legal amnesties practised all the time (under both parties in the US).

Similarly, there are unenforceable laws all over the place. It's not unconstitutional to refuse to uphold a law that can't be upheld sensibly.

Now, it is illegal for some people to 'enter' the USA (although usually it's not the 'person' that is illegal, but the method of entry or lack of proper documentation). Quite frequently the issue is not how they enter, it's the extent to which they abide by visa requirements once legally admitted. And legal immigration is not easy. Something like a 1 million backlog on green cards, with a 3 year wait. Americans make a virtue of how many people want to go there to live, but also seem to want to make it harder for them to do so. If legal immigration becomes too difficult, you'll get illegal immigration.

how much are you prepared to spend on your fence. Capital outlay and annual revenue?

To answer your question, Danivon. The US Constitution has jurisdiction within the borders of the US. Do you want this to be different? Perhaps you would like the US Constitution to be worldwide? Maybe just Canada or Britain?

The president has taken and oath to protect the US from all invaders "foreign and domestic". Illegal aliens are invading the US. I think we can agree to that.

Therefore, presidents (yes, plural) have not upheld their oath.

bbauska wrote:To answer your question, Danivon. The US Constitution has jurisdiction within the borders of the US. Do you want this to be different? Perhaps you would like the US Constitution to be worldwide? Maybe just Canada or Britain?

Sigh...

I know that the US Constution only applies within US jurisdiction. That's what a border does - demarcate the points at which one nation's jurisdiction ends and another's begins. My question (and I can't believe it's that hard for you to grasp) is 'what part of the Constitution allows restriction of free movement of civilians?'

The president has taken and oath to protect the US from all invaders "foreign and domestic".

Which oath are you talking about? I found the full text of the Presidential Oath. It doesn't mention invaders, and 'foreign and domestic' does not appear it it at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_of ... ted_States

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

They usually add a 'so help me God' to the end, but that's not required - the wording above is what is in the Constitution itself.

Can you point me at this other oath that Presidents take in which the words you refer to appear? Perhaps you are thinking of the Vice Presidential Oath? In which case, few Presidents will have taken it (and not the last three).

Illegal aliens are invading the US. I think we can agree to that.

You should also be careful there too. The VP oath talks about 'enemies, foreign and domestic'. Are you saying that an illegal immigrant is automatically an 'enemy' of the US Constitution? I don't know that it's quite so clear cut - if someone wants so badly to come to your country and work there, to make a life there and contribute, does that make them an enemy of that country just because they don't fill out the right forms or go through the proper channels?

And even if so, are they specifically an enemy of the Constitution itself?

fate

Then, since our economy is so bad, why are they coming for jobs that don't exist?

Interesting that you say that...

A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.
It looks to be the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent.

The reversal appears to be a result of tightened border controls, a weak U.S. job and housing construction market, a rise in deportations and a decline in Mexican birthrates, said the study, which used U.S. and Mexican census figures and Mexican government surveys. Arrests of illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States have also dropped precipitously in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

Is your proposed fence trying to solve a problem that is going away?

2. Show me any proposed fence estimated to cost $1T

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line. (Hint; most of the rest of the border is hills, gullies and shallow river bed in very remote areas...)
The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today. (So double ths cost for a double fence)

These estimates do not include the costs of acquiring land, nor the expense of maintaining a fence that is exposed to constant efforts by illegal crossers to bore through it or under it or to bring it down. In March, Customs and Border Protection estimated it would cost $6.5 billion “to deploy, operate and maintain” the existing border fencing over an expected maximum lifetime of 20 years. The agency reported repairing 4,037 breaches in 2010 alone.

No, from this its real easy to get to 1 trillion. (1,000 billion)
Note Fate that there were 4,037 breeches of the existing fence in 2010 alone repaired.... Isn't it obvious that a determined and motivated populace seeking to get through a fence will... Especially if the fence is remote, and they have lots of unobserved time to manage scaling or cutting their way through.

Here's a parting note from someone local to the scene....

Richard F. Cortez, the mayor of the Texas border town of McAllen, noted that much of the state’s border is defined by rivers. “It is a winding river,” Mr. Cortez, a political independent, said in an interview on Wednesday. “Where in the world are you going to put fencing? To propose that suggests ignorance of the border and the terrain.”

bbauska wrote:Therefore, presidents (yes, plural) have not upheld their oath.

Here's the trick though: how many have made it policy to NOT enforce the law, like President Obama.

The president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government and is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

One cannot say they are "faithfully executing" the laws of the United States and then order the government to not enforce laws on the books.

rickyp wrote:fate

Then, since our economy is so bad, why are they coming for jobs that don't exist?

Interesting that you say that...

A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.
It looks to be the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent.

The reversal appears to be a result of tightened border controls, a weak U.S. job and housing construction market, a rise in deportations and a decline in Mexican birthrates, said the study, which used U.S. and Mexican census figures and Mexican government surveys. Arrests of illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States have also dropped precipitously in recent years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

Is your proposed fence trying to solve a problem that is going away?

Nope. The estimate is 10-12 million, minimum.

2. Show me any proposed fence estimated to cost $1T

rickyp wrote:No, from this its real easy to get to 1 trillion. (1,000 billion)

What part of "any proposed fence" confuses you? You extrapolate some things and come to your own conclusion.

Even your own source says, "Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today." It's a long way from there to $1T, so you'll just make up whatever numbers you want.

But, I specifically ask for a "proposed fence." That would mean something an elected official has actually put on paper, not some laser-filled Star Wars fence with Darth Maul dolls on it that exists only in your mind.

Besides, what do you care? It's not your economy, border, or fence.

Doctor Fate wrote:Even your own source says, "Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today." It's a long way from there to $1T, so you'll just make up whatever numbers you want.

It's not the construction costs, it's the costs to watch it. A fence on its own would be useless.

But, I specifically ask for a "proposed fence." That would mean something an elected official has actually put on paper, not some laser-filled Star Wars fence with Darth Maul dolls on it that exists only in your mind.

Besides, what do you care? It's not your economy, border, or fence.

Wasn't it you who proposed a fence? If it's not outlined more detail, how is that our fault?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Even your own source says, "Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today." It's a long way from there to $1T, so you'll just make up whatever numbers you want.

It's not the construction costs, it's the costs to watch it. A fence on its own would be useless.

Thank you for your pro bono work on behalf of our indigent Canadian friend!

We have a border patrol. They might well be able to cover more territory if there was an effective barrier.

But, I specifically ask for a "proposed fence." That would mean something an elected official has actually put on paper, not some laser-filled Star Wars fence with Darth Maul dolls on it that exists only in your mind.

Besides, what do you care? It's not your economy, border, or fence.

Wasn't it you who proposed a fence? If it's not outlined more detail, how is that our fault?

Objection! Mr. Barrister, you well know it was rickyp who proposed the $1T figure. So,he needs to defend it, not I.

Yes, but I already asked you to say how much you would pay, and, as I said, you suggested a fence first. $1T is a very big figure, but we are certainly talking about billions just for the fence, and you would need extra patrols to cover the length of it fully. Of course there is actually already a fence along quite a bit of it, and border patrols clearly are not sufficient.

I am not defending ricky, I'm asking you to put some faith in your own proposal and tell us what it would cost. Otherwise you end up being no better than he is (and at least he did get some basic figured instead of repsond with insults and childish barbs).

danivon wrote:Yes, but I already asked you to say how much you would pay, and, as I said, you suggested a fence first. $1T is a very big figure, but we are certainly talking about billions just for the fence, and you would need extra patrols to cover the length of it fully. Of course there is actually already a fence along quite a bit of it, and border patrols clearly are not sufficient.

I am not defending ricky, I'm asking you to put some faith in your own proposal and tell us what it would cost. Otherwise you end up being no better than he is (and at least he did get some basic figured instead of repsond with insults and childish barbs).

What? He didn't perform like you? Well, that's nice, I suppose.

Look, he made it up, almost out of whole cloth.

Why bother? Whatever figure I give you, whatever research I do, what difference would it make to you?

I know the answer, which is why I will not bother. I might as well ask rickyp to use spellcheck.

The genuine issue is a President who holds himself above the law.

fate

Nope. The estimate is 10-12 million, minimum.

That 10 to 12 million are already here. What good will your fence do for them?
Or are you trying to keep them in?

Romney said that ilegal aliens would self deport if they couldn't find employment, And he's right. (The Pew study I linked proves that...)
Unfortunately its a poor economy that is causing this right now.
It could also be effective policing of industries hiring illegals. To an extent Obamas adminstration is already deporting more illegal aliens then any previous administration, and he increased border policing more than any previous administration ... So he should get credit from you for doing a better job then Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan who offered amnesty to millions rather than press corporations on their illegal hiring practiices.

But, I specifically ask for a "proposed fence." That would mean something an elected official has actually put on paper

The source was Customs and Border protection, surely experts in the area of border fencing no? ; replying to questions from Congress on the cost of a single fence in preparing this budget. I prefer it to something Michelle Bachman made up.... But what fantasy, from what nutbar do you have in mind?

I gave you numbers for a single fence from the Customs and Border Security. I'm sure you'll agree that the government is going to end up spending far more than it originally estimates- both to build and to run the fence properly. Why the Boeing project for border fencing was supposed to cost $67 million and ending up costing $1 billion for only 53 miles. In an easy section of land. Thats a 1492% overrun.source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... 7&allcom=1

So from the original 22.4 billion from Customs and Border security , doubled for two fences (one's no good) you get to 45 billion. Add $5billion for land purchases ...You're at $50 billion. At the Boeing experienced 1492% overrun you eventually arrive at final delivered cost of at 746 billion. That leaves 10 billion a year for 25 years to police and maintain, since the experience is that there were over 4,000 breeches on one small sectionand to be effective repairs should be constant and patrols omnipresent. Either way; a big cost over 2100 miles...
So within 25 years you're at a trillion. Tons more government employees too. All with pensions right? Cause who'd do this dirty dangerous work unless they were extremelly well compensated?

But go ahead and explain why you think the govenrment will do this in a cost effective and efficient manner, and why hiring the enormous staff it will require in order to eliminate 4,000 breeches a year evrey 20 miles makes economic sense when deficts are so high... . It'll be the first time you've argued that the government could do anything in an efficient or effective manner....
I look forward to the epistle.