Thread: Building the Wall

gina - 5/18/2017 at 06:51 PM


The bids for designs were submitted, and finalists have been chosen.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/border-agency-says-it-has-picked-final ists-to-design-wall.html

Once the government funding issue (we are good till September) is mediated, then the contract can be awarded, and work can begin! Trump will get it done.


gina - 5/18/2017 at 06:53 PM

This is one of the designs that I like. The way it will be built border patrol agents can see into Mexico but they cannot see anything of the US.

PennaGroup, a construction firm in Fort Worth, Texas, is one company vying to build the wall ó but itís not proposing a standard concrete fixture.

The company submitted a design for wall, made of wire and plexiglass, that would work similar to a one-way mirror. The US would be able to see through, while the Mexico side would not.

According to PennaGroupís summary of the design, it interviewed dozens of US border patrol agents to understand their jobs and what kind of characteristics they would want in a wall. Somewhat predictably, the agents said that the wall must be tall, be able to drain rainwater, have mechanized doors for vehicles, and be hard to climb, tunnel, or tamper with


http://sanmigueltimes.com/2017/05/american-architects-propose-one-way-plexi glass-sheet-for-trumps-border-wall/

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=W1%2bfiuZP&id =4F20DFD59F01764C66C860FCFE022EC0F61FCCD7&thid=OIF.4zJfq6mDsTL6GMAhXfFp kA&q=border+wall+designs&simid=146633590160&selectedIndex=0& ;ajaxhist=0

Remarks: Beautiful, functional. I love this design.



[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]


pops42 - 5/18/2017 at 06:53 PM

quote:

The bids for designs were submitted, and finalists have been chosen.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/border-agency-says-it-has-picked-final ists-to-design-wall.html

Once the government funding issue (we are good till September) is mediated, then the contract can be awarded, and work can begin! Trump will get it done.
He will have to attend impeachment proceedings before then. aint happenin


gina - 5/18/2017 at 06:57 PM

He has not done the things he is accused of. There is no basis for impeachment.

Here's another submission.

https://www.prlog.org/12632986-crss-releases-video-on-wall-proposal.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozsG3A04z_U&t=4s



]

[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]


gina - 5/18/2017 at 07:13 PM

Gleason Partners of Las Vegas has a plan for the wall also - using solar energy

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/north-las-vegas/north-las-vegas-busines sman-submits-proposal-for-border-wall/


gina - 5/18/2017 at 07:20 PM

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a25957/from-solar -panels-to-nuclear-waste-trumps-wall-proposals/

WTC Construction of St. Andrews, Texas, would want a precast concrete system that would look like its desert surroundings. The "Rammed Earth" model, as WTC calls it, would "provide a beautiful structure that will reflect the beauty of the border lands."

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/04/the_proposals_for _trump_s_border_wall_are_loud_ambitious_and_dumb.html





[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]


MartinD28 - 5/18/2017 at 07:21 PM

quote:
He has not done the things he is accused of. There is no basis for impeachment.

Here's another submission.

https://www.prlog.org/12632986-crss-releases-video-on-wall-proposal.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozsG3A04z_U&t=4s



]

[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]


How do you know he hasn't done what he's accused of? Did he tell you so, and you believe him? He is a serial liar. He's been caught so many times, people have stopped counting. His credibility is lacking and his approval rating for a president sucks. There are probably so many things far worse about Trumpo than what's ever been reported. If he stays in the spotlight long enough, he'll brag about all of his misconduct.


gina - 5/18/2017 at 07:32 PM

Well Martin, you are correct in that I do not "know"; however he earned my vote by his platform of promises to America, and his traditional values. The Democrats wanted to push an agenda that I do not agree with. My God is against gay anything, this was specified to each of the groups he left guidance with, starting with the Jews, Jesus re-iterated it to the Christians, and Archangel Gabriel told Muhammad the same thing when guidance was given to the Muslims.

Trump was for sovereignty of our borders and the borders of other countries. The Democrats wanted to continue their 'nation building' stance of going to other countries, ousting their leaders and putting in others. We have no legal or moral right to do that.

Trump wants to revise the tax code creating more eqitable tax brackets. I agree with that.

Trump believes in our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms, protect our lives, homes. The Democrats wanted to institute a global weapons confiscation scheme that they tried to push thru the United Nations, remember that?

Trump will not keep allowing businesses to go overseas to benefit foreign investment partners, he will grow and keep American jobs in America. I agree with that. Nafta was a bad deal and the other deals that followed were bad also.

Trump believes in the Constitution, the Democrats have been gutting it for years. (examples: NDAA violating due process, etc. etc)

Trump does not believe in abortions and selling baby parts and funding Planned Parenthood since it was proven that they do that. The Democrats have used this as a sticking point to hold up legislation he wanted to get passed by inserting a provision for that funding in other legislation.

Trump is against the pedophiles, the money laundering, the child sex trafficking of which many sitting members of Congress and the Senate have been involved in or at least enjoyed on junket, tax payer paid for parties that they go to. You will not find him at the Bohemian Grove satanic rituals many of the other luminaries go to. He will clean up the swamp.

He does not want a ONE WORLD GOVT., run by yet another deceptive crook. The Democrats want that New World Order. He does not and that is the biggest difference between him and the opposition.

And Yes, he will build that wall, he must build it, or the opposition will help the illegals get on busses, give them phony id, and bus them to the polls in 2020. Yes we must build that wall.



[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]


BIGV - 5/18/2017 at 08:53 PM

"Building the Wall"

Do it.


pops42 - 5/18/2017 at 10:40 PM

All talk, no action. the trump way.


2112 - 5/18/2017 at 10:58 PM

quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


jkeller - 5/19/2017 at 12:28 AM

Ain't gonna be no wall. Sorry about that.


gina - 5/19/2017 at 11:28 PM

quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.


jkeller - 5/19/2017 at 11:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.


He can't get the Republican Congress to authorize funds to start the wall. No way it gets built before he is impeached.


MartinD28 - 5/20/2017 at 12:15 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.


Remember that he said oh so many times that Mexico would pay for it. Wait & see.

He has a better chance of Russia paying for his big beautiful wall than either Mexico or the USA Taxpayers.


2112 - 5/20/2017 at 02:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.


You think the wall is going to be built with $5 to $10 donations? Ha ha ha...Given the current cost projection, the wall will cost $170 per taxpayer. We all know that construction projects always cost more than original projections, so the price will only go up from there. I don't know about you, but I have better uses for $200 than a wall that isn't going to keep anybody out.


pops42 - 5/20/2017 at 02:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.
open your own lemonade stand to pay for it.


2112 - 5/20/2017 at 10:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
All talk, no action. the trump way.


Unless he can get Mexico to pay for it, it's a broken promise anyway.


I think he will find a way to make them pay for it, if not, I'd donate $5 or $10 as a tax contribution and if a lot of others also do that, we can get it done. I also think many veterans and others would volunteer time, skills and free labor to help with the effort.
open your own lemonade stand to pay for it.


That could work $10 per glass with 6.7 billion customers. Should only take an afternoon. Maybe we could get Mexico to contribute a couple thousand since we would essentially be giving them the entire Rio Grande River as well, and then Trump could brag that he got them to pay for it. You could be onto something Pops.


nebish - 5/21/2017 at 02:09 AM

Compromise...

All law abiding illegal aliens can stay in the US with a pathway to eventual citizen ship.

Sanctuary cities are abolished.

Congress funds the Trump adiminstration immigration and border patrol expenditures. I've seen estimates of 8-50 billion for wall construction costs. The wall does not need built on the entire length of the border so I don't think the medium-to-high range of cost is accurate. I'd be happy if they just constructed the wall/fence deterent consistent with the 2006 secure fence act. I should look up the cost of that 11 year old bill signed into law had they built according to the law then we'd be better off now.

So how is that? Compromise...Congress funds the administration's immigration security initiatives and law abiding illegal immigrants will be safe but no city in the US can be a sanctuary city. Deal?


2112 - 5/22/2017 at 06:00 PM

quote:
Compromise...

All law abiding illegal aliens can stay in the US with a pathway to eventual citizen ship.

Sanctuary cities are abolished.

Congress funds the Trump adiminstration immigration and border patrol expenditures. I've seen estimates of 8-50 billion for wall construction costs. The wall does not need built on the entire length of the border so I don't think the medium-to-high range of cost is accurate. I'd be happy if they just constructed the wall/fence deterent consistent with the 2006 secure fence act. I should look up the cost of that 11 year old bill signed into law had they built according to the law then we'd be better off now.

So how is that? Compromise...Congress funds the administration's immigration security initiatives and law abiding illegal immigrants will be safe but no city in the US can be a sanctuary city. Deal?


Anyone who uses an estimate of $8 billion is just pulling a number out of their a$$. The existing 650 miles of fencing (which is certainly not impenetrable) on the border cost $7 billion. The wall will need to be 1,900 miles long, will require property be purchased. The purchase of property alone will much exceed $8 billion.

The most believable figures I've seen all put the cost well over $60 billion. Like I said, there will be a 100% chance of cost overruns. Plus, since the wall will need to be on the US side of the Rio Grande,we are essentially giving the river to Mexico.

As far as sanctuary cities, I am certainly not in favor of them. I don't believe that cities should be forced to spend their own money on immigration enforcement, but I do believe that anyone illegal immigrant that has broken the law should be turned over to federal authorities. I see no reason for cities to protect those caught conducting significant crimes. It makes no sense to me.


nebish - 5/22/2017 at 08:57 PM

quote:


Anyone who uses an estimate of $8 billion is just pulling a number out of their a$$. The existing 650 miles of fencing (which is certainly not impenetrable) on the border cost $7 billion. The wall will need to be 1,900 miles long, will require property be purchased. The purchase of property alone will much exceed $8 billion.

The most believable figures I've seen all put the cost well over $60 billion. Like I said, there will be a 100% chance of cost overruns. Plus, since the wall will need to be on the US side of the Rio Grande,we are essentially giving the river to Mexico.

As far as sanctuary cities, I am certainly not in favor of them. I don't believe that cities should be forced to spend their own money on immigration enforcement, but I do believe that anyone illegal immigrant that has broken the law should be turned over to federal authorities. I see no reason for cities to protect those caught conducting significant crimes. It makes no sense to me.


I agree with DHS director Kelly, that a wall is not needed the entire length of the border. I think the President can say he wants a physical barrier to impede illegal crossings and the department can go to work and decide how and where that is necessary and effective. I supported the Secure Fence Act as written in 2006, however it was not built as spec'd in the bill that passed with bipartisan support. So at the very least that should be corrected and improved upon.




MartinD28 - 5/22/2017 at 09:54 PM

quote:
quote:


Anyone who uses an estimate of $8 billion is just pulling a number out of their a$$. The existing 650 miles of fencing (which is certainly not impenetrable) on the border cost $7 billion. The wall will need to be 1,900 miles long, will require property be purchased. The purchase of property alone will much exceed $8 billion.

The most believable figures I've seen all put the cost well over $60 billion. Like I said, there will be a 100% chance of cost overruns. Plus, since the wall will need to be on the US side of the Rio Grande,we are essentially giving the river to Mexico.

As far as sanctuary cities, I am certainly not in favor of them. I don't believe that cities should be forced to spend their own money on immigration enforcement, but I do believe that anyone illegal immigrant that has broken the law should be turned over to federal authorities. I see no reason for cities to protect those caught conducting significant crimes. It makes no sense to me.


I agree with DHS director Kelly, that a wall is not needed the entire length of the border. I think the President can say he wants a physical barrier to impede illegal crossings and the department can go to work and decide how and where that is necessary and effective. I supported the Secure Fence Act as written in 2006, however it was not built as spec'd in the bill that passed with bipartisan support. So at the very least that should be corrected and improved upon.






Assuming that Mexico doesn't pay for Trump's Wall, and that's a pretty good probability, what do you think the political fallout would be for Trump with his base supporters? That was one of his signature campaign promises. Or would his base really care, as they seem to continue to give him a pass on all of his missteps & failures to date?

With the significant costs associated with the Trump Wall, what programs would be OK to be reduced, eliminated, or raided to come up with the necessary $? Or would his massive tax cut proposed produce enough growth to go towards paying for the wall?

[Edited on 5/22/2017 by MartinD28]


gina - 5/22/2017 at 11:43 PM

I actually read some things in the local papers up here that he would use a few things to offset SOME of the cost of the wall. Some of the things are:

1) cuts to food stamps (make eligibility harder to obtain),

2)cuts to Medicaid also. There are a lot of hungry out of work people so I don't agree with cuts to food stamps until everyone who wants a job (and can get a living wage job) gets one.

3) budget forecasting of profits from growth of the economy and jobs.

4) Private investors contributions.





[Edited on 5/22/2017 by gina]


jkeller - 5/23/2017 at 12:14 AM

quote:
I actually read some things in the local papers up here that he would use a few things to offset SOME of the cost of the wall. Some of the things are:

1) cuts to food stamps (make eligibility harder to obtain),

2)cuts to Medicaid also. There are a lot of hungry out of work people so I don't agree with cuts to food stamps until everyone who wants a job (and can get a living wage job) gets one.

3) budget forecasting of profits from growth of the economy and jobs.

4) Private investors contributions.





[Edited on 5/22/2017 by gina]


1. That would no dent the surface of the costs of the wall.

2. That budget has 0% chance of passing.


nebish - 5/23/2017 at 11:43 AM

quote:
Assuming that Mexico doesn't pay for Trump's Wall, and that's a pretty good probability, what do you think the political fallout would be for Trump with his base supporters? That was one of his signature campaign promises. Or would his base really care, as they seem to continue to give him a pass on all of his missteps & failures to date?

With the significant costs associated with the Trump Wall, what programs would be OK to be reduced, eliminated, or raided to come up with the necessary $? Or would his massive tax cut proposed produce enough growth to go towards paying for the wall?

[Edited on 5/22/2017 by MartinD28]


Good question that I'm not sure I have the answer to.

Mexico was never going to pay for it, as many pointed out very early on. The only thing I could figure during that election was that Trump was going to tariff Mexico imports and put those funds towards the wall. Trump never suggested that during the election so even though that idea was floated post-election I'm not sure that was ever his intention. At any rate, I don't think it is going to weigh him down from the base, but I think alot of non-base people voted for Trump which could've had just as much to do with pushing him over the finish line as anything else. So the reaction of those people may be one that holds it against him more.

What should be cut to fund the wall specifically? I can't answer that. I'm in favor of across the board budget cuts, perhaps 1/2% here or 1% there or 2% somewhere else. I know that defense officials and advocates have described the damaging effects of the sequester, but perhaps had more flexibility on how to apply the cuts could've been a better way to handle it. Nobody likes having money taken away from them and everyone always wants more. With automatic annual increases there is no incentive to spend less money at the government agencies and there should be a priority to save.

On tax cuts, I do believe that tax collections by the IRS can actually increase post tax cuts because I've seen it and posted the data here post the Bush tax cuts. The assumption is if you cut taxes you are cutting revenue to the treasury and if you raise taxes you bring in more money to the treasury, but raw data the IRS puts out doesn't support that.

In an ideal world I think we should have a balanced budget. That would need alot more revenue or alot more cuts. I'm still waiting to hear how they will pay for the infrastructure plan and how they are going to repatriot corporate earnings and how much that actually is.

How do you specifically fund the wall? Again, I don't believe it should be or needs to be the entire length of the boarder so I don't think the focus needs to be on the high end of the cost estimates.

Bottom line, I don't think that any specific cuts should be made to specifically go towards wall or fence construction. I do think that across the board spending cuts should take place, including defense and savings from those cuts could fund new expenditures. No "investor" will help fund boarder enforcement costs unless they can somehow get a monetary return on their investment, there will be few to none willing to step up on that (item 4 on Gina's list).


gina - 5/23/2017 at 09:40 PM

Would it be cheaper to just put those who cross illegally (and are caught) back on busses to Mexico?

We could

!. Fine employers who use them for cheap labor.

2. End border birthright citizenship, the current practice of go to America, have your baby there and then it is automatically a citizen could be ended, stopping the incentive to illegally cross the border. For the Mothers, provide the care and deliver the baby and then when discharged from the hospital, put them back on a bus and send them back to their country of origin. Central Americans could be flown home because that's too long of a bus trip for a woman who just gave birth and newborn child.

3. Amnesty for those who are already working here, and have families. If they have been here for ? (decide the time frame) number of years working and supporting themselves and families, grant amnesty.

4. Those here legally or illegally if they commit serious crimes within (figure out a time frame), face deportation and return back to their own country.

5. All must learn English (at least conversational) within 2 years of arriving here. Fluency within 5 years.


nebish - 5/24/2017 at 01:10 PM

quote:
Would it be cheaper to just put those who cross illegally (and are caught) back on busses to Mexico?

We could

!. Fine employers who use them for cheap labor.

2. End border birthright citizenship, the current practice of go to America, have your baby there and then it is automatically a citizen could be ended, stopping the incentive to illegally cross the border. For the Mothers, provide the care and deliver the baby and then when discharged from the hospital, put them back on a bus and send them back to their country of origin. Central Americans could be flown home because that's too long of a bus trip for a woman who just gave birth and newborn child.

3. Amnesty for those who are already working here, and have families. If they have been here for ? (decide the time frame) number of years working and supporting themselves and families, grant amnesty.

4. Those here legally or illegally if they commit serious crimes within (figure out a time frame), face deportation and return back to their own country.

5. All must learn English (at least conversational) within 2 years of arriving here. Fluency within 5 years.




They only capture about half the people that actually cross. And how do we keep them from simply doing it again and then we bus them back and then they do it again and then we bus them back.

The penalties for employers hiring illegal labor needs to be severe to take away the incentive to hire illegal labor. $20,000 fine per illegal working for a given employer first offense? Mandatory prison time for the owner and whoever hired the illegal is fired on the second offense? In order to have such penalties there needs to be a federally mandated use of the e-verify system so employers can faithfully and accurately check the applicant they are considering to hire. If e-verify affirms an applicants lawfulness in the US and that person is later found to be illegal the employer should face no punishment since all they can do is rely on the information the system generates.

I am generally in favor of ending the anchor baby method of attaining access for family members to come to or stay in the US.

I can certainly see a time for me to agree to amnesty once other measures are taken to discourage and prevent more illegals for coming here. At this time I am not there.

Legal immigrants, if we are talking citizens or green card holders, who are found guilty crimes should not be deported. If we are talking legal immigrants that are on temporary legal status to be here and they commit crimes, they should be deported. As it stands today any illegal immigrant should be deported, the crime of being here illegally is enough to justify removal.

This conversation is multifaceted...I think attention does need put on illegal crossings on the border with Mexico. However, increasingly we are seeing VISA overstays as a key contributor. What was the recent figure, something like 700,000 people did not leave in 2016 as outlined by the terms of their VISA. And what is it, something like 40% of illegal aliens in the US are a result of VISA overstays? This problem needs addressed with the same attention as the illegals coming here on foot (or smuggled) from the southern border.


gina - 5/25/2017 at 12:11 AM

We also have drones, why can't a deal be reached with Mexico allowing us to peek over the border to identify people who are trying to cross, and then have a network in place to retrieve them IF they do cross over. The border is long, but they are not coming across every square foot of 900 miles. They do not have cars for the most part, so how far can they walk from the towns, villages they live in to get to border crossings? The US Marshalls should be able to determine where the most likely border crossings would be, and the drones should be allowed to do surveillance activities in Mexico, we have drones all over the Middle East, but we cannot deploy them to Mexico? Why not?


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=144208