This immigration poll...is it multiple choice?

[4Freedom]

It's only $53 million-$100 thousand. That's a drop in the bucket. Pocket change for congress. Never mind. /sarcasm

[4Freedom]

One positive result to come from this ambiguous poll is that, so far, only 2% of Freepers agree that illegal immigration is no big deal.

Puts that opinion and those that hold it squarely in the extreme minority on this issue. Agreed?

[Sabertooth]

We should station 5 troops per mile along a 30-foot-tall wall until a sufficient number of 'Special Border Patrol' can be hired to replace them.

Great, a number.

5 troops per mile along 2,000 miles of Mexican border = 10,000 troops at any one time. If each soldier is at his post 8 hours a day, and there are 168 hours in a week, it will take 4.2 men for each post (168/40 = 4.2). That's 42,000 troops just along the wall.

Figure a Clinton-level 2 to 1 support to deployment ratio, and that's another 84,000 troops. That puts you at 126,000 troops. That's just for the Mexican border. Throw in Canada, the coastlines, and all of the military inspectors at our sea ports and airports. It's gonna take hundreds of thousands of troops to accomplish what you envison.

And about that 30 foot wall... how thick is it supposed to be? Will it just be cinder blocks, like we use to line the freeways? Or will the troops be stationed atop something more substantial?

How quickly do you think the wall can be built?

[4Freedom]

Yep, your total troop/Special Border Patrol requirement is almost identical to mine. You'll see the very same numbers on most of the articles you've ever linked me to since you started your 'ping' list.

If Clinton said, '2 to 1' you gotta know it could be done with less.

As I've also said before, the TSA hired 72,000 Airport Inspectors for $2.1 billion a year. The airports are done. The land borders could be done the same way. The coasts and seaports would be cheaper to do, IMO.

TSA is paying these Inspectors $24,000 to $50,000 and the TSA 'bigwigs' are pulling down over $100,000.

Do we have to pay glorified security guards to stand at the top of a wall that much? You tell me.

The total cost would be less than what we're spending now on that list of expenses we presently have from our open borders policy.

Our hospital emergency rooms along the borders could afford to remain open.

Wages wouldn't see tremendous downward pressure.

Taxes would level off or maybe decrease.

We could get a handle on traffic congestion, crime, energy, water, prison over-population, court dockets, school over-crowding and everything else we've been discussing on these threads over the past couple of years.

A wall modeled on the one the Israelis are building could do us very nicely.

A wall similar to the walls along our highways has been advanced as a solution and could probably be modified to support a walkway or be made of two such walls with an elevated drive in the middle.

Nothing's impossible and it's all affordable. We're already spending more than what this would take and we could start tomorrow.

[Sabertooth]

If Clinton said, '2 to 1' you gotta know it could be done with less.

That's backwards. Clinton was stripping the military. Old deployment ratios are usually 4 to 1, sometimes as high as 7 to 1.

Ironically, the Clinton levels give a conservative estimate.

A wall similar to the walls along our highways has been advanced as a solution and could probably be modified to support a walkway or be made of two such walls with an elevated drive in the middle.

However you build the wall, you're now talking about a permanent structure, and in the latter case, something on the level of China's Great Wall, only longer.

Suppose you achieved the politically impossible, and got 67 Senators and 290 Congressmen to override Bush's certain veto and undertake one the most ambitious engineering project in human history...

What's the plan when Illegals are smuggled to our coasts by boat?

[4Freedom]

Please Sabertooth, you're 'Poohbahing' me, now.

Do you really believe that to put one Airport Inspector in an airport TSA had to hire 4 or 7 more?

Do you believe that right now, at this moment, there's only 10,000 of the 72,000 Airport Inspectors covering the 410 or so federalized airports?

What's the difference between putting Inspectors in airports, Special Border Patrol Agents on a wall along the borders and troops there temporarily until they can be replaced?

"What's the plan when illegals are smuggled to our coasts by boat?"

Are you trying to tell me that there's 1.8 million+ illegal aliens that will be able to enter the USA by boat, if we build these walls?

"...the most ambitious engineering project in human history..."

I wouldn't say that. But, I would say that yours is one of the most "ambitious" attempts at over-exaggeration in Free Republic history. LOL!

What gives with you on this , Saber?

We've built transcontinental highways and railroad lines that were more challenging than building a simple wall.

Take a look at the Panama Canal, the Sears Tower, some of this country's bridges and dams.

Then take a look at what the Twin Towers used to look like and tell me if we can afford not to build these simple walls.

[Ajnin]

How does our military make a difference in Korea, in Bosnia, in Haiti, in Japan, in German? You tell me? Do we have a shoot to kill policy for the slightest border infraction in all those countries too? I don't think so. We seem to be very competent in protecting the borders of every country our military is in EXCEPT our own

I don't know how Korea, Bosnia, Haiti, Japan and Germany relate to our problem of illegal immigration. I have no doubt that our military could shut down the border. However, so can the INS/Border Patrol. The Dept. of Defense and the DOJ are both controlled by the same entity right? If the Federal Government will not allow Border Patrol Agents to drive through the desert because they might run over an endangered plant or indian artifact, why would they allow the military to do it? If the Federal Government is going to tie the hands the of INS/Border Patrol with numerous ristrictions that prevent them from fully enforcing immigration laws, why are they going to allow the military to operate with free reign? Why not just make the INS/Border Patrol enfore existing immigration laws? Instead of ordering Border Patrol agents to stop chasing load vehicles that break traffic laws, why not let them pursue the vehicle until they catch it? How about re-instating city patrols? How about letting Agents determine alienage on sick and injured illegals? If the military is going to get a free pass on politically correct law enforcement, why go through all the trouble of deploying them on the border when all the government has to do is lift the pc restrictions on the INS?

[Ajnin]

"So far, I have not seen one person that has any idea how the military would be effective in deterring illegal immigrants."

Now, you both know that's not true.

Well if they would increase my quarterly allotment of ammo we still wouldn't need the military:)

[4Freedom]

Maybe now, that the situation on the borders is getting more attention, some of those ridiculous restrictions will be lifted on you guys.

I'm in favor of you guys having as much ammo as you want. Do they make you guys keep your one bullet in your shirt pocket like Barney Fife or something?

[Ajnin]

I know I rail a lot about how bad things are in the Border Patrol, however it's not all doom and gloom. There are some good things that are taking place. For example, we now have pepper ball gun launchers which is great against rock throwers. After a smuggler throws a rock at an agent, he can't use his gun unless the smuggler goes for another rock. However, the agent can use the launcher until the smuggler runs away or submits. Of course, we had to shoot a smuggler before we got it. We have several new anti smuggling units that have struck some serious fear into the smugglers in our area. However, each team is understaffed and management still refuses to use them to their full potential. These units need to be expanded to include operations south of the border so that we can take down the smuggling lords.

[4Freedom]

Who's the manufacturer of the pepper ball gun launcher? Maybe we can get someone to post a picture.

[4Freedom]

Is it Jaycor Tactical Systems?

[Clinton Is Scum]

"Figure a Clinton-level 2 to 1 support to deployment ratio, and that's another 84,000 troops. That puts you at 126,000 troops. That's just for the Mexican border. Throw in Canada, the coastlines, and all of the military inspectors at our sea ports and airports. It's gonna take hundreds of thousands of troops to accomplish what you envison."

Let's say it takes 400,000 troops to do the job right, and each troop costs $100,000 a year in wages, benefits, and equipment. Ignoring cost offsets such as reduced Medicaid spending, the annual cost would be $40 billion. I am willing to pay $40 billion/year if the result is real border security. Of course, such a policy would be insufficient by itself. There are many other steps -- closing the spigot of visas to middle easterners, for example -- that would also need to be undertaken.

[Clinton Is Scum]

"What's the plan when Illegals are smuggled to our coasts by boat?"

Apprehend them, then deport them.

[Clinton Is Scum]

5 troops per mile along 2,000 miles of Mexican border = 10,000 troops at any one time. If each soldier is at his post 8 hours a day, and there are 168 hours in a week, it will take 4.2 men for each post (168/40 = 4.2). That's 42,000 troops just along the wall.

I am really skeptical that this much personnel would be necessary. Replace 100 troops with 1 helicopter covering a 20-mile stretch of the border (e.g., in the desert) and re-do your calculations.

[Sabertooth]

I am really skeptical that this much personnel would be necessary. Replace 100 troops with 1 helicopter covering a 20-mile stretch of the border (e.g., in the desert) and re-do your calculations.

I'm skeptical you can guard the border from the air. Engage one group of Illegals on the ground, and who's gonna be watching the other 20 miles? What are you going to do at night? BTW, deploying and maintaining helicopters isn't that cheap.

I'm flagging Poobah, who's got a better handle on deployment requirements and costs than I do.

[Sabertooth]

I am willing to pay $40 billion/year if the result is real border security.

OK, take that $40 billion and throw it in these directions...

• Eliminate all mention of Section 245(i), even if expired, from the US Immigration and Naturalization Code. No more Amnesty, ever.
• Get legislation through Congress that would enable States to deny goodies to Illegals, a la Prop #187.
• Outlaw Mexican matricula consular IDs, and kick banks accepting them out of the FDIC. Legal depositors will withdraw.
• Beef up the border Patrol, with manpower, resources, and a Volunteer Reserve, if necessary.
• Beef up the immigration courts and set deportation hearings for two weeks after apprehension with no bail.
• Sting operations at day laborer sites.
• Establish two-way communication between the IRS and INS, and start apprehending Illegals using false SS numbers.
• Seize the assets of businesses knowingly hiring Illegals under the RICO Act, as they are ongoing criminal enterprises. Prosecute executives who knowingly hire Illegals.
• Begin compiling biometric information on Illegals, and declare that after a certain date, they will be permanently ineligible for immigration and citizenship.
• Establish a guest worker program where an initial bond is posted by the worker and his employer, say $500 each, with more withheld from the worker's earnings, as security for his departure from the US by the specified date. Guest worker visas must be applied for in the workers' countries of origin, and are only eligible to be employed by their sponsoring employer. Violation of these terms will render the worker ineligible for any future visas or residence in the US. Any guest worker program can only come after anti-Illegal measures are in place. Handshake promises will not be trusted from any politician from either party, including President Bush.
• End the busting of immigration caps by limiting family reunification to spouses and dependent children, and counting them against the caps when they are brought in. Require all future immigrants to declare their future intent to bring in family upon arrival.
• Outlaw anchor babies, or give the option to the Illegal parent of taking the child with them upon deportation.
• Outlaw bilingual ballots, and resume the English-speaking requirements for citizenship.
• Establish English skills as a prerequisite for future immigrants. Let's start admitting folks who will hit the ground running toward assimilation.
• Shut off new immigration to nations that offer dual citizenship. Disqualify current immigrants from those nations from American citizenship.
• Make Mexico and Central America our cheap import sources of choice with tariffs on manufacturing from other sources.
• In return, get Mexico to open up to American investment by allowing the sale of real estate to us and guaranteeing property rights. Getting Mexico to fix their economy is crucial.

The list above is by no means comprehensive, and can be adopted piecemeal or in a single package. That said, incrementalism is going to be the way to go, especially politically.

These measures would provide a little carrot and lots of stick for Illegals already here to get themselves out. Some of them will need to be tested in the courts, which is another reason to adopt them piecemeal, so that an injunction against omnibus legislation can't stall the whole effort.

We ought to be looking initially at easy, politically safe legislation, like the new accounting for family reunification, INS/IRS cooperation, English speaking citizenship requirements, and a few others first. Our politicians are a trembling, timid bunch, and need to gain a little self-confidence before they'll tackle more difficult issues.

Anyway, there's more, but that's a start, and I think we'd get a lot more bang for our buck in a lot of other places besides troops on the borders.

[Poohbah]

Saber, you hit the nail on the head. BTW, I spent eight years in USMC aviation ops.

As for night ops, they will be a little less effective than day ops. But a thunderstorm (not uncommon in some of the highest-density crossing areas) means all flights are off. Helicopters that do battle with thunderheads, microbursts, and severe wind shears are technically referred to as "debris."

Helicopter flight time, back when I was in the USMC (over a decade ago), ran anywhere from $4,700 to $5,600 per flight hour, and you needed about 30 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour (the financial cost of the maintenance--paying the troops and buying the parts--is included in the flight hour cost).

Training requirements are expensive, too. You'll need to keep the pilots current in all phases of the helicopter syllabus while they are on these missions. You will also need to do functional check flights after major maintenance evolutions. In a typical operational unit, such flights amount to a 1:1 ratio with operational flights (one flight hour of "admin" flight time for each hour of real-world related flight time.)

Assume that the $5,600/hour figure is the current figure (to allow for inflation since 1991). A typical sortie will last two hours, of which one hour will actually be spent on station, and the other hour will be spent in transit to and from the patrol station.

That means that to patrol 20 miles of border will cost you $268,800 per day in flight time. To patrol the entire length of the US-Mexican border will cost $28,224,000 per day. Patrolling the border will cost, in operational flight time alone, $10,301,760,000 per year. Factoring in required training and post-maintenance functional check flights...and you are up to $20,603,520,000 a year.

This assumes, by the way, that you never need to launch a second sortie on any station to actually intercept illegal aliens! It starts getting expensive when you do anything more than bore holes in the sky.

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for that info.

Would you mind giving a better explanation than I did at #63 & #65 with the numbers of troops needed to patrol the borders, and a rough idea of the associated costs?

[Poohbah]

First of all, five per mile ain't nearly enough. If we went to 20 per mile, we're at 84,000 troops on post at one time, and we actually have a (very) modestly thick coverage.

Now, the three shift rule is that you need 5 people to man a post 24/7 in three shifts. (People get sick, go on vacation, have to do admin tasks, that sort of thing.) So you have a force package of 420,000 line soldiers (infantrymen).

The Army doesn't HAVE that many infantrymen today. IIRC, only the Chinese Army has that many, and they're trying to downsize to afford all the nice high-tech toys.

Second, the Army's divisional wedge is 9:1 (nine support types for every one line trooper.) If you simply outsource many of those services, you still have to pay for them, and you get some interesting negative effects (apparently, the rate of food poisoning at military dining facilities has increased sharply when they outsourced the job and got rid of military cooks--the cooks don't have to eat their own food, so it's no skin off their nose if they don't wash down that cutting board after use).

The Army Transformation envisions, if some technologies come to fruition in time, a 5:1 divisional wedge in 2025. I dunno if you're willing to wait that long.

But let's assume a 2:1 ratio, plus unspecified outsourcing that we will magically make "off budget" until the GAO looks at our books and sends us to Leavenworth for grand larceny and violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. Add 840,000 troops to your figure.

That's an end strength of 1,260,000. The total strength of the US military today is a bit over two million, including guys sitting in missile silos, sailing on ships, or humping fuel, ammo, and chow from point A to point B.

And once you manage to significantly interdict the landward frontier...you're going to have a LOT more maritime smuggling of illegal aliens. And that means you're going to need a much larger Coast Guard, and operating lots of ships ain't very cheap at all.