Your opinions on the U.S. border wall

[Curious George]

Surgically implanting chips in somebody might not be very costly. I've read that it cost around $200 for a vet to implant an RFID tracking device in a dog.

So if we chipped 10M illegal immigrants it would still cost less than trumps border wall?

 

[youknowme]

El Paso mayor Democrat Beto O’Rourke has himself touted reduced crime rates in El Paso since 2010 when a border security barrier was erected there. Is he an anti-Democrat?

What does that have to do with anything?

Let me repeat my questions for you, and it would be nice if you actually addressed my actual questions.

Do you have something that is NOT an opinion article (that is clearly politically motivated against Democrats)? Do you have the actual data? What does this have to do with the fences around people's yards? Also why do you seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations?

 

[Curious George]

I am positive that would raise some human right concerns.

Which ones?

 

[youknowme]

Which ones?

I personally don't know, but I am sure they would think of something.

 

[Salvador]

What does that have to do with anything?

Let me repeat my questions for you, and it would be nice if you actually addressed my actual questions.

Do you have something that is NOT an opinion article (that is clearly politically motivated against Democrats)? Do you have the actual data? What does this have to do with the fences around people's yards? Also why do you seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations?

What does that have to do with anything?

Let me repeat my questions for you, and it would be nice if you actually addressed my actual questions.

Do you have something that is NOT an opinion article (that is clearly politically motivated against Democrats)? Do you have the actual data? What does this have to do with the fences around people's yards? Also why do you seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations?

I've answered some of your questions in post #239 and way back in post #155, but you've still not answered any of my questions. It's now quid pro quo...After I answer one of your questions...you need to answer one of mine....Otherwise, I'll simply find all your further questions and non-answers tiresome.

 

[Shad]

Illegal immigrants given the choice of being imprisoned in an overcrowded detention center or having a tracking device implant might willing choose the later, this would then no longer be a human rights violation.

This would run afoul of due process and privacy rights. Sponsorship programs would nullify this as well due to accepting responsibility for those sponsored. More so you have people willing to let their children die to get into the US. They will have no issues digging out shallow implants at the hint of rejection of application be it for citizenship, visa or asylum. Criminals like cartels can use the implantation policy to get inside the border and remove the chip later. Top it off this is granting the state a lot of power setting a potential dangerous precedent in my view.

 

[sun rise]

Selective rebuilding of the border wall is the only funding that has a chance of passing. Trump is aiming too high regardless of rhetoric used. Trump is acting like a CEO, again, in which his goals for policy are to be enacted not debated passed/denied via Congress.

A sensible leader would work together with Congress to articulate a rational set of goals, examine all the alternatives, come up with a reasonable strategy and present all of that to the American people to build a consensus for the chosen plan.

 

[Salvador]

So if we chipped 10M illegal immigrants it would still cost less than trumps border wall?

If this could be done as cheaply as implanting chips in dogs, yes absolutely, $10M x $ 200 equals $2B compared to an estimated cost of $20B for erecting an effective border security barrier.

 

[youknowme]

I've answered some of your questions in post #239 and way back in post #155, but you've still not answered any of my questions. It's now quid pro quo...After I answer one of your questions...you need to answer one of mine....Otherwise, I'll simply find all your further questions and non-answers tiresome.

You actually don't answer questions just keep changing the topic, and I assume you do it because you believe everything you see in the news and you seem to be lazy.

 

[Curious George]

I personally don't know, but I am sure they would think of something.

It seems to me that one cannot support the current rhetoric concerning illegals and oppose chipping them without contradiction.

Now if you were to say that merely crossing the border was not a criminally punishable crime, then you might have am argument. But chipping people is arguably more humane than familial separation, imprisonment, deprivation of food, medical treatment and coercion. It would cost less, it would serve as a deterrent, it would assist with repeated violators, it would make locating individuals in hostile terrain easier (so it could save lives), and it qould disincentivize repeated use of drug mules once they were captured once.

 

[Salvador]

This would run afoul of due process and privacy rights. Sponsorship programs would nullify this as well due to accepting responsibility for those sponsored. More so you have people willing to let their children die to get into the US. They will have no issues digging out shallow implants at the hint of rejection of application be it for citizenship, visa or asylum. Criminals like cartels can use the implantation policy to get inside the border and remove the chip later. Top it off this is granting the state a lot of power setting a potential dangerous precedent in my view.

So then, we are back to relying on an effective border security barrier as one of the ways to reduce illegal immigration.

 

[Salvador]

You actually don't answer questions just keep changing the topic, and I assume you do it because you believe everything you see in the news and you seem to be lazy.

I've quoted FBI crime statistics and data from Wikipedia, you're the one who seems to be too lazy to research publicly available data from objective government/online sources.

 

[youknowme]

It seems to me that one cannot support the current rhetoric concerning illegals and oppose chipping them without contradiction.

Now if you were to say that merely crossing the border was not a criminally punishable crime, then you might have am argument. But chipping people is arguably more humane than familial separation, imprisonment, deprivation of food, medical treatment and coercion. It would cost less, it would serve as a deterrent, it would assist with repeated violators, it would make locating individuals in hostile terrain easier (so it could save lives), and it qould disincentivize repeated use of drug mules once they were captured once.

Perhaps most of what you say is true, but the idea of the government chipping people seems to cross some type of line, that may not be a door we wish to open.

 

[Salvador]

You actually don't answer questions just keep changing the topic, and I assume you do it because you believe everything you see in the news and you seem to be lazy.

You do realize people can read the dialog between us, and determine for themselves who is being totally evasive with answering the questions posed between us. ...

 

[Curious George]

This would run afoul of due process and privacy rights.

Articulate that argument.

Sponsorship programs would nullify this as well due to accepting responsibility for those sponsored.

How so?

More so you have people willing to let their children die to get into the US. They will have no issues digging out shallow implants at the hint of rejection of application be it for citizenship, visa or asylum. Criminals like cartels can use the implantation policy to get inside the border and remove the chip later.

They would be chipped and deported. And I am sure we can find a place to chip that it is impractical to remove.

Top it off this is granting the state a lot of power setting a potential dangerous precedent in my view.

But is that really an argument? A lot of our border and immigration policies set precedent granting the state a lot of power. What is different here?

 

[youknowme]

I've quoted FBI crime statistics and data from Wikipedia, you're the one who seems to be too lazy to research publicly available data from objective government/online sources.

I don't think you know what data are.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps most of what you say is true, but the idea of the government chipping people seems to cross some type of line, that may not be a door we wish to open.

And that might make sense if that line was articulable in a way that wasn't also either contrary to how current lines are drawn or arbitrarily asserting "I don't like chips."

 

[youknowme]

You do realize people can read the dialog between us, and determine for themselves who is being totally evasive with answering the questions posed between us. ...

Sorry, but an op-ed article just does not cut it and what you don't seem to grasp, is that I am not disagreeing with the "statistics", I am asking to see the source because I don't trust the interpretation. Furthermore you completely ignored my other questions.

WHY do you seem to think people are altogether opposed to barriers in select locations?

P.S. I don't give a goat's rump what other people think of me, I am too old to care anymore.

 

[youknowme]

And that might make sense if that line was articulable in a way that wasn't also either contrary to how current lines are drawn or arbitrarily asserting "I don't like chips."

Well before we get to far down this, let me clarify that I am not sure if I am for it or against such an idea, but knowing Americans I just don't see it going without some type of resistance. People are gonna be concerned with such an operation, like what is going to stop the government from doing it to American citizens next.

 

[Curious George]

Well before we get to far down this, let me clarify that I am not sure if I am for ir or against such an idea, but knowing American I just don't see it going without some type of resistance. People are gonna be concerned with such an operation, like what is going to stop the government from doing it to American citizens next.

Absolutely and many Christians will especially be concerned due to theories about "the mark of the beast."

The problem is that to logically oppose such a notion, one must assert principles that they are already trying to deny. One cannot in one breath deny rights of illegal immigrants and in the next assert those same rights because "chipping scary." In fairness, I suppose one can hold put on a couple rights such as the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but I think that in comparison it is a stretch to say chipping would be cruel and unusual compared to what people currently advocate.