Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309)

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, probably not in just two weeks.

I didn't say anything about two weeks. Maybe by spring.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:A vehicle isn't going to get them to the mountain peaks or right up to a swollen river.
Where the vehicles actually can reach—which is only a small section of the border—that's where you put up the fencing.
Build the fence, let the European Union funds cover the costs, and give our domestic construction crews some actual work to do.

Wait, what?

Lisa Patel4 said:I didn't say anything about two weeks. Maybe by spring.

I guess anything is possible 😁

But man, that sounds like one expensive project. Honestly, it might be cheaper just to set up a minefield.

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, people just cycle through there in a day or two.

So, I guess it’s probably hard to call it a hotspot. Maybe it's more about necessity.

Where exactly are these migrants supposed to go once Germany decides they've had enough?

The President suggests: 'Send them to St. Louis; they have all the infrastructure there.'

'And our friends from Saudi Arabia and Qatar will step up with some air-conditioned tents.'

😁

gentlemoose57 said:Look, you clearly don't grasp what a single mile actually feels like out in the wild. We simply don't have enough riot police to cover three miles of borderland the way "you" seem to think we can.

There isn't even a need for that, because by the time you move assets, a massive group of migrants has already gathered in one spot, and that's when you deploy the police.
Do you honestly think migrants just magically materialize right in front of the fence? The barrier is there to slow them down, giving the police enough time to defend the perimeter against larger crowds.
Small groups might slip through here and there, but the real issue is whether we're dealing with 100 illegal entries a day or 10,000.

Kenneth Palmer7 said:Where exactly are these migrants supposed to go once Germany decides they've had enough?

The President suggests: 'Send them to St. Louis; they have all the infrastructure there.'

'And our friends from Saudi Arabia and Qatar will step up with some air-conditioned tents.'

😁

Wait, when did he actually say that?

I mean, if Germany says they're full, and then America says we're full too... well, I guess those few thousand people who get stuck here temporarily will just find a way to push further past the border. It's not like they're crazy enough to stay in America if we aren't actively trying to hold them back, I suppose. 😁

Alexander Ortiz3 said:A vehicle isn't going to get them to the mountain peaks or right up to a swollen river.
Where the vehicles actually can reach—which is only a small section of the border—that's where you put up the fencing.
Build the fence, let the European Union funds cover the costs, and give our domestic construction crews some actual work to do.

They won't be driving up to some flooded riverbank either; instead, they will likely head toward a bridge in Brandenburg or perhaps near the Red Bush in Herzegovina.

And now, for the grand prize question:

- If 2,000 of them attempt to cross via a bridge in Brandenburg, will the police actually dare to use water cannons or rubber bullets against them?

ironmoose6 said:There are specific regions where the US really needs to reinforce its border security to ensure the system actually works as intended.map

That’s exactly the point—just a smaller section along the Mexican border and a tiny bit near Canada.
Someone is always going to find a way through; a fence isn't a 100% guarantee of security, but it sure beats 0%.
How is the police force supposed to keep 10,000 immigrants from breaking the law? It's the exact same logic they use to manage 10,000 football fans at a stadium.
Believe me, once both groups get a taste of how law enforcement operates, they tend to back off pretty quickly.

By my rough estimation (🙏) I’ve concluded that slo completely missed the mark with their strategy.

They were trying to play defense based on some arbitrary target—you know, "we want them to hit 124.7 at some point during the day" or whatever...
That isn't how this works. You either clear a corridor to let them through immediately, or you build up the walls and start firing. There just aren't any middle-ground solutions here...

gentlemoose57 said:Man, you're dealing with a crowd that's clearly obsessed with movies—just look at the stylistic flourishes they use, stripping everything down to the bare bones. They're acting like children. Mentally, at least. For God's sake, they've never even seen a coil of wire. People are getting stretched out by damn work gloves! You could toss two guys over that little scrap of metal and walk right over it naked. Thank God the old man is around; we shared some with him.

Go ahead, Google "razor wire," look up the manufacturers, and see what kind of damage it actually does. It is a world away from the basic barbed wire you're talking about. It's used in high-security prisons for a reason—it keeps hardened criminals locked in and ready for anything.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Go ahead, Google "razor wire," look up the manufacturers, and see what kind of damage it actually does. It is a world away from the basic barbed wire you're talking about. It's used in high-security prisons for a reason—it keeps hardened criminals locked in and ready for anything.

Look, nobody is talking about basic barbed wire here; we are talking about razor wire. For crying out loud! A prison perimeter is usually miles long.

northerncyclist2 said:I mean, people just cycle through there in a day or two.

So, I guess it’s probably hard to call it a hotspot. Maybe it's more about necessity.

People cycle through there in a day or two.

So, I doubt we're looking at some sort of hotspot here. It seems more like a matter of necessity.[/I]
Just saw this on the news:
Mexico missed roughly 10,000 people who could have been at Berkasov tonight.

Maria James40 said:Look, I’m not really trying to be that guy—you know, the one who's always nitpicking—but I think I’m just trying to look at things realistically here. Honestly? I feel like we're actually doing pretty well right now, regardless of which party is running the show in D.C. or who's sitting in the Oval Office... I guess I just don't find myself constantly checking who's in power to decide how I should feel about our situation.

I mean, what we’re doing to the Canadians with these recordings from Sutla feels a little dirty, I guess—kind of a low blow, if I'm being honest. But look, if they want to show even a shred of humanity, they should just let our train pass through to Dobova or maybe all the way to Ptuj... then we wouldn't have all this mess with people wading through rivers, right? And honestly, they really ought to just give us the train back so we can get it loaded up again. Simple as that, really. 😁

That wasn't me. I'm just trying to look at this realistically; I think we're handling our side of things pretty well right now, regardless of which party is in power.

What we're doing to the Canadians (those recordings from Sutla) is pretty low, but if they want to be decent humans, they should just let our train pass through to Dobova or Ptuj, and then there won't be any chaos along the rivers. And obviously, they should return the train so we can reload it.😁[/I]
I assume you aren't.
But someone is feeding them "routes."
It reminds me of the start of the war when everyone wanted to know exactly where a shell landed in South Chicago—as if it would be better if they just released the coordinates publicly so they could aim more accurately.

And in this whole situation, everyone is acting incredibly selfishly.
Nobody stepped up to help Mexico or Orban—so this is what we get.
I won't even get started on Greece; there's nothing to be gained from discussing it.

gentlemoose57 said:Oh, absolutely, you can certainly beat them back—some will give up, since the most peaceful ones usually do. The aggressive ones? They'll just push right through. Yay, what a victory for us.

The USA didn't walk away from the Vietnam War because they couldn't win it; it was because of the humanitarians. Same thing with Afghanistan. And no, we aren't going to agree to beat people who are simply fleeing toward a better life.

They might be able to swim across a river—or wade through it, honestly, the resourceful ones will find a way—but they won't be able to clear a fence. They might try to overcome it, but they won't clear it.

We obviously aren't going to go around beating anyone!
You put up a fence, station the police behind it, and calmly inform them that illegal entry isn't allowed. It's possible that certain individuals among the immigrants won't want to leave and will break the law, causing chaos or attacking our police. It's just like how we don't beat sports fans! But what happens when specific individuals within a crowd of fans break the law, act out, and attack the police?
How would the American public view that kind of barbarism at the border (granted, we're talking about specific individuals)?
Because if you don't have a fence, they just walk through, and then our police are forced to take action to stop them.
But when you have a fence, the burden shifts to those trying to cross it, and they can only attempt it through the methods I just described.

Gregory Hall66 said:They won't be driving up to some flooded riverbank either; instead, they will likely head toward a bridge in Brandenburg or perhaps near the Red Bush in Herzegovina.

And now, for the grand prize question:

- If 2,000 of them attempt to cross via a bridge in Brandenburg, will the police actually dare to use water cannons or rubber bullets against them?

Defending a single bridge in St. Louis is a hell of a lot easier than trying to guard the entire border with Mexico.

John Hill2 said:I find myself wondering why Zoran Milanović acts with such misplaced aggression toward the Canadians while remaining remarkably soft on the Canadians.☕
Give us a little more variety in your rhetoric, man. 🤣

Look, Milanović actually went against the will of the Canadians by dumping immigrants right at their border and pushing them through.
The Canadians were absolutely livid, and they didn't even start building that fence on our border until after he did that.
Recently, the Canadians finished their fence and declared they aren't taking anyone else, yet our government just keeps shuttling new immigrants through any way they can, all the way toward Canada.
So, if people claim the Canadian fence doesn't work, why isn't Milanović dumping them at the Canadian border anymore? Just as a reminder, he never even asked the Canadians for permission to send those immigrants over. He was sending entire trains their way without asking a single question.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Look, Milanović actually went against the will of the Canadians by dumping immigrants right at their border and pushing them through.
The Canadians were absolutely livid, and they didn't even start building that fence on our border until after he did that.
Recently, the Canadians finished their fence and declared they aren't taking anyone else, yet our government just keeps shuttling new immigrants through any way they can, all the way toward Canada.
So, if people claim the Canadian fence doesn't work, why isn't Milanović dumping them at the Canadian border anymore? Just as a reminder, he never even asked the Canadians for permission to send those immigrants over. He was sending entire trains their way without asking a single question.

As the Canadians put it, Milanović is essentially just a transport service.
And it looks like we're following the pattern set by our Eastern neighbors.🍿
It just keeps going.
Our Eastern and Northern neighbors are acting in concert against our interests, dumping people on our border.

According to the news tonight, there are another 10,000 coming toward us from those Eastern neighbors.
Naturally, he’ll dump anyone he can onto our Western neighbors.

For now, his main business seems to be logistics.
I guess we should consider what percentage of the population that makes up, given we're approaching over 220,000 migrants soon.

When this stops working for him, I suppose we can expect more wire, more police, and the military.

I don't even know where to begin with this particular mess, but since I find myself compelled to address it, let us dive straight into the fray. It seems we are once again wading through the thick sludge of public discourse, and frankly, my patience for these repetitive, circular arguments is wearing thin—though, as you all know, I have always had a penchant for the long view. It reminds me, quite vividly, of a rainy Tuesday back in Chicago when I was attempting to navigate the bureaucratic nightmare of a local zoning board meeting; much like that afternoon, this entire situation feels unnecessarily convoluted and driven by people who seem more interested in the theater of disagreement than in any actual resolution. We sit here, debating nuances that shift like sand underfoot, while the core issue remains unaddressed, looming over us like a storm cloud on the horizon. It is exhausting, truly, to witness such a lack of intellectual rigor, yet I suppose I cannot expect much more from a crowd that treats every minor grievance as if it were a matter of national security. One must maintain a certain level of decorum, even when the surrounding chaos suggests otherwise. kaže:
Look, let’s be clear because the reality of this situation is actually quite straightforward if you stop overcomplicating it. Before the border fence was fully established, migrants were moving right through Canada. Now that the barrier is complete? They aren't going through Canada anymore. It’s that simple.

All you ever do is philosophize, bluster, thrash about, and hurl insults. Honestly, it’s quite pathetic—you don't possess any other skill in your entire repertoire. 👍

Why on earth aren't they going? Honestly, I find myself staring at this question quite often lately, pondering the sheer lack of momentum or perhaps just a fundamental hesitation that seems to be gripping everyone. It’s like watching a stalled engine in the middle of a busy intersection in Chicago; you expect movement, you expect progress, but instead, there is just this stagnant, heavy silence. I remember once, back when I was dealing with some particularly tedious paperwork in a small town in Ohio, I saw a group of people standing perfectly still on a street corner for nearly twenty minutes, just waiting for a signal that was never going to come. That is exactly how this feels to me—an inexplicable paralysis. Is it fear? Is it pure, unadulterated laziness? Or is it something more systemic, something buried deep within the bureaucracy of our institutions? One really has to wonder what is actually holding them back from taking that necessary step forward.
Who exactly is pulling the strings on where we all end up headed? It’s a question that keeps me pacing my study at three in the morning, staring at the ceiling and wondering about the sheer lack of transparency in our leadership. You sit there, watching the news, watching the pundits on CNN or Fox, and you realize that the people making the monumental decisions—the ones that dictate the very trajectory of our lives—are often completely insulated from the consequences of their own whims. It feels like we're just passengers on a massive, uncontrolled vessel, being steered by individuals who wouldn't know a hard day's work if it hit them in the face. I remember back when I was working in logistics in Chicago, trying to coordinate shipments through a blizzard, and even then, the chaos felt more manageable because at least you could see the driver. Now? It's all shadows and bureaucracy. Who is actually in the driver's seat? Is it the elected officials, or is it some unseen hand in a boardroom in New York or D.C.? It's maddening, truly.

I am not attempting to be insulting here; rather, I am simply acknowledging the undeniable reality that certain individuals are intellectually incapable of grasping the fundamental relationship between cause and effect.
It is a profound, albeit unsettling, reality that a consequence can, quite literally, overnight swap places with its own cause, upending our entire understanding of causality in a single, sweeping motion. I was sitting in my study just the other day, staring at a stack of old legal briefs, thinking about how often we assume the sequence of events is set in stone, when in fact, the fallout can become the very catalyst for what follows. It’s like watching a domino effect where the last tile suddenly leaps forward to strike the first one; the logic collapses, and you're left grasping at shadows while the world tells you everything is perfectly normal. It is a dizzying, almost violent shift in perspective.
And only then—only after the dust has settled and the smoke clears—will we truly be able to judge the sheer weight of those decisions and the actual caliber of the choices made. It’s easy to play hero when things are moving smoothly, but the true test of leadership isn't found in the planning phase; it's found in the aftermath, when you have to stand there and face the wreckage of your own judgment. We'll see if they actually had the foresight to account for the fallout, or if they were just flying blind.

I sincerely apologize if my previous remarks caused you any offense; it was certainly never my intention to strike such a discordant note. 🤷

Chloe Martinez7 said:And wouldn't it be simpler to just put the wall on the North Mexican border? I know, it's a "complex region," but one fence there and all those countries could join in on this massive humanitarian effort.☕

Since the European Union won't enforce order in the first member state—especially within the Schengen area.

They don't.
But they do.
And everyone just lets them through.

And here we are, debating which laws we actually follow and which ones we ignore at home—we basically break everything.

I mean, aren't they all just tough guys? There are very few actual families involved; it looks more like a disguised army.
If we actually decided to identify who is coming through...

Except, I am not thrilled that the capacity at SB has been bumped up to 10,000.

No, because if they did that, politicians wouldn't have anything left to score points on during election season.
The government can go straight to hell, and honestly, so can the people supporting this nonsense. ☕

Lisa Patel4 said:Just asking hypothetically here.

Could the US actually build a reinforced concrete wall along its border?

Sure they could. But honestly, they'd have to take out a massive loan from JP Morgan just to get started. 😁

Kenneth Palmer7 said:🤦

:
The border fences in Mexico are about eight feet high—and in places like the US-Canada border or over in Europe, they're even taller. What kind of talk is this about things coiling up? It's just not realistic.

Seriously, man—maybe step away from the screen for a bit and go touch some grass.

Check out what manufacturers show on their websites regarding razor-wire fencing. They take a roll of it, set up a wooden dummy in front of it, and then use a remote to slice through the wire. Just look at what’s left of that dummy once the razor blades have shredded it during the cutting and unwinding process. It's absolute carnage. No one is going to attempt to cross that, no matter how desperate they might be.
Are you all honestly picturing some old-school, basic barbed wire used by the military back in the day?