Greyparrot

Border patrol agents disagree. They cite existing funneling tactics along with measures to delay long enough for a response team to get there along with the clearing of brush to make capture easier.

I don't generally argue with border patrol on their tactics much like I would not argue with a Navy admiral on fleet tactics. Normally these people just get what they ask for and that's the end of the discussion, but this year apparently everyone is an expert on border control tactics...

The group Border Angels estimates that since 1994, about 10,000 people have died in their attempt to cross border.According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 7,216 people have died crossing the U.S–Mexico border between 1998 and 2017.[ In 2005, more than 500 died across the entire U.S.–Mexico border. The number of yearly border crossing deaths doubled from 1995 to 2005, before declining. The statistics reflect only known deaths and do not include those who have never been found.

Even if only 10% of the people crossing by foot are dying, that's a substantial amount of foot traffic.

Not necessarily, border patrol agents are expanding their use of biometric scanners to shift the flow of illegal overstays. If visa holders are in the system, you can be caught nearly anywhere that has government cameras, from airports to DMVs. The question that remains is, if illegals are at a higher risk of of being deported from visa overstays, where will the next point of entry be?

In any case, security is not one faceted, but the wall is an important puzzle piece.

I mean sure we can invalidate it due to lack of credentials and authority, I guess.

Whatever the percentage of non visa overstays, it's not insignificant in impact dollars to the taxpayer, and all areas need to be addressed.

If the USA develops a facial recognition tracking policy for all new visas without shoring up the border, its like bailing water out of a ship without plugging the obvious holes.

Might be a good time to invest in Coyote start-ups. Business is good for them. Demand is up and supply is down. Good pricing.

I agree. Blanket censorship of conservative media is the rule, not the exception.

I think Coyote fees have gone up from 4000 to 10,000 since Trump got elected according to some sources. Might be 20k after the wall is built.

Press it retardo...press it and weep.

How much is the current price of a coyote trip? Will the wall affect the 401K of these Coyotes?

Then Trump devised a “Remain-in-Mexico” arrangement to make Mexico the waiting room for asylum seekers. As long as they are south of the border, the US doesn’t have to house them, and they have no “right” to public schooling and emergency medical care on our tab. The program, if successful, will save American taxpayers a bundle. It’s one way Mexico is already helping to pay for the Wall.

Promises made, promises kept.

Enlisting allies to rid the world of the backward scum that just can't seem to learn to code.

F...

Brutal is as retardo as you are...

Imagine a world where humans don't have sweat glands or air conditioning...now imagine it's 103 degrees outside...

Every farm is the destruction of something elses habitat. The earth has finite land and a finite capacity for any species of life. even microorganisms.

One thing we as a country can learn from New Zealand is that no amount of gun control or tolerance of diversity can inoculate society from fringe crazy people.

The changing albedo of the surface of the earth isn't junk science.

NIMBY America is running out of backyards though. China refuses to take most of our toxic crap today. It won't be long before America has no place to legally dump their toxic solar panels and other things.

What's scary about that article I linked is that it's ALREADY a problem, even if we were to magically switch from solar to nuclear today. 

Beware your water.

The scientific fact is that water would be far more contaminated from ruptured landfills containing old panels, turbines, and batteries that any amount of ruptured slow radiation emitting nuclear waste hundreds of feet deeper than any water table.

Air and water first. Then worry about adjusting the global thermostat. Priorities.

The Africans would eventually revolt and confiscate the resource plants, and become Socialist dictatorship. That's always the way historically.

It's a joke to say "renewable" energy is wind and solar when it is impossible to manufacture turbines and panels without fossil fuels.

There is no way humans can tap into the sun (the sun creates wind too so they are both solar) and get an efficient stream of energy unless they launch satellites into orbit to counteract the spinning effect of the planet.

Coal has killed more people than Chernobyl.

Cities with no power kill more people than Chernobyl.

If you have an axe to grind, please don't do it on the graves of the Venezuelans.

How is it off topic? If the government is so inept as to listen to junk scientists and make bad policy that kills billions of Africans, how can you trust the government to take care of Africa now?

Any declared "War On X" is a pretext for a failed policy.

It's sad when Iran and North Korea have built more new nuclear reactor power plants reducing carbon than the USA.

The last two power plants to be built in the US were the Watts Bar plant, which began construction in 1973, was completed in 1990, and didn't begin commercial operation until 1996, and the River Bend plant, which was built in 1977 and went online in 1986.

California has a government too big to fail, so the people that live there are screwed.

How effective are tasers at deterring Military coups?

Do you think if Venezuelans simply had tasers that they would have food and power right now?

Not even close. Try again.

Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed—and continues to kill—more people than any other: malaria. By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from eleven countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth. Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.
After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:
• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.
Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.
Environmentalists have argued that when it came to DDT, it was pick your poison. If DDT was banned, more people would die from malaria. But if DDT wasn’t banned, people would suffer and die from a variety of other diseases, not the least of which was cancer. However, studies in Europe, Canada, and the United States have since shown that DDT didn’t cause the human diseases Carson had claimed. Indeed, the only type of cancer that had increased in the United States during the DDT era was lung cancer, which was caused by cigarette smoking. DDT was arguably one of the safer insect repellents ever invented—far safer than many of the pesticides that have taken its place.
Carson’s supporters argued that, had she lived longer, she would never have promoted a ban on DDT for the control of malaria. Indeed, in Silent Spring, Carson wrote, “It is not my contention that chemical pesticides never be used.” But it was her contention that DDT caused leukemia, liver disease, birth defects, premature births, and a whole range of chronic illnesses. An influential author can’t, on the one hand, claim that DDT causes leukemia (which, in 1962, was a death sentence) and then, on the other hand, expect that anything less than that a total ban of the chemical would result.
In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.

USA also killed a billion Africans by banning DDT.

California government doesn't even accommodate for recent weather changes as it refuses to build more water reservoir capacity despite its chronic problems with drought. This year saw an amazing amount of mudslides and water runoff straight into the oceans instead of water reservoirs.

And you trust government with managing long term climate changes? What a joke. 

To be honest. I really don't care if the earth is getting hotter, regardless of the cause. There will be some benefits and some liabilities to a marginally hotter planet, just as there will be benefits and banes with a marginally colder planet; none of which science has really discussed. All you hear about is the dire predictions. What I care about is the dire predictions. None of them are believable because the people supporting the dire predictions do not act like it is a problem in their personal lives.

Al Gore owns 9 million in Ocean front property:

How can you still believe his predictions if he acts like it is all bullshit?

Take a good look at that house. This is the house that hoax built.

And I love how people say you can't trust rich people invested in oil to make judgements on climate change. 

These are exactly the people I want to listen to because they have billions invested in oil...billions of their OWN PERSONAL WEALTH invested in oil. If there was any truth to any of the climate change predictions, don't you think they would be the first ones to know about it? If they had any sense at all that the price of oil was going to tank due to actual climate change predictions, wouldn't they want to know so they could sell all their stocks and investments BEFORE the price started dropping?

If they don't see a crisis, I surely won't either. Until these billionaires start dumping oil shares, I'll continue to laugh at the pseudo science dire predictions.

This conspiracy crap that billionaires could silence the entire world to actual crisis (as crazy a theory as it is) doesn't even matter. If THEY know the crisis is real..they would be DUMPING THEIR INVESTMENT. Until the people TALKING about Global Warming crisis start ACTING like global warming crisis is real, you can be sure the entire thing is a hoax. Not a single one of the junk scientists predicting the world is going to end in 12 years owns a survival bunker. Think about it.

It's a lot more fun to evaluate valid points from both sides.

I was watching this billionaire talk about the climate change hoax as it relates to the "end of the world" predictions.

He said you should never trust scientists that have nothing of real value to lose if they are wrong. Instead, trust people with money to lose if they are wrong. He then goes on to point out that in the last 20 years out of all the beachfront condo new construction projects in Florida, not a single prospectus to investors has a single mention of global warming, climate change, or anything at all related to the potential loss of property due to rising sea levels. If there was even a chance of any of the predictions being true, the financial banks, (who have everything to lose if the dire predictions are remotely true) they would make at least some mention about it when assessing financial risk. Instead people with money know the entire thing is a hoax, and continue to build with the same risk assessments as 100 years ago with zero mention of "climate change"

I'll start worrying when people with money and something to lose start worrying.

I love the claims of humans being able to reverse climate change, as if these 2 assumptions are true...

1) Humans are the 100% the cause of the current climate change.

2) Humans have the technology to change the climate back to what it was 100 years ago.

The government does not fund Boeing retardo.

Meanwhile...autonomous 737 planes are falling out of the sky....

Really, the best argument I can use to checkmate you is the fact that the only government branch that seems to be able to get anything done in the last 30 years is the president...who has...you guessed it...term limits!!

Nothing wrong with term limits there.

1. Take power away from voters: 

Total bullshit claim. You can't seriously claim that existing congressmen are not replaceable and are the best people possible in the districts that they serve. If that was the case, why even have periodic elections? Just elect that one special person once for life and save the money.

Another bullshit claim. You have people in Congress for 30 years as it is that don't even read the legislation they vote on, but they sure can hold a proper fundraiser...

See #2.. We have people in Congress for 30 years who don't even read the legislation they vote on because they won't suffer any consequences for it. The expertise that matters most in Congress is fundraising and reading poll numbers, and that's it.

See #1. The idea in a Nation of millions that you can not find anyone equally competent is ludicrous. Unlimited terms destroys competition and alternatives and promotes an unresponsive Congress.

Quite the opposite. If a person has to go back and return to a world they created with crap policies, then you can be assured that they will give a damn about the policies they are making because it will affect them personally. As it is now, you have career politicians that can go to the grave without ever personally feeling the effect of any policy decision. That's not how you run a responsible Congress. You literally have career politicians like Chuck Schumer on TV with a shit eating grin while discussing things that affect people who don't live in the Congress. They don't care. Not on a personal level. Not when there are fundraisers, foreign trips, and parties to attend.

Maybe a Congress with term limits.

no!!!!

You can't replace Congress because of term limits. A coup is inevitable.

Electing a good president isn't going to make Congress run the country any better.

Even if the USA were to have 10 times the current amount of mass shootings, it would not justify repealing the 2nd A.

People with no military background don't even understand that the full auto feature is only used for suppression fire, not to kill people, because you can kill far more people using semi auto, even if they are grouped up.

It takes an amazing amount of skill to keep the muzzle of the gun from rising up and shooting over your target's head in full auto.

Forget the fantasy myths you have seen from Hollywood.

Full auto would also be a great tool for self defense as the goal is to frighten off intruders and get them to back down, not kill them, so suppression fire is perfect for that role.

Quebec is far more nationalist than Canada.