Are sanctuary cities really sanctuary cities?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-23-2023, 10:54 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: The wall is only going to be a band-aid and is not going to be a solution. May it slow things down some? Sure, maybe somewhat. The cartels make quite a bit of money funneling people into the U.S., though, and with a wall it is likely they will build more tunnels to go underneath it. These people are desperate and they are going to find a way, even if it is slower or more dangerous. 

If we are really wanting to discuss a solution, then it needs to be treated as a humanitarian crisis. These people are fleeing their countries for various reasons - extreme poverty, violence, you name it. The U.S. would need to work with its southern neighbors in order to solve those problems and then you would see the illegal immigration numbers dwindle. That is, genuinely, the only solution. I know several people who immigrated here illegally from my travels throughout South America. In those occasions, they simply bought a flight and "missed" their return. This is a very large chunk of the undocumented population, roughly 45%. The rest of them were either smuggled in via a point of entry, or, yes, crossed via the Rio Grande or through the desert or some other manner.

The effectiveness of a wall is going to be spotty and is not a long-term solution to the issue. That doesn't necessarily mean I am saying "don't build it" but I also think many people have unrealistic ideas of what the wall would do. 

Gotta start somewhere right? Having that attitude just defeats the whole purpose as there is NOT a one answer to solve the problem, it's a cumulation of things that will need to be done, and nothing we do will ever be 100%. The amount saved in the long run will pay for itself via people that come here illegally and have kids here, which makes those kids USC's and since their parents can't report an income, makes them a eligible for government assistance. It will take several years to start feeling/seeing some good results from this one move. Once the wall is done, people (from other countries that were willing to risk coming here illegally) will hear about it, and it will become a psychological deterrent as well.

Going over or under is not a valid reason to cancel the wall, make them go over or under, the point is don't make it so easy they can walk or swim across. It will take them time to go under and we can use our drones to spot where they appear to be exiting and then get after those spots to shut them down. That's just part of an on going process that will have to be done to keep up with it.  It's not like we are incapable of finding tunnels and then sealing them off. There will still be drones in the air monitoring if they start going over. If they are targeting certain areas then we can put up a facility nearby to allow for faster deployment. 

We have been sending money to those other countries and tried developing them as well. It's not enough OR their own is corrupted and it's not getting to the people that need it via jobs etc. We might be a top Dog in the world, but just how much we can do effectively IS limited til we get what we can do running effectively. 

The system is also not always correct on those that leave the country. Not all airlines report names properly. So that system needs an overhaul as well, but things take money and time. Once it's overhauled, we can start making harsh penalties on those that overstay, ie Perma-Bans so they can never come back once they leave or get caught (unless they can prove they left in the slotted time frame). There's also legislation that can be done, such as change Jos Soli to Jus Sanguinis. That alone will is a major deterrent and should start seeing results immediately after it's done.

I don't have an unrealistic view to the wall being the only thing we do and then we do no more. It's an ongoing dynamic that we will need to keep updating and changing over time. But it's a good start.