Possible solution to the Iraq war.

[capsulecorpjx]

The first thing they need to do is Secure the Iraq border. Apparently terrorist agents are crossing from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. They are killing civilians to foment a civil war.

It's not practical to build any kind of fence or wall. But maybe officially sealing off the borders in Iraq, and patrolling the areas with cameras and an alert system will help.

I think most of the violence stems from these foreign Terrorists who commit violence in the guise of being Iraqis. The secondary violence comes from reprisal attacks from Iraqis who are fed up (but they usually just attack members of the group they thought attacked them).

[sevenhalo]

It's not practical to build any kind of fence or wall. But maybe officially sealing off the borders in Iraq, and patrolling the areas with cameras and an alert system will help.
Yes, because a foreign policy of "hey, don't come in here" is much more effective then a wall. Maybe the cameras can take their picture and send them a fine in the mail for violating this policy. That'll sure make suicide bombers think twice. :rolleyes:

[capsulecorpjx]

Yes, because a foreign policy of "hey, don't come in here" is much more effective then a wall. Maybe the cameras can take their picture and send them a fine in the mail for violating this policy. That'll sure make suicide bombers think twice. :rolleyes:

Well a wall is just not possible. The number of miles is too much and the cost too high.

You could just deploy army units or helicopters to where the cameras pick up intruders.

Also the official policy of sealing off the border just lets everyone know "don't cross the border". In fact if they find guns on the men crossing the border, they should be able to arrest you as prisoners of war.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yup, if there's one thing America is know for, it's knowing how to secure a border!!


Oh wait...no we aren't.

[capsulecorpjx]

Yup, if there's one thing America is know for, it's knowing how to secure a border!!


Oh wait...no we aren't.

Lol, regardless of how much politicians and people rattle on about immigration, the real reason the border is not secured is because American businesses love the cheap and willing labor.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think if we really understood the full economics.....we'd be smarter than God, but setting that aside, I think we all benefit more than we realize, and figuring out the true balance sheet is beyond anybodies capability.

However, most people who are involved must be hoping there won't be a fence. A simple fence simply won't work. You can't just put up a fence, go away, and drink beer. The fence would have to be patrolled almost daily, or there would have to be some hellaciously expensive electronic monitoring coupled with rapid response teams, repair and support personnel, and still a certain amount of partrolling, all for no significant budget increase. There is no way this government is going to pay the continuing cost of a border fence that would be even 90% effective, because the cost would be HUGE, and the problem, if the fence worked, would be immediately obscured. Once there was no immigration problem, the politicians would be looking at a huge hunk of fat to trim from the budget.

Basically, an effective solution has unknown economic impacts and, if effective, comes at a huge ongoing cost that will quickly not matter to anybody.

Aside from that, it probably wouldn't work anyways. Cuba had a shark infested mote around it, and thousands attempted it anyways. A physical barrier has never been a particularly effective impediment.

[capsulecorpjx]

I think if we really understood the full economics.....we'd be smarter than God, but setting that aside, I think we all benefit more than we realize, and figuring out the true balance sheet is beyond anybodies capability.

However, most people who are involved must be hoping there won't be a fence. A simple fence simply won't work. You can't just put up a fence, go away, and drink beer. The fence would have to be patrolled almost daily, or there would have to be some hellaciously expensive electronic monitoring coupled with rapid response teams, repair and support personnel, and still a certain amount of partrolling, all for no significant budget increase. There is no way this government is going to pay the continuing cost of a border fence that would be even 90% effective, because the cost would be HUGE, and the problem, if the fence worked, would be immediately obscured. Once there was no immigration problem, the politicians would be looking at a huge hunk of fat to trim from the budget.

Basically, an effective solution has unknown economic impacts and, if effective, comes at a huge ongoing cost that will quickly not matter to anybody.

Aside from that, it probably wouldn't work anyways. Cuba had a shark infested mote around it, and thousands attempted it anyways. A physical barrier has never been a particularly effective impediment.

What about sharks with lazers attached to their heads?

[Krenshau]

Here is an idea. Leave Iraq so they don't have a reason to come over.

As for U.S. borders, that goes agains our countries goal of a global economy.

[nemaroller]

A sovereign country has every right to secure its borders.

If you are giving away medical services to people who are not citizens and whom never pay for those services - the only place that cost can be recouped is from citizens who can pay for their medical expenses.

Hospitals in California have closed down due to the financial burden of treating illegal immigrants who cannot or actively refuse to pay. So now YOU as a low-income California resident have less government health services (among others) available to you. That is the cost of illegal immigration. You pay more, and get less.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That is nothing more than one small piece of an enormously complex puzzle. If all immigrant labor (legal, as well as illegal, I have no idea what percentage is one or the other) was replaced with American citizens, the cost to the industries involved would be far higher. They wouldn't just accept that cost as a loss against the bottom line, so prices for those goods and services would soar. How high? I don't know, but I would guess most produce, and much other food could triple in price, though it might be only double. Alternatively, we could just put our farmers out of business and buy imported food entirely (we buy a certain amount already).

Is this cost acceptable? Would a doubling of your average grocery bill be greater or less than the increased cost of health care?

Also, would legal migrant workers, who certainly don't have health care, be more likely to be able to pay the high cost of health care? If we were to replace illegal immigrants with legal migrant workers by some means (work visas, immigration changes, etc.), would that make the health care payment issues any different, or would it just give people a more difficult argument to get a handle on? The low wage workers are a part of our economy, and they often can't pay for health care. If you want to get rid of there reason for not paying, you either have to give them health insurance, pay them MUCH more, or get rid of the jobs. Every one of those options comes at a huge cost of one sort or another, and a cost that will be born by all. Which one would you like to choose?

[nemaroller]

That's a good insight, however, you've inadvertently overlooked the money trail.

A legal citizen pays taxes - which feed county services. A migrant or illegal worker almost always does not since they are paid in cash.

Now, whether the low-income farm laborer income taxes would cover their health care costs is another story, but they meet the citizen and tax requirement, which is enough in my mind to grant them access.

The illegals know that if they have any problem - they can simply go to the ER which by law must treat life-threatening conditions. So, if they think anything is seriously wrong, they simply go to the ER - when most citizens would make an appointment with a private practitioner or a public clinic - which unfortunately puts people with serious need for the ER at risk. I certainly wouldn't want the ER doctors dealing with common ailments when they should be concentrated on true emergencies.

Now, that can be applied to citizen and non-citizen alike, but the fact remains the non-citizen, especially the undocumented, are putting people who pay taxes into those services at potential risk - which is plainly unfair.


As far as the cost of groceries - the migrant farm workers are in a sense independent 'contractors'. The fact their choice of work is highly competitive and pays low wages is no fault of the consuming public, and should not invoke feelings of guilt or abuse - they are after all getting paid and work under those conditions of their own free will.

In Midwestern states, teenagers are the choice of cheap labor.

When was the last time you heard the Mexican government reimburse the State of California for treating Mexican citizens? So, its obvious who is being abused here - and its the American taxpayer.

[bgmacaw]

Yup, if there's one thing America is know for, it's knowing how to secure a border!!

We do. Our northern border is quite secure and our enforcement of it has kept out a number of terrorist threats. Our airports are clogged with people who have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get in or out of the country. And, our southern border is protected by a loose association of recreational product providers and independent entrepreneurs who will fiercely fight anyone who might interrupt their profitable enterprises.

But, as for Iraq, new armed and unarmed aerial drones were deployed there in the past few days to watch the border regions with Syria and Iran. That should make things 'interesting' for certain troublemakers.

[Shaggy Hiker]

A legal citizen pays taxes - which feed county services. A migrant or illegal worker almost always does not since they are paid in cash. Actually, I have heard stories that in some areas this is decidedly NOT true. Besides, at most, they are not paying income and social security taxes, but they wouldn't be paying income tax anyways since they don't make enough (I don't know about social security tax, I assume you pay that anyways). However, they certainly pay all use taxes such as sales, liquor, gas, etc. They wouldn't pay property taxes, but no poor people do, generally. In fact, with the EIC, poor citizens pay less than nothing in income tax, so they can have an even greater drain on the tax rolls than the illegals do.

Now, whether the low-income farm laborer income taxes would cover their health care costs is another story, but they meet the citizen and tax requirement, which is enough in my mind to grant them access.

I'd settle for half, and I have it. The only tax they are not paying that they would be paying is social security. Would you favor denying health care to legal migrant labor because they aren't citizens? How about tourists? Citizenship would be a really shaky justification for allowing/denying health care.

The illegals know that if they have any problem - they can simply go to the ER which by law must treat life-threatening conditions. So, if they think anything is seriously wrong, they simply go to the ER - when most citizens would make an appointment with a private practitioner or a public clinic -

I believe EVERY study shows that this is true not just of illegals, but all poor people who lack health insurance, and quite a few who have health insurance. Everything I have ever heard or read on the subject bemoan the huge numbers of people who use the ER as their sole source for health care. I have known uninsured folks who did that, though it's just an anecdote. I think with a little research you will find that this is considered a serious health care issue regardless of citizenship.


which unfortunately puts people with serious need for the ER at risk. I certainly wouldn't want the ER doctors dealing with common ailments when they should be concentrated on true emergencies.

Too late, and it has nothing to do with immigration.

As far as the cost of groceries - the migrant farm workers are in a sense independent 'contractors'. The fact their choice of work is highly competitive and pays low wages is no fault of the consuming public, and should not invoke feelings of guilt or abuse - they are after all getting paid and work under those conditions of their own free will.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. All I was saying was that if you close off the cheap labor, then the cost you will pay will increase. If you decrease what portion of your taxes goes to paying for poor people getting health care, but you increase the cost of food and services, which is greater? I have no data, though I suspect that an increase in the cost of produce would be FAR higher.

In Midwestern states, teenagers are the choice of cheap labor.

How cheap? Most Americans won't work for the wages paid to migrant labor, legal or otherwise. That is certainly the issue we are facing out here for low end manual work. Immigrants are practically our only remaining work pool, and we are well above minimum wage.

[QUOTE}
When was the last time you heard the Mexican government reimburse the State of California for treating Mexican citizens? So, its obvious who is being abused here - and its the American taxpayer.[/QUOTE]

When was the last time you heard of Americans heading to Mexico to get cheaper prescription drugs, yesterday, last week or last month?


There are all kinds of abuses in the health care system. While I believe that you are right that there are illegals using health services that would be denied to them simply because they are illegal, and we are all probably paying some price for that, I also believe we are reaping a large benefit as well in lower prices for goods we all use. I would like to know whether the net is in our favor or against us before making any choice. I feel that it is in our favor, but I have no data to prove it.

As for taxes and taxpayers, we that pay taxes are all supporting the poor who are not so much. You might make a distinction between citizen and non-citizen, but that leaves out legal migrants. You might make a distinction between illegal and legal, but they are probably paying about as much tax as any comparably paid citizen, since income tax doesn't apply (in fact it applies negatively if the EIC is counted in) and all use taxes are paid equally.

This seems like a political issue based more on emotion with a decided lack of solid facts. There are too many interrelated economic issues to be able to make a simple statement about the net benefits of any one facet. There will be a growing ripple effect.

[nemaroller]

Undeniably illegal immigrant labor does pay use taxes, but they aren't exactly buying high-ticket items either, and in many states, food is exempt from tax.

Even the lowest income nationalized citizen still pays taxes up front to the government via filing of a W4 - regardless if they receive a refund at the end of the tax year.

Employers using illegal immigrants never report a W4. So the social security, federal and state income, and Medicare taxes from employer and employee are never collected.

As far as the overuse of ER rooms, I conceded originally that many nationalized citizens do the same - but they pay taxes into the system - so regardless if they're contribution is minimal and their usage high, they are at least making a contribution.

Midwestern states before the huge influx of illegal immigrant labor historically used teenage workers to fulfill cheap labor. In rural areas, that is typically the overwhelming employment opportunity available for young adults and teenagers. When in grade school, I worked at an apple orchard for 3 summers and early fall after school picking apples at $2 / hr. That's pretty cheap. I also picked stones out of fields for $.50 an hour when I was seven years old.

I'm not at all convinced teenagers today would not be available and willing today to do manual farm labor.

[bgmacaw]

Even the lowest income nationalized citizen still pays taxes up front to the government via filing of a W4 - regardless if they receive a refund at the end of the tax year.

With EIC (Earned Income Credit) these low income taxpayers no only get a full 100% refund but a substantial handout out from the government as well, often several thousand dollars over and above a 'refund'. I'm actually glad that illegals aren't able to participate in this government gravy train.

As far as the overuse of ER rooms, I conceded originally that many nationalized citizens do the same - but they pay taxes into the system - so regardless if they're contribution is minimal and their usage high, they are at least making a contribution.

As I said above, they're making a negative contribution. In theory the EIC money could go to buy health insurance but almost all of the time it goes to buy beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. That's why, if we're going to keep EIC, I support replacing the pure money handout with vouchers for specific essential items like housing, healthcare, education, and the like.

[nemaroller]

The US government earns interest on all withholdings (which was implemented around WWII to raise more immediate revenue).

At the end of the year, to qualify for EIC, you must make an adjusted gross income of less than $12,000 (5.75/hr) as a single taxpayer (plus you must be between ages 25-65) - and the most you'll get is $400.

The highest paid amount for EIC is $4500 and to get to that extreme (because it is an extreme), you must be married with 2 or more children and had wages of $16,000 ($7.50/hr total) that year. (Note, if you didn't make any income, you don't get EIC).

EIC is useless for immigrants - because most of them are working, and EIC was designed to encourage working.

Regardless, it is definitely a socialist born welfare program but to a capitalist has it merits : stifles formation of underclass revolts, and increases worker supply thereby having a downward effect on wages.

Vouchers - whether food or health require administration, maintenance, and enforcement - and that would probably incur more cost than it was worth.

[bgmacaw]

The highest paid amount for EIC is $4500 and to get to that extreme (because it is an extreme), you must be married with 2 or more children and had wages of $16,000 ($7.50/hr total) that year. (Note, if you didn't make any income, you don't get EIC).

I think Head of Household filing will also qualify this way but I haven't looked that closely at the current tax laws. I know my redneck in-laws, unmarried with several kids, would usually collect about that much as a 'refund' and promptly blow it in a matter of days on booze, cigarettes, and other 'recreational items' perhaps along with a weekend jaunt down to the Redneck Riviera. The kids were lucky to get candy bar out of it. :mad:


Vouchers - whether food or health require administration, maintenance, and enforcement - and that would probably incur more cost than it was worth


Probably so. It just annoys me to see stuff like I described above.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Undeniably illegal immigrant labor does pay use taxes, but they aren't exactly buying high-ticket items either, and in many states, food is exempt from tax.

I keep forgetting about that food being exempt thing because it isn't here:(

Employers using illegal immigrants never report a W4. So the social security, federal and state income, and Medicare taxes from employer and employee are never collected.

Something was nagging at me after I posted my last post, and finally I remembered what it was: Your previous statement is far from true. There are employers of illegal immigrants who pay in cash, but large numbers, perhaps the vast majority either knowingly or unknowingly hire people with documentation (forged or copied in the case of illegals). This is why the rules for the I-9 just changed for this state and others across the country. These people pay into ALL the taxes, but NEVER turn in tax returns, so it is a gift to the government.

The thing that had been nagging at me was that I had a vague memory of an interview with somebody who was talking about how some areas are reaping big bucks from the taxes on illegals, but I couldn't remember why. This is why: paying income taxes is a means that lots of illegals use to justify applications for work visas. Furthermore, paying in cash may work for some individual contractor who is willing to do something illegal, but the big industries who employ illegals (like those chicken processors) have accountants, so they would require a massive collusion to pay cash. I would not be at all surprised to find that most illegals use illegitimate paperwork to disguise the whole transaction, which means that all the paperwork has been submitted by the employer, and taxes are being withheld.

Which group is larger, those who are paid in cash and don't pay taxes (waiters and waitresses in addition to some illegals), or those who work with phony papers and pay taxes which they never get a refund on? I have heard that the latter group is the more significant, but it just further tangles the web.


Midwestern states before the huge influx of illegal immigrant labor historically used teenage workers to fulfill cheap labor. In rural areas, that is typically the overwhelming employment opportunity available for young adults and teenagers. When in grade school, I worked at an apple orchard for 3 summers and early fall after school picking apples at $2 / hr. That's pretty cheap. I also picked stones out of fields for $.50 an hour when I was seven years old.


Yeah, me too.


I'm not at all convinced teenagers today would not be available and willing today to do manual farm labor.

I'm sure some would, but my experience in trying to get low paid labor at $9/hr makes me think that no significant operation (a few dozen people needed) can be staffed in that fashion. We sure couldn't. I feel the world has changed. There are still those out there who will work like that, but not enough to fill the need.

[nemaroller]

These people pay into ALL the taxes, but NEVER turn in tax returns, so it is a gift to the government.

"In the Queens center, Ana Andrade, 32, from Mexico, had other incentives. She presented a W-2 form that showed withholding of more than $3,000 from the $24,000 she had earned as a cook in a Manhattan restaurant, at $10 an hour. Like more than seven million such W-2 forms nationwide, hers bore a false Social Security number.

No problem, the senior tax specialist explained. Her return would be filed under her ITIN, with the problematic W-2 form, and the I.R.S. would simply credit her wages to her ITIN. The result: a $2,000 refund, based mainly on child credits for her two American-born children, 9 and 10.

Ms. Mathis of the Internal Revenue Service said that if the name on the W-2 matched the name on the ITIN, the return would be processed. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html?ex=1334462400&en=17e15c6e879341e6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[Shaggy Hiker]

So now we have made the answer even MORE complicated. We now have three categories at the minimum:

1) Those illegals paid in cash, who definitely don't pay taxes.

2) Those illegals not paid in cash who lack the confidence to turn in tax returns.

3) Those illegals not paid in cash who are willing and able to submit whatever forms for whatever the IRS will allow.

By the way, a small piece of this is first-hand information, since a member of my crew (supplied by a temp agency) was found to be using a social security number in use by four other people in the west. As far as I was aware, she was a legal citizen, and she certainly did good work for a few weeks before the temp agency called to tell me that they had a bit of a problem. She paid the same taxes as everybody else for the time she worked for me, though I have no idea what became of her or her taxes.

[capsulecorpjx]

Killing civilians purely as a means instead of colleteral damage seems to be working unfortunately.

I don't see a solution to this actually. Terrorism just plain works, espeically in a war-torn country with such long and porous borders.

Unfortunately it's the same rude awakening to the U.S. as when a major power like Britain realized their bright red coats and orderly formations doesn't work against guerrilla tactics from the camo'd Colonists in America.

Yes the terrorists are evil, savages who target civilians for the political goal of civil war. But what they are doing is working.

[nemaroller]

It appears last night the Senate has overwhelming approval of a revised bill that will secure $3.2 billion for border security with Mexico - including money for deportations. Supposedly the bill has enough backing to override any veto by Bush.

This is the correct first step in my opinion. While it includes money for parts of a physical fence that (I think)would be costly to build, maintain, and offers little security, it DOES offer extensive electronic surveillance and patrolling which does add REAL security.

[bgmacaw]

This is the correct first step in my opinion. While it includes money for parts of a physical fence that (I think)would be costly to build, maintain, and offers little security, it DOES offer extensive electronic surveillance and patrolling which does add REAL security.

Did you see the episode of Penn and Teller's BullS***!!! where they showed just how ineffective such as wall was? They hired illegals to build a section of wall based on the published design specs and then had them get through it. It took them about a minute to do it. :D

[Xanith]

Did you see the episode of Penn and Teller's BullS***!!! where they showed just how ineffective such as wall was? They hired illegals to build a section of wall based on the published design specs and then had them get through it. It took them about a minute to do it. :D

I had heard that the wall that they built near San Diego worked really well. While it didn’t stop all border crossings it did deter the drug trade and stop illegal crossings there. Of course one could say they just moved to an easier portion of the border to make their crossings but what if the entire border was covered like it is in San Diego?

X

[capsulecorpjx]

I had heard that the wall that they built near San Diego worked really well. While it didn’t stop all border crossings it did deter the drug trade and stop illegal crossings there. Of course one could say they just moved to an easier portion of the border to make their crossings but what if the entire border was covered like it is in San Diego?

X

The Chinese Great Wall actually did work for a short period, as long as it was manned at all the checkpoints by lookouts and patrolled by a loyal army.

Unfortunately I think building the damn thing killed more people than save from invaders.

Eventually the Mongolian invaders just went around the wall, and bribed the Chinese hired army that was suppose to guard the choke point.

Of course the Mongolians weren't trying to cross over and take low paying jobs.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I had heard that the wall that they built near San Diego worked really well. While it didn’t stop all border crossings it did deter the drug trade and stop illegal crossings there. Of course one could say they just moved to an easier portion of the border to make their crossings but what if the entire border was covered like it is in San Diego?

X

Take a lesson from drug interdiction. At one point there was a massive crackdown on drug running into Florida (the major port of entry for Columbian cocaine). The result was that drug busts along the New England coast soared. We have a massive border, both aquatic and terrestrial. If we make one section so secure that nobody can get in, they will move elsewhere, just like the drugs did.

I believe that with great effort we could secure some stretch of the border, but not the whole thing, not with all the effort we could possibly afford. I don't believe the senate effort will make even the slightest difference except that it will shift the patterns of border crossings, which is a pretty minor difference when we really want to change the magnitude.

The problem for immigration, just as it was for drugs, can not be solved by interdiction. That may be the easiest, least contentious, option, but it doesn't solve anything. We need to dry up supply or demand to have any impact at all.

[nemaroller]

Did you see the episode of Penn and Teller's BullS***!!! where they showed just how ineffective such as wall was? They hired illegals to build a section of wall based on the published design specs and then had them get through it. It took them about a minute to do it. :D

I don't normally watch Penn and Teller, but I wouldn't doubt any physical wall could be compromised.

However, the point is the new bill increases funding for manned surveillance. Combined with a physical wall it allows for less labor resources for manning a border.

If it shifts crossing patterns to the seas, that would make it far more difficult to enter the country illegally as one attempting to enter would now be subject to the ocean and the US Coast Guard and Navy.

[Xanith]

Take a lesson from drug interdiction. At one point there was a massive crackdown on drug running into Florida (the major port of entry for Columbian cocaine). The result was that drug busts along the New England coast soared. We have a massive border, both aquatic and terrestrial. If we make one section so secure that nobody can get in, they will move elsewhere, just like the drugs did.

I believe that with great effort we could secure some stretch of the border, but not the whole thing, not with all the effort we could possibly afford. I don't believe the senate effort will make even the slightest difference except that it will shift the patterns of border crossings, which is a pretty minor difference when we really want to change the magnitude.

The problem for immigration, just as it was for drugs, can not be solved by interdiction. That may be the easiest, least contentious, option, but it doesn't solve anything. We need to dry up supply or demand to have any impact at all.

Drug cartels have the means necessary to shift tactics and locations to get drugs into the country so you are correct, the drug trade will still continue to thrive even if the southern border has been secure. However as far as illegal immigration goes a lot of the people crossing the border have very little or no means at their disposal, and if the southern border is closed a lot of people will have no recourse but to stay where they are.

There is of course no way to fully secure the country without turning it into a Soviet Union style wall with armed guards ala the Berlin Wall. There will always be illegal immigration and the US can easily absorb some but with the vast amounts of people currently crossing the border the thoughts of how the Roman Empire finally fell cross my mind. Something has to be done and all I see is a lot of talking and not a lot of doing anything.

X

[MasterBlaster]

Aside from that, it probably wouldn't work anyways. Cuba had a shark infested mote around it, and thousands attempted it anyways. A physical barrier has never been a particularly effective impediment.

Xanith, you don't need cash to be brilliant.

As much as this pains me, since I've been making a concious effort not to post in this forum, I can not pass up the opportunity to pay tribute to the floating cubans :lol:

http://www.floatingcubans.com/

[Shaggy Hiker]

There was a guy who windsurfed from Cuba to the keys. It really isn't that far, but you better have a compass.

It's true that shipping drugs is much different. A really poor person might not have the means to pay for any kind of transportation, but I suspect that many do. After all, there are stories occasionally of illegals being smuggled in from overseas, so at least some people have the means.

It seems to me that the easiest route, if the southern border is closed, is to fly to Canada and come south. I don't know what the cost would be, though.

[bgmacaw]

It seems to me that the easiest route, if the southern border is closed, is to fly to Canada and come south. I don't know what the cost would be, though.

Actually, the Canadian border is more secure and better watched than the Mexican border. We really do depend on drug and human smugglers self-interest to keep out terrorists. :ehh:

[Shaggy Hiker]

The Canadian border is more porous for one simple reason: Water!

The border crossings may or may not be more secure, but I've walked across the Canadian border a couple of times now and not had any concerns. Were I to try the same thing along most of the Mexican border, I would be very concerned whether I had enough water to survive. The majority of the Canadian border is in dense forest which is unpatrolled and unpatrollable.

[bgmacaw]

The majority of the Canadian border is in dense forest which is unpatrolled and unpatrollable.

And very difficult terrain to cross as compared to open flat desert near several heavily populated areas. This tends to choke down the potential crossing points as well as lowering the number of safe places to rejoin civilization.

[MasterBlaster]

Killing civilians purely as a means instead of colleteral damage seems to be working unfortunately.

I don't see a solution to this actually. Terrorism just plain works, espeically in a war-torn country with such long and porous borders.

Unfortunately it's the same rude awakening to the U.S. as when a major power like Britain realized their bright red coats and orderly formations doesn't work against guerrilla tactics from the camo'd Colonists in America.

Yes the terrorists are evil, savages who target civilians for the political goal of civil war. But what they are doing is working.

At his morning briefing President Bush was told that three Brazilian soliders were killed in Iraq today.

To everyone's amazement, all the color ran from Bush's face, then he collapsed on his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Then he composed himself and asked , "Just exactly how many is a brazillion?"

[Shaggy Hiker]

And very difficult terrain to cross as compared to open flat desert near several heavily populated areas. This tends to choke down the potential crossing points as well as lowering the number of safe places to rejoin civilization.

I've hiked the northern border many times, and the desert only once or twice. I'd take the woods and water of the northern border over that flat desert any day. The desert will kill you, the woods just makes you tired. Also, the bulk of the US-Canada border really isn't all that rugged.

[bgmacaw]

I've hiked the northern border many times, and the desert only once or twice. I'd take the woods and water of the northern border over that flat desert any day. The desert will kill you, the woods just makes you tired. Also, the bulk of the US-Canada border really isn't all that rugged.

I guess it's what you're familar with. When I was in the Marines I trained at 29 Palms (http://www.29palms.usmc.mil/) (aka 29 Stumps) for a few months so I've dealt with a fairly extreme desert climate. But I haven't spent much time along the northern US border other than to fly over it. From the air though, it looked plenty rugged, particularly along the Montana border. I wouldn't want to deal with either one without proper equipment and supplies.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I guess it's what you're familar with.

Yeah, that's sure true. There are people wandering all over the southwest, but I've never done any hiking down there, and have no real desire to. It's a different kind of thing to deal with. On the other hand, I have no problem going for multi-day cross country walks through the rugged northern country.

Down south, I'd worry about excess sun and insufficient water. Up north, I feel that all the problems are manageable. Food? You can find it without great difficulty. Water? You get too much most of the year along the border. Heat? The opposite is more likely to be an issue. Cold? There's plenty of fire material (as Idaho is currently proving abundantly). Shelter? You could probably make something pretty good in any given 100 square yards.

Actually, food could well be an issue, but that would be true in the desert, as well.

[nemaroller]

Food? You can find it without great difficulty. Water? You get too much most of the year along the border. Heat? The opposite is more likely to be an issue. Cold? There's plenty of fire material (as Idaho is currently proving abundantly). Shelter? You could probably make something pretty good in any given 100 square yards.

Bears? You could probably offer an arm as a peace offering.

[FunkyDexter]

Bearswait... are we back onto how to solve the Iraq crisis now?

[nemaroller]

wait... are we back onto how to solve the Iraq crisis now?
Perhaps we have inadvertently stumbled upon the answer!

[homer13j]

Bears? You could probably offer an arm as a peace offering.

What is with Americans and our obsession with arming bears?

[FunkyDexter]

I don't care what you say, Saddam was hoarding pickernick baskets and needed to be stopped!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Saddam made a boo-boo.

[bgmacaw]

I don't care what you say, Saddam was hoarding pickernick baskets and needed to be stopped!

He wasn't smarter than the average megalomaniacal dictator, BooBoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Bear). :D