Something I read in the News

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:57:57 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:58:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)

It's easier with exponential notation:
$5 billion = 5*10^9 dollars.
5*10^9 / 2*10^3 = 2.5*10^6 = 2.5 million dollars / mile

but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

That's fairly close to what it would cost to build a 2 lane undivided
rural road:
https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46

"Copying Israel's wall would cut Trump's price nearly in half"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/copying-israels-wall-would-cut-trumps-price-nearly-in-half
Actually, the construction contract will probably go to one of the
major US construction companies, who will then subcontract the actual
work to smaller Mexican companies.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Again we didn't see Frank who was supposed to be a highly educated teacher discover the error in math. And the wall will also have a two lane road built next to it so that it can be patrolled and it will have solar cell fed cameras all over the place. In fact it is a very cheap price.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:16:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 1:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:11:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-6, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)
but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

cheers,

John B.


What Jeff said. $2.5 million per mile of fencing. Not $25.
Given the cost of everything the government buys, $2.5 million for a
mile of fence doesn't really sound too extreme. We pay
$10-20-30-40-50 Billion for every airplane or boat we buy for the
military. So $2.5 million per mile is change we could find in the
couch. Of course the fence could just be a single strand of electric
fence with a stake stuck in the ground every 100 yards. All put up by
some Mexican illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage. And the
contractor could be laughing at how he made out like a bandit stealing
money from the government as he jets off to Hawaii for vacation. That
sounds far more reasonable. And of course this crook will make a $2.5
million donation to the Republican party and his buddies.

Yes, as I said, I don't work well with really large numbers but
then... there are such things a "cost overruns". The San Francisco
bridge was originally estimates at $250 million and actual costs were
about $6.5 billion. At that rate the 5 billion might just be a drop in
the bucket.

Re the $10-20-30-40-50 Billion. President Eisenhower, in his farewell
address warned about the potential influence of the "military -
industrial complex". Did anyone listen?

cheers,

John B.



Here's how things don't work out here in the real world:

https://www.constructiondive.com/new...poor-p/542635/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Although Brown sold this as costing about a billion dollars all of the engineering companies said that you could not achieve that for less than a trillion. What's more despite those cost overruns they dropped the idea of special high speed rails and intend to run it on the present rail system which absolutely will NOT accommodate high speed trains.

This is the Democrat Party Boondoggle System of the Year. This is like the Oakland portion of the Bay Bridge. It came in more than twice the cost of the original bid. It had been given to a Chinese company despite an American company making almost the identical bid. And not every single piece of steel in the bridge has been shown to be dramatically under specification. All of the support pillars steel bolts have broken and American company has replaced them with slides which would allow the bridge to rock back and forth in a Earthquake. Even more dramatic - the support wires in less than specification and the finish on them was not waterproof and they are rusting away. The bridge to last a 100 years without maintenance is not a maintenance nightmare.

"Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 12:53:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:38:58 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)
but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

That can't be true! When he was campaigning he promised Mexico was going
to pay for the wall! I heard him say so!

That darn Bangkok Post must be pushing fake news.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Did you also hear that we have a new North American Free Trade Act that makes 5 billion seem like chickenfeed? Or doesn't that count with you? Mexico HAS already paid for it.

Gawdamighty. Did you actually buy into the idea that NAFTA 2.0 is going to make Mexico pay for the wall? That twitter claim doesn't even make sense. Here, bookmark this on your browser. You'll need it. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/is...through-usmca/

And any minor increases in either tariff or tax revenues would be a drop in the giant budget deficit bucket. And no matter how you cut it, "Mexico" is not paying for the wall. There are no direct extractions from Mexico -- only from US citizens paying tariffs on Mexican goods or additional income taxes paid by US companies who somehow benefit from the treaty. Think powdered-milk sellers to Canada.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal
immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government
assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers
who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are
usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ
illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm
not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime
committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine,
etc.

While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to
concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you
earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed.

Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points:

First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history
it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount
of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the
factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here.

It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything
else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must
be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political
spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are
willing to work for less.

And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work
so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard.
I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields
because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work.
The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the
work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day.

There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get
asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter
inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received
asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to
seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop
those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when
written, and are probably fairly logical now.

The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people
who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some
of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America.
And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that
supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear.

Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand.
This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of
prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much
poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak
across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings.

Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop
those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps,
the ladder was invented.

Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know-
nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would
be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars
by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well
connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce
enforcement against firms that employ these people.

And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass
cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you
call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see
your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has
had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him.


Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all
problems, or even most, but necessary.

Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants.
Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating
terms is not helpful.

Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from
being a public charge with good reason.

Laws unenforced or ignored altogether-
https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/


The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets!

There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion!


Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are
stubborn things.

Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure
the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed
e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a
half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no
longer reports.

Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years
about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless.
http://jamielshaw.com/

Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said,
"Dad, help me".

There are dozens of memorial websites like:
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too
expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say
there is no problem is ridiculous.


* The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in
the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so
much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever
he's against". This is not productive for the nation.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:47:46 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/17/2018 8:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)
but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

cheers,

John B.



John, you've worked in and out of government. States do
things which range from misguided, inept, pernicious to evil
but nothing they do could be called efficient.

Yes, you are correct and that is probably the greatest failing of the
communist system. But it is also becoming a failure of the democratic
systems as they grow larger.

When I was in high school the little New England town I grew up in was
governed by the old fashioned,and fundamental, democratic system.
There was a "town meeting" each year to elect the "Selectman" who ran
the town and the heads of the various departments, lights, water,
roads, etc., and the Selectman and department heads had to get up and
inform the public about what their department had accomplished in the
past year and answer complaints.

Certainly many, maybe most, of the complaints were along the line of
"why does it take so long for my street to get plowed after a snow
storm" but just as knowing that you will hang in a fortnight is said
to concentrate the mind wonderfully, knowing that you, personally,
will have to get up in front of the entire town and explain why you
didn't plow Miss Gracie's street quickly enough to keep her happy will
tend to ensure that streets get plowed efficiently.

cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:10:53 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/18/2018 12:56 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 22:38:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/17/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)
but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

That can't be true! When he was campaigning he promised Mexico was going
to pay for the wall! I heard him say so!

That darn Bangkok Post must be pushing fake news.

NO, the Bangkok Post prints only the Truth!

That is a bit of a tongue in cheek as the Post has never, in the
history of the paper, printed anything that was derogatory to the
government in power at press time :-O

Actually the Post quoted the AFP - Agency France Press - for that
tidbit.

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal
immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government
assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers
who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are
usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ
illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm
not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime
committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine,
etc.

While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to
concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you
earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed
:-)

cheers,

John B.



How would that advance more illegal alien voters for the
communist party?


I'm not sure what you mean (which allows me to wander off in any
direction) but a good friend grew up in Hungary under the communist
system there. He told me that everyone in Hungary had a job and had to
work at that job. Or more accurately, he said, show up every morning
at that job.

He had free schooling through four years of collage and "escaped" from
Hungary not because he hated communism but because the state ordered
him to work in the food industry (he was a chemical engineer) and he
wanted to work in the oil industry.

cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:14:06 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/18/2018 1:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:57:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:58:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)

It's easier with exponential notation:
$5 billion = 5*10^9 dollars.
5*10^9 / 2*10^3 = 2.5*10^6 = 2.5 million dollars / mile

Well as I said, I don't do really big numbers :-) But still 2.5
million a mile is (unless I make another mistake) is 2.5 million
divided by 5,280 comes to $473.48 a foot, or in more precise terms
$39.45 an inch.


but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

That's fairly close to what it would cost to build a 2 lane undivided
rural road:
https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46

"Copying Israel's wall would cut Trump's price nearly in half"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/copying-israels-wall-would-cut-trumps-price-nearly-in-half
Actually, the construction contract will probably go to one of the
major US construction companies, who will then subcontract the actual
work to smaller Mexican companies.

Mexican labor rates seem to be in the neighborhood of US$3.00 an hour
while U.S. rates are what? $10.00 an hour? Certainly labor is not the
only costs involved but even so, at $39.45 an inch a chap might be
able to make a buck or two :-)

And yes, the major U.S. construction companies will be standing in
line to get their fingers in that pot.


cheers,

John B.



Add in logistics cost to move labor and materials to remote
areas. Then add survey and planning (expensive labor in
remote areas) and a few years of paper pushing for all the
various 'studies'. Material may be the smallest item in the
project.

Certainly. In Indonesia we had several contracts in Irian Jaya (now
West Papua) where supply of any large item was a 3 week barge tow
away.

cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal
immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government
assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers
who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are
usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ
illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm
not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime
committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine,
etc.

While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to
concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you
earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed..

Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points:

First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history
it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount
of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the
factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here.

It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything
else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must
be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political
spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are
willing to work for less.

And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work
so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard.
I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields
because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work.
The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the
work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day.

There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get
asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter
inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received
asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to
seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop
those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when
written, and are probably fairly logical now.

The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people
who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some
of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America.
And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that
supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear.

Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand.
This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of
prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much
poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak
across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings.

Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop
those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps,
the ladder was invented.

Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know-
nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would
be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars
by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well
connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce
enforcement against firms that employ these people.

And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass
cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you
call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see
your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has
had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him.


Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all
problems, or even most, but necessary.

Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants.
Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating
terms is not helpful.

Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from
being a public charge with good reason.

Laws unenforced or ignored altogether-
https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/


The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets!

There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion!


Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are
stubborn things.

Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure
the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed
e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a
half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no
longer reports.

Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years
about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless.
http://jamielshaw.com/

Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said,
"Dad, help me".

There are dozens of memorial websites like:
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too
expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say
there is no problem is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying there is no problem, although one can disagree on the magnitude of the problem -- and the best, most fiscally responsible way of dealing with the problem.

Anecdotes of people getting killed also say nothing about whether the killer would have been deterred by a wall. For all we know, Pedro Espinoza's mom may have taken a bus to El Paso or come to the US through a tunnel in Tijuana. Moreover, there is already a wall in most population areas on the southern border, including Tijuana. We built tons of walls under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 Maybe more are needed but not an engineering marvel across the canyons of Texas.



* The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in
the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so
much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever
he's against". This is not productive for the nation.

Being a first-class ass-wipe not surprisingly puts Trump at odds with the mainstream so even his reasonable policies get discounted, but building a massive wall from border to border is not a reasonable policy. Notwithstanding Faux News and the tin-foil hat news outlets, even the liberal boogeywoman Nancy Pelosi is not advocating for "open borders." Not even the Republican controlled Senate wants to shut down the government for Trump's wall -- or Hadrian's Wall or the Maginot Line. This is all part of his weird pandering. A reasonable politician would identify areas that required fortification and would fortify those areas and not advocate for some great wall through nowhere. But then again, a reasonable politician would not have gutted federal revenues and created a monumental budget gap -- not in a hot economy, but that's a whole other issue.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:16:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/18/2018 1:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 21:11:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:58:15 PM UTC-6, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Today's Bangkok Post had an article entitled "US careens towards
government shutdown". From reading the article it seems that the
President wants a 5 billion dollar budget for the Mexican Wall and
Congress doesn't want to give it to him.

5,000,000,000 divided by 1,954 miles is what? $25,588,536.33 a mile
(that may be wrong as I'm not used to working with really big numbers)
but even for the largest economy in the world that seems a tiny bit
expensive, doesn't it?

cheers,

John B.


What Jeff said. $2.5 million per mile of fencing. Not $25.
Given the cost of everything the government buys, $2.5 million for a
mile of fence doesn't really sound too extreme. We pay
$10-20-30-40-50 Billion for every airplane or boat we buy for the
military. So $2.5 million per mile is change we could find in the
couch. Of course the fence could just be a single strand of electric
fence with a stake stuck in the ground every 100 yards. All put up by
some Mexican illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage. And the
contractor could be laughing at how he made out like a bandit stealing
money from the government as he jets off to Hawaii for vacation. That
sounds far more reasonable. And of course this crook will make a $2.5
million donation to the Republican party and his buddies.

Yes, as I said, I don't work well with really large numbers but
then... there are such things a "cost overruns". The San Francisco
bridge was originally estimates at $250 million and actual costs were
about $6.5 billion. At that rate the 5 billion might just be a drop in
the bucket.

Re the $10-20-30-40-50 Billion. President Eisenhower, in his farewell
address warned about the potential influence of the "military -
industrial complex". Did anyone listen?

cheers,

John B.



Here's how things don't work out here in the real world:

https://www.constructiondive.com/new...poor-p/542635/

We once bid a job to construct a oil gathering station in a rather
remote area in S. Sumatra. This included the station, living quarters,
roads in and out and several pipelines.

We were awarded the contract and then because of the Indonesian
Government the project was delayed for several months and by the time
that we were given the go ahead the rainy season had started. You
can't build roads and pipeline right or ways through swamps in the
rainy season and you can't do major earth works in the rainy season so
all major construction was delayed and our "cost overruns" were up
something in the neighborhood of a million dollars on that project.

We attempted to get compensation for what we termed an act of God (it
rained) but in those days all oil projects were a joint venture with
the Indonesian government and they argued that as the terms in the
contract were clear, Acts of God were spelled out and didn't include
rain, that we had no claim. Ever try to sue a national government?

cheers,

John B.

On 12/18/2018 5:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 3:08:02 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 2:41 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/18/2018 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't follow Thailand in matter of illegal
immigrants. Here the only individuals that qualify for government
assistance of any sort are citizens , or, in some cases, legal workers
who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are liable to jail terms but are
usually just extradited to their home country. AND, those who employ
illegal workers are liable to a 1 year jail term and a large fine. I'm
not sure about it but Thai law usually assigns one penalty per crime
committed, i.e., two illegal workers equals two years and double fine,
etc.

While finding that one will be hanged in a fortnight is said to
concentrates the mind wonderfully I also find that "no food unless you
earn it" tends to ensure that most people will be gainfully employed.

Well, I think this issue is extremely complex. Some salient points:

First, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. During most of its history
it needed to actively import people to make use of the huge amount
of virgin land, to do farm work, to build railroads, to keep the
factories running. That's how and why my grandparents came here.

It's still true that lots of businesses - agriculture and everything
else, from lawn care to manufacturing - want cheap labor. There must
be thousands of businesses owned by people all across the political
spectrum who depend on people with questionable papers who are
willing to work for less.

And I think for most of those people, it's not a question of "no work
so no food" policies chasing them home. They work and work hard.
I read a couple articles last year about tomatoes rotting in fields
because the people who used to pick them were now too afraid to work.
The farm owner said he couldn't get "regular Americans" to do the
work. They wouldn't put up with the job for more than one day.

There's also the bit about asylum. I once helped a foreign guy get
asylum, albeit unwittingly. (He asked me to write him a letter
inviting him to visit. When he landed, he applied for and received
asylum.) Because of its history, the US has laws allowing people to
seek asylum. I suppose some might want to go back in time and stop
those laws from being written. But odds are they were logical when
written, and are probably fairly logical now.

The big influx from Central America certainly contains many people
who are literally fleeing for their lives. From what I've read, some
of that is precipitated by past U.S. policies in Central America.
And I'll note that one relative of mine works for an agency that
supports refugees in some ways. There are horrible stories to hear.

Also, I think there's little comparison between U.S. and Thailand.
This is a huge country with an enormous economy and lots of
prosperity. There's a long, long land border with Mexico, a much
poorer country. That means there's a lot of motivation to sneak
across that border and serious difficulty preventing the crossings.

Which is not to say Trump's wall would really work. It would stop
those walking across, probably a small percentage. Until, perhaps,
the ladder was invented.

Overall, it's a complicated problem. America is filled with know-
nothings who think every problem is easy. But this problem would
be tricky even if millions of people didn't make millions of dollars
by hiring illegal immigrants. Those people - many of whom are well
connected politically - will stand in the way of any fierce
enforcement against firms that employ these people.

And it's not even necessarily big firms. When you need your grass
cut and you check the bulletin board at the grocery store, you
call around for the best price. You don't say "Oh, and let me see
your citizenship papers." Hell, it recently came out that Trump has
had (and probably still has) illegal immigrants working for him.


Wall- necessary but not sufficient. Won't solve all
problems, or even most, but necessary.

Immigrants- Yes we children of immigrants love immigrants.
Illegal invaders are not the same as immigrants. Conflating
terms is not helpful.

Public charge- Logically, immigrants are proscribed from
being a public charge with good reason.

Laws unenforced or ignored altogether-
https://ktla.com/2018/12/17/man-dies...entral-valley/


The wall only became necessary when Trump ran for president. It certainly isn't necessary he https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5...423_r31920.jpg Unless there are invading hordes of Mexican rock climbers. I'd worry more about hang-gliders. Nets! We need nets!

There were already appropriations for new sections of fencing. There still are appropriations for new sections of fencing -- even in the proposed Democratic budget. There just isn't a budget for a dopey border-to-border mega-wall through inaccessible terrain. This is all pandering to the base. Sad! Wall-hunt! No Collusion!


Yes, ridiculous is our new level of discourse but facts are
stubborn things.

Several Congresses over 30-odd years* voted to better secure
the southern border, partially wall, fence, even a failed
e-surveillance program. Meanwhile Texas reports over a
half-million felonies per year by illegals and California no
longer reports.

Listen to any Jamile Shaw interview in the past ten years
about his son and tell me border enforcement is pointless.
http://jamielshaw.com/

Or Kate Steinle's father who watched her die as she said,
"Dad, help me".

There are dozens of memorial websites like:
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

To say a wall is insufficient or ineffective or too
expensive is an argument, and I would engage that. To say
there is no problem is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying there is no problem, although one can disagree on the magnitude of the problem -- and the best, most fiscally responsible way of dealing with the problem.

Anecdotes of people getting killed also say nothing about whether the killer would have been deterred by a wall. For all we know, Pedro Espinoza's mom may have taken a bus to El Paso or come to the US through a tunnel in Tijuana. Moreover, there is already a wall in most population areas on the southern border, including Tijuana. We built tons of walls under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 Maybe more are needed but not an engineering marvel across the canyons of Texas.



* The loudest voices against Mr Trump's wall voted for it in
the WJC era and blamed GWB for _not_ building it. As with so
much of politics, the default position is "I'm for whatever
he's against". This is not productive for the nation.

Being a first-class ass-wipe not surprisingly puts Trump at odds with the mainstream so even his reasonable policies get discounted, but building a massive wall from border to border is not a reasonable policy. Notwithstanding Faux News and the tin-foil hat news outlets, even the liberal boogeywoman Nancy Pelosi is not advocating for "open borders." Not even the Republican controlled Senate wants to shut down the government for Trump's wall -- or Hadrian's Wall or the Maginot Line. This is all part of his weird pandering. A reasonable politician would identify areas that required fortification and would fortify those areas and not advocate for some great wall through nowhere. But then again, a reasonable politician would not have gutted federal revenues and created a monumental budget gap -- not in a hot economy, but that's a whole other issue.

-- Jay Beattie.


Half a kumbaya, my half brother. I was with you until that
last sentence.

Federal revenues are up. Unfortunately both parties* joined
in spending even more than that.

http://blog.independent.org/2018/07/...eep-piling-up/

Every major tax cut has produced increased revenue. Hell
even Putin back in 2003(?) made Russia's tax a flat 13%
across the board and filled his treasury. Revenue is only
one side of the equation however...

*Repugnicans ought to know better. And, sadly, once did know
that, or at least faked it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971