Without real immigration reform it makes the problem worse.

The spike in resident illegal aliens happened right after Ronnie got tough on the border without addressing all of the challenge.

Used to be a time that seasonal workers came over the border, picked the crops, then went back home.

When it became more difficult for them to get here they stopped going home.

Then they started bringing their families across.

Then we got anchor babies.

Then they needed something to do outside of harvest season so they got into landscaping and construction.

They set down roots.

Call it Cobra Effect, policy surprises, whatever we want but it's the result of linear thought without regard for reaction to initiatives.

This is why I'm against the wall.

I don't see that anyone has thought past "build it" or has considered the potential unintended consequences.

I really do not understand how anti-wall proponents try to make it seem like pro-wall proponents are in a build a wall and leave it category.

The wall is used as a force multiplier for your border patrol.

A lot has changed in this regard. I did a lot of commercial US flying in Washington State and the large growers there have to recruit workers...drive them up in air conditioned buses, house them properly, etc.

It was a real eye-opener.

The reason why they were interested in UAS was because labor, once a small part of their value equation, is now a large part.

This is all good news for the workers. I learned a lot over two summers.

On one large farm I met the Chief Technology Officer and the Head Grower in one of six new dormitories they had built to house the workers.

Paul you make a valid point but I find it hard to believe that a pool of candidates couldn't quickly be assembled via retired military and police . They have a knowledge base right out of the gate . A mix of older/wiser/retired training some younger folks would work .

I think part of this is coming up with the right number of people ..... do we need 250 or 500 or 2000 ? I think current border patrol officers would be the ones to ask they know roughly what is needed based on real world experience . Patrolling and monitoring the border can be solved.

So... A moat? :D

Because I have not heard any proponents address those issues.

Every wall proponent I speak to about it personally seems to glass over when you bring those things up.

And a force multiplier? How about getting the force in place and see where and how and even if it needs the multiplier. Because without the force, the multiplier is ineffective.

Easy, you do away with the anchor baby BS, you punish the businesses that hire and enable them, you punish those that aid them and no more catch and release. One you start enforcing the laws already on the books, round em up and microchip them so they show up if they try and sneak back in. Don't tie the hands of the officers, let them protect themselves and America from this invasion.

Where did I state a wall won't help ? I stated I didn't think it was needed based on my boots on the ground statement . I also stated law suit and imminent domain would hold the build up for a long time . Boots on the ground could happen immediately if the desire to do so was a priority .

That one is a non starter. Virtually no one on either side has the appetite for that **** storm.


This I agree with. Seems pretty simple. So why does it not happen? Follow the money I would assume?

Pretty sure forced micro chipping would be considered assault and certainly be challenged. At least a half dozen states have already outlawed forced chipping going back more than a decade.

Besides, if it can be placed, it can be removed. So what have you accomplished besides wasting money for no gain and creating a cottage industry of microchip removal shops in Tijuana.

That last part would be the unintended consequences of not thinking it through.SmileWavy

Oh, and what'd any of that have to do with walls as force multipliers for as yet non existent forces?

Raise your hand if you actually read the attached article this discussion was supposed to be about.

As my father use to say Anything to make it more difficult to cross is needed. The fence in my yard keeps people from cutting through, but is easily climbed on one side of the yard, but let me catch you back there in my shop and it is an all new ball game.

Tom Brady has a moat. Don't know if he got the alligators and piranhas yet.
I figure if it's good enough for him …


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1553034504.jpg

I did.

But you really expected this to stay on topic?

In a forum named "Off Topic Discussions"?

I admire your optimism.

Sure, why not. It would be as effective as any of the other options being floated.

The problem isn't at our border. The problem is what makes people from Central America risk their lives to get here. Why would they risk the assaults, rapes, trafficing, extortion, murders like the San Fernando massacre and so many other mass murders of immigrants, in order to get here - but then let a moat, a fence, machine gun nests every 50 yards, or a 30 foot concrete wall from sea to sea, make them decide to stay home? It is laughable that our leadership cites the abuse of immigrants on their journey north as a reason for a wall, as if the presence of a wall will stop desperate people from putting themselves at risk, when assaults, rapes, trafficing, extortion, murders, and the prospect of dying in the desert don't stop them.

Why do we not have millions of Canadians streaming across our northern border when there are millions coming from the south? Answer that question and you will have the answer to our southern border problem. We don't need a southern wall any more than we need a northern wall.

Does Jesus tell us to build a wall to keep the poor, the sick, the hungry from visiting our doctors, doing our work, or sharing our abundant food? Sorry - that was PARFy. I apologize.

Cant argue with your brilliant logic.

Walls.

I dont think its needed.

Followed by I didnt state it wouldnt help.

Makes AOC look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Donnie is doing walls, border agents, military, tech, dogs, all while liberals fight him at every turn.

Walls work and will continue to be build as they have for the past 30 years along our southern border.

As said fences only keep honest people out, I can see guys on the other side with battery powered angle grinders chopping holes weeks after the wall is done.

And then there are tunnels...

As far as manpower for the boots on the ground (though I still like my high tech idea, drones, robots, IR sensors).
"who would want to be out in the middle of nowhere?"
Thousands of 4x4 folks are out in the desert every weekend.

Stop making sense.

Not sure what your issue is with me ? I am suggesting due to what will be the endless lawsuits being threatened , the eminent domain issues to work through it could be years for a wall or walls to be built . Getting people on the ground as a deterrent can happen quickly or at least quicker than a wall . Why is that an issue in this discussion ? Aren't we better on this forum and better as a nation if we have discussion and share ideas ?

Beg to differ. I'd think the pool of retired cops wanting to go back to work in the blazing sun and heat is really small. Most retired cops are on the golf course, fishing, riding HD's, and hunting. Southern border agent positions must be the hardest to fill.

Link is no good
I did

The Answer in this case is not a single thing, like a Miata.

It is a combination of things we will do. Paul will make a fortune selling UAVs, there will be barriers. There will be changes made to how we deal with immigrants, both at the border and after they have entered the country illegally. There will be changes made to how immigrants who commit crimes are handled.

It is not one thing, like a wall, it is everything.

Regarding boots on the ground in the Sonoran desert. My best friend seriously looked at it, but he was not going to take his daughter down there for the second half of her high school years. Inexpensive place to live, he would have been hard pressed to spend what he would have gotten for his place in California. The feds are trying to recruit people to go down there, offer bonuses and incentives to move to Black Rock, AZ, or Nogales, but it takes the right person to take the job. It is not by mistake that the population density is so low in that part of the world.

Thanks.

Business
Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources
Solar and wind generation with storage now competitive with coal power

The Denver Post file
This is a file photo of Xcel Energy employees working on a utility pole on Stanford Avenue in Englewood.
By Aldo Svaldi | asvaldi@**********.com | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2018 at 8:13 pm | UPDATED: February 1, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Renewable-energy developers have offered to supply Xcel Energy with electricity at the lowest prices quoted in the U.S., including solar and wind options with energy storage priced below what coal-generated power in the state costs.
ADVERTISING

“The response was amazing.The world is our oyster. It was like walking into a Las Vegas buffet,” said Erin Overturf, chief energy counsel for Western Resource Advocates, one of several environmental groups that want the utility to reduce its dependence on coal.

Xcel last year estimated it would need 450 megawatts of additional generation to meet future demand under its 2016 Electric Resource Plan.

In August, Xcel and several other parties reached an agreement known as the Clean Energy Plan to shutter two older coal plants in Pueblo, but only if lower-cost alternatives could replace their 660 megawatts, including the added costs involved with shutting the plants down 10 years early.

Backers of the plan estimated Xcel’s Colorado customers would save $175 million if wind bids came in at $20 megawatt hour (MWh) and solar at $30/MWh, Overturf said.

What they didn’t count on was how many bids would come in from the Nov. 30 solicitation, more than 430, with 350 just for renewables, or how low they would come in. Wind-only bids had a median price quoted of $18/MWh, meaning half of the bids were below that. Solar only came in at a median price of $29.50/MWh.

Wind costs less than coal, and solar has more recently become cost competitive. But both sources are intermittent, meaning they either need storage, such as batteries, or more reliable generation sources such as coal and natural gas to fill in the gaps.

What stands out about the response Xcel received is that wind sources with storage are now cheaper than coal generation, and solar plus storage is now cheaper than about 75 percent of coal generation in the state, according to CarbonTracker.

“As far as we know, these are the lowest renewables plus storage bids in the U.S. to date. The previously lowest known solar plus storage bid price was $45/MWh in Arizona in May 2017,” wrote Matt Gray, a senior utilities and power analyst with Carbon Tracker.

Not if you take away all the tax incentives that have funded the government teat these technologies need to avoid being cost prohibitive. Akin to the real price of an EV when the tax incentive goes bubye.

According to this...your article is quite inaccurate.

https://i2i.org/xcel-lies/

It almost sounds like you are saying the petroleum industry does not benefit from a smorgasbord of incentives that helps it avoid being cost prohibitive?

Intangible and tangible drilling costs amount to a nearly 100% deduction of those costs, plus depletion allowances, domestic manufacturing allowances, survey allowances, to name a few.

There are more.

The difference is they provide reliable abundant energy with a proven track record.

It only makes fiscal sense because they "cook the books". As a Colorado taxpayer and Xcel customer, I believe the only rational course is to retire the coal plants as scheduled (when it is cost effective) to do so...not because company executive and politicians want CO to be CA.

Here are the numbers in chart form. In the article above they mention coal, solar, solar wirh storage, wind, and wind with storage. Wonder why there was no mention of natural gas when discussing costs?

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/12/worlds-largest-batteries-hiding-in-colorado-bids/

Wind with storage 21/MWH
Solar with storage 36
NG with storage 6.20 (combustion gas turbine )

Another thing to keep in mind is that they are comparing modern wind and solar plant costs to two coal plants costs that went in service in 1973 and 1975. Modern efficiency isn't in their design.

Oh really?
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-a-long-history-of-subsidies/
http://fortune.com/2018/12/04/clean-coal-subsidies-profitshttps:/
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Subsidies-For-Coal-Nuclear-In-The-Latest-Federal-Budget.html
And then we can get into the health costs. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-annually-in-hidden-costs-study-says

Georgetown, Tx. goes 100% renewable! Yeah! !!
https://georgetown.org/2018/06/29/georgetowns-energy-100-percent-renewable-with-solar-plant/

Georgetown, Tx loses nearly 7 million on energy deal. Trying to renegotiate contract. Boo...
https://communityimpact.com/austin/georgetown/city-county/2018/12/10/georgetown-will-renegotiate-renewable-contracts-after-energy-price-drop-costs-city-6-84-million/

I am not trying to knock wind. I can see towers if I stand on my roof :). I came within a gnats hair of buying a turbine cleaning business (platforms ) though the miles of steel cable involved and varying state standards chased me off. Oklahoma is one of the leaders in supplying green energy to it's residents. Oklahoma has been a leader in % of capacity increase over the last 10 years.

When it comes to production costs solar and wind are still far more expensive as the Colo data suggests.

Hard to imagine living in a small town in energy rich Texas and your city utility losing almost $7M per year because city officials were so clueless that they bought the farm...literally. Somebody is gonna pay.

Us ins in Okiehoma ain't as edumencated as dose Colo wizz kids.

We uns only generate 8 mw of da wind inergy which is 32% of total state lectric production.

Colo has somehows managed 3.7 mw of da wind for 17.6% of production.

Us redneck hillbillies in a flyover state just don't git it.


https://www.awea.org/resources/fact-sheets/state-facts-sheets

Almost as heart wrenching as watching 20% of your town's coal miners suffering some good ol black lung disease right?
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1553057689.jpg

Coal stinks.

Most of the coal plants are old as the hills and are being shut down as they near 50 years of age. Those two you are shutting down were scheduled to be closed within 5 years due to age.

That article you posted chaps my butt. They are making is sound like solar and wind production costs are as cheap or cheaper than carbon based fuel. That is not the case. That is easily seen in the bid data. They compare modern solar and wind to an antiquated coal plant. They ignore the NG costs entirely. Why is that? Shouldn't they supply all of the facts of the bids and not just the bid "facts" that support their cause?

I imagine that those miners preferred the known risk of black lung to the known risk of starving. How does your overpriced wind or solar power feed their families?

Of course the materials used for solar cells have to be mined...just like coal:
Chemicals used in Manufacturing Solar Panels

That mining has health hazards as well.

You do realize that during manufacture and after the disposal of solar panels, they release hazardous chemicals including cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, hexafluoroethane and lead such as Cadmium Telluride, Copper Indium Selenide, Cadmium Indium Gallium (Di)selenide, Silicon Tetrachloride, etc.? I bet the Chinese folks that manufacture those cells have some pretty sick looking organs as well.

The only way we will ever know for sure is to try it and apparently the current administration is attempting to do so . Time will tell if successful or not .

Good thing we figured out a new source before we ran out of Whales.