Sunday, February 17, 2019

Anything to Get Trump

As I predicted a few weeks ago, Trump agreed to sign the Democrats' budget bill -- and thereby keep the fed. govt. fully open and working -- but he also declared a "National Emergency" at the US/Mexico border in order to get the remainder of his Wall built.  And of course the Democrats have gone into a feeding-frenzy of lawsuits, bills, persuading border states and land-owners to refuse to let their land be used for the Wall, and anything else they can think of.  The problem with all those lawsuits and bills is that, by the time they're settled, the Wall may already be finished.

The trick, which the Dems seem to have forgotten, is that the POTUS is also the supreme commander of the US armed forces.  Trump doesn't have to re-route money from one allocation to another to finish the Wall;  he can simply order the Army Corps of Engineers to do it, using money already allocated to the military.  Those Engineers have a history of amazingly fast construction, and part of the Wall is already up, so they only need finish it.

First, understand that at least half of the US/Mexico border is can't be built on;  it's the whole meandering length of the shallow, narrow, Rio Grande.  No, there won't be a wall there -- only drone, aircraft, vehicle and foot patrols.  Then again, whatever wall does get built will require tight patrolling too;  a wall is only as effective as its watchers.  But of course, Congress already allocated money for that -- despite demands by the new Socialist/Democrat fringe for total abolition of the border patrol.  Still more of the border can't be built on because it's fiercely jagged mountains and deep canyons that even mountain-goats have trouble crossing.

Another section of the border, right here in Arizona, lies across Tohono O'Odam land, and those "nativist" Natives won't want to give up a yard of their land -- but they're quite willing to patrol the border themselves, as they've been doing quire effectively for the last couple decades, to keep the "Aztecs" out.  They'd also be quite happy to see the border swing a mile or two southward to take in lands which they've claimed for centuries, even if that takes a chunk out of Mexico.  This isn't so impossible as it looks;  the last accurate survey of exactly where the border lies -- right down to the yard, or foot, or inch -- was done by the US, and simply accepted by Mexico.  Since those Native lands are technically a sovereign nation, Mexico would have to complain to the Tohono O'odam, and I don't see Mexico going to war with the Native tribes, seeing who their ally is.

In any case, there already are stretches of wall across several miles of the border;  they only need to be improved and extended, and the military engineers can easily do that.  If any land-owners or states complain, the border can easily be relocated southward, as in the case of the Natives.  Besides, a lot of those states and private landowners would welcome the Wall, having had more than enough of illegal immigration across their lands already.  And yes, there is an "emergency" at the border -- and has been for decades -- as the Border Patrol, and those landowners, and those Natives, can readily tell you.

So yes, I predict that the Wall will be built, and patrolled, despite the antics of the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi's determination to stop Trump from doing anything that might possibly get him re-elected.

The problem for the Dems is that, in their frenzy to Get Trump, they've encouraged their members and allies to run further and further out into the weeds.  The mainstream media, and even some of the more reasonable Democrats, have already begun pointing out the idiocies of Alldyslexia Occasional-Cortex's so-called Green New Deal, though that hasn't slowed her down any.  Reps. Tlaib and Omar have been caught in public spouting obvious Jew-hatred and showing their fondness for friends of known terrorists.  Sen. Booker's insistence on making the whole country Vegan is already a national joke.  It's one thing to claim that we've got to stop burning coal and petroleum for fuel (they're much too valuable for their use in chemical reactions to burn, anyway), but it's another to insist that the US give up all cars, airplanes, and livestock-raising.  It doesn't help that various Dem supporters are also pushing some truly astounding social and racial theories --  such as demonizing all White males as "privileged" and "racist".  The DNC's policies have stopped looking merely radical and are looking downright delusional to the majority of American voters, who are generally centrist and practical.

One has to wonder why the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot like this.  Are they so blinded by Trump-hatred that they really believe these stupid policies themselves?  Don't they realize that every time their cadre of cute/young/female/"ethnic" Reps open their mouths, the Democrat party hemorrhages votes?  Do they really believe that they can use their vast influence with the media to sell these out-of-the-ballpark policies to the voters?  Or do they believe that they can censor all the media -- including the Internet -- so that the public never hears a discouraging word?

If so, then they should remember that even in China, or North Korea, word manages to get around.  They should remember the 2016 election, which they thought they had in the bag because all their polls and experts and media pundits predicted an overwhelming win for Hillary.  They should remember that information is like water;  the more you try to squeeze it, the more likely it is to leak out -- or burst out, sometimes with explosive force.

The irony is that the same "liberal" pundits who preach that "hate" is self-destructive and self-defeating don't apply that idea to their own hatred of Trump, his cronies, and all his voters.

Of course my solution, as always, is: "A plague on both their houses: vote Libertarian", but that's looking a lot more popular as the Democrats continue cutting their own political throats.

--Leslie <;)))><




Paradoctor said...

You are assuming that the point of the wall is to be finished, and then to work. Neither is the case. The wall will not be finished, it will not work, and it is not expected to be finished, or to work. Its point is to remain incomplete and fail, and therefore we must redouble our efforts. The purpose of building a wall would not be national security, but job security, for the wall-builders.

Forever-walling would be like America's forever-wars, which also are less about national security than they are about job security, for the forever-warriors.

The wall has already failed, but that's an objection only to those with integrity. From the point of view of the corrupt, the wall's pre-failure is a selling point.

Paradoctor said...

Pre-failures of the wall:

Team Over. Ladders, ropes. For packages: catapults, drones, a good throwing arm.

Team Under. Shovels, tunnels.

Team Through. TNT, thermite, saws, wire-cutters.

Team Around. Desert hiking, Rio Grande fording, ocean boating.

Team Ignore. Enter legally via legal ports of entry, then overstay one's visa.

The last one is already how most undocumented immigrants got here. Ditto with the drugs. So, seriously, the wall is pre-failed. We _already_know_ it's irrelevant.

Now what _would_ work is prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants. That of course is why that won't happen.

Technomad said...

Combine the wall with criminal prosecution of anybody found illegally in the US, with ferocious penalties and no appeals allowed, and we might get on top of this. As for people getting past it---the same could have been said of the Berlin Wall, but for the most part it did what it was supposed to do. And there's no law saying that the wall couldn't be combined with other precautions. Huge tangles of military-grade razor wire (that stuff is to ordinary barbed wire what barbed wire is to silk thread), "Bouncing Betty" land mines, and regular patrols would beef it up considerably.

Paradoctor said...

Technomad: Land mines and razor wire? That would be insanely expensive, and as noted above, pre-failed. (Over, under, through, around, and ignore.) Land mines make great optics, to those who thought the same of the Berlin Wall; but they are poor policy, and a fiscal drain.

As for whom to prosecute; I propose prosecuting the employers more than the employed. Target the few with power, rather than the many without power, if you want to actually solve a problem, rather than endlessly fight it.

It's like suppressing prostitution; jailing whores is useless, there will always be more. To drive the oldest profession way down, target johns and pimps.

In general: the many without power have nothing to lose, so they cannot be intimidated. The few with power have a lot to lose; so they are the leverage point.

Paradoctor said...

The method I propose will work; and that is why it is not being tried.

Technomad said...

Forgive me for asking, but how is it that the US, which put men on the moon, apparently cannot do something that the Qin Dynasty and its successors in China pulled off starting in the 300s or so BC? I've been on the Great Wall, and I can tell you from first-hand observation that it did do the job it was supposed to do. The times it "failed" were when traitorious generals opened the gates, and no fortification in the world is proof against that. I will admit that it would not be absolutely perfect, but absent force-field technology a la Heinlein's story "Coventry," we do what we can.

Americans are getting sick of people defying our laws on this point. If that were not so, Trump would not have started gaining momentum for the presidency when he started talking about building a wall. If something substantive is not done and done soon, (and the Devil can fly away with "anti-discrimination" laws!) I expect to see an almighty backlash.

Paradoctor said...

The Great Wall didn't work either, in the way that you mentioned. "No fortification in the world is proof against that": precisely! I'm glad that we agree. I add: force fields would also fail in the exact same way. Force fields won't be invented for centuries, if ever, but we can already foresee that they will fail. The very _concept_ is pre-failed!

The Great Wall's main function was as a place for the Legalist emperor to send Confucian and Taoist dissidents to labor until they die. Fun fact: despite savage Legalist repression, Confucianism and Taoism thrive in China to this very day; but that particular Legalist emperor's rotting corpse was carted around China in a closed carriage, while his corrupt advisors concealed his death, and forged a letter to his son ordering that son's suicide. Not many Legalists in China nowadays.

Paradoctor said...

"How is it that the USA, which put men on the moon, can't do project X?"
The Chinese would, traditionally, explain this in terms of the "mandate of Heaven".

Paradoctor said...

... oh, and Technomad? Don't take this personally, but... for you, a round-eyed long-nosed outer-barbarian Westerner, to be walking on top of the Great Wall, is from a Legalist point of view the very _definition_ of the Great Wall's failure.

Leslie Fish said...

*Snerk* Real security will take all of the above, and more: the Wall, tight patrolling (spy-drones look good), going hammer-and tongs after employers, general policing and deportation for real crimes, and ultimately a ten-year moratorium on *all* immigration into the US. Anyone applying for "asylum" can get a nice compassionate one-way ticket to Argentina. Anyone caught in the process of applying for citizenship can stay until the process is finished, one way or another. The DACA "dreamers" can gain citizenship by the classic method of joining the military; and we should revive the old law which states that anyone who serves at least the minimum enlistment and is honorably discharged gets citizenship upon discharge. Folks who overstay their visas can be hunted down and sent home with no chance to come back, thank you. Other ideas are welcome too. In any case, with the third-largest population on Earth, the US absolutely does *not* need more population; we need to cut it down.

Paradoctor said...

Leslie: I agree with many of your suggestions. I still say that a 2000-mile wall is impractical, ruinously expensive, pre-failed, and a sign of national decline. Your suggestion of the military route is time-honored, and I'm surprised the law needs reviving. I'm glad that you're against Kafkaesque process problems.

But your argument remains predicated on a false premise; that immigration is a problem for the country as a whole. Maybe locally, but not nationally. There is net outflow; so the whole 'emergency' is fake news. And as for cutting down, that'll happen naturally by attrition; except for immigration, the USA has, like most industrialized nations, below-replacement fertility.

And, to be justly cynical about it; this country has long been in the business of stealing the best from the other nations. Best from our POV, that is; the wiliest, the toughest, the smartest. All that a wall would do is select for more devious immigrants. But I admit that those make the most American Americans. The anti-immigrant crowd is just jealous.

Technomad said...

The Great Wall worked just fine, most of the time. Its raison d'etre was to keep hordes of horse nomads out of the Eighteen Provinces, which it did quite well. It also doubled-in-brass as a military road through some very rough, rugged country, and served as a signal system.

Barbarians could swarm the Wall and get themselves over it. Once they were on the other side, though, they were up sh*t crick without a paddle. They could get themselves over...but not their horses! A Central Asian nomad was all but helpless without his horse. Those people were equestrian to a degree that makes the classic-period Plains Indians look like horse-o-phobes. Meanwhile, the men in the towers were busily signaling for help, and the Chinese army was marching along the wall, ready to give the unwanted immigrants a warm, warm welcome.

And one reason I am in favor of ending endless immigration from the south is to force those failed attempts at civilization to try to get their own acts together, instead of sloughing off their excess population on us and kicking the can down the road so los corruptos can continue to line their pockets with bribes. Every one of those countries was a hot mess decades and decades before we were in any position to interfere with them, so their blaming us for their problems...let's just say that dog won't hunt. Silly little countries like El Salvador and Honduras probably never had much chance, but there is N-O excuse for Mexico or Colombia, to name two off the top of my head. Both have fertile soil, are bursting with mineral wealth, and have long coastlines.