Tell an Australian what the argument is against building a border wall.

Look.... I'm not interested in going around in circles. Let me tell you a bit of a relevant story and, with that, and by re-reading everything I have written on this thread, you will have everything I know (and maybe will ever know) about illegal immigration.

In the 80s, I worked for an International airline based in Costa Rica for about 10 years. I was the Passenger Handling Manager system-wide for the last 3. Illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S were one of our greatest problems. For every passenger that attempted to enter the U.S. illegally, we were fined $1000, we had to take care of their expenses while in INS custody, and transport to their country of origin ran at our expense. They would use several methods. For example, fake visas or fake passports or the wrong Visa, ;or even no visa But the most common way in which illegal aliens entered the U.S. at the time (I don't know if this is still true, but I believe it is) is with a valid Tourist Visa and then they overstay. If INS at the U.S. port of entry had any reason to believe that a passenger would do that, they would reject them, and the above fine and expenses applied the same. Worst thing about this is that they would never say what the parameters were. How did they determined that somebody was likely to overstay their visa. We had no way of knowing. They always refused to tell us why a passenger was denied entry. Even though we paid the consequences... One exception, though: we did not receive a fine if the passenger had a specific impediment to enter. For example, former members of the Nazi party were not allowed to enter. Or anybody who had traveled to Cuba. Or women who were 6 months or more pregnant (unless they had a special dispense from the U.S. Embassy) ... things like that would not mean a fine, even though we did carry the cost of transporting them back, if they didn't have a return ticket. So we always required a return ticket. But in any other case, all we knew was that INS determined that they would overstay.... but we didn't know how they knew that. Everybody had hypothesis.... but none of them ever worked..

What to do... I'm proud to say that I was the one who came up with the solution....

But I'm tired now. I'll continue tomorrow. Meanwhile, you tell me. What would you do?

 

Thanks for the story, that was interesting. I'm totally confused though why the government blamed and fined the airlines for these people coming in illegally. What could the airlines do to determine that a passenger has a fake visa or fake passports or the wrong visa or even no visa? Airlines just sell tickets, either directly or through travel agents. They don't require a passengers visa status first. Is this still the case now do you know?

What solution?

 

@Golem. Just making sure you got the alert for the above post.

 

Oh yes.... almost forgot....

Airlines do more than sell tickets. They transport passengers. And they are required to verify that the passenger complies with entry requirements to their destination before taking them there. In most countries, this only implies that the passenger is returned to their port of origin at the airline's expense if rejected. So airlines won't transport somebody with a tourist visa, for example, unless they hold an exit ticket.. But the U.S. imposes a heavy fine per passenger that is transported with a fake visa or passport. They do offer training on how to spot fake visas. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure this is still this way.

The part we didn't find to be too fair was this practice of rejecting passengers who met all requirements, but were nevertheless rejected and the airline fined. And we couldn't do anything because they didn't even tell us their reasons. I don't know if this part is still in effect. But it was back then. And the solution that occurred to me was simple: hire an experienced INS agent to work for the airline.

We actually hired an INS agent who had recently retired. There were some things he was not allowed to reveal because of security restrictions. But we still learned a lot from him. We learned some of the questions passengers are asked in "secondary", and how to spot passengers we needed to ask these questions to. Too long to go into this.

But, as Passenger Handling Manager, I was the one who most interacted with him. And he explained how most Coyotes work. It's pretty well organized. They charge for services with a flat fee, including a "Gold" service in which they guarantee that they will get the client(s) in the country. So they provide all fake documents (SS, Green Card, visa, passport, work permit, whatever they might need) And they have a huge number of methods to get them in: Tunnels, boats, airlines, smuggling them in trucks.... they can even try getting them into Canada, and then walking across the boarder from there, which is actually quite easy to do. The thing is that if one method fails, or if they are deported within a certain period of time (for example, one year), the warranty includes getting them back in. The guy worked in boarder patrol for several years, and he had some very interesting stories. But he always said that if somebody really wants to get into the U.S., they will get in, as there are so many different ways of doing it.

 

Yeah, I meant that they don't check before selling tickets. However, I wasn't actually thinking of the fact that passengers have to present their passports at the check in desk, even though I flew back in October and had to do exactly that. So I assume that this is what you're talking about.

So this is the border/customs authority of the day, I assume? Obviously during your time in the industry it was the INS. So I assume you're talking about once certain passengers checked in with you guys, just a few minutes later they got rejected by INS for whatever reason. And then you got a fine? Seems ridiculous. What the hell is even the point of the airlines checking that passengers comply with entry requirements if they have to go through the border/customs process where they will inevitably be caught anyway? I've never understood why I have to show my passport to the airline before going through security, except perhaps to prove that I am not someone else with a ticket in someone elses name, the passport photo obviously proving this.

When you say "attempted to enter" that implies that they have not successfully entered yet. But then you go on to say that they were in INS custody. I'm confused. God immigration is complicated.

 

How is that?

 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe they combined it with Customes, so now its ICE.

We thought that too but... it was what it was... What can you do?

You haven't entered the U.S. until Immigration stamps your passport. Did you ever see Spieldberg's film "The Terminal"? About a guy (played by Tom Hanks) who lives in a JFK Terminal for about a year because the U.S. won't take him, and he couldn't return to his own country because a Civil War had broken. The movie is based on actual events. There was a guy who lived in Paris Airport for... something like 10 years. There have been people stuck in airports in many places for weeks... sometimes month. At our airport there was one who was there for about 3 weeks. In Miami they had a detention center for these passengers which was outside the airport. While there, they were under INS custody and the airline that brought them in paid.

Immigration is complicated. But it's nothing compared to the Airline industry. You have to deal with the complexity of Immigration, plus Customs, plus DEA, plus Passenger rights, plus ICAO (airline standards and regulations), plus.... so many many things....And all this as it applies to all the countries the airline services. Training never stops. Not even if you're just a baggage handler.

 

Well if the INS were fining airline's for this then I can certainly see the necessity for check in desks around the world to check the passports of those who were heading to the US. However, for other passengers it doesn't seem so important as it seems that there was no risk of a fine from the immigration authority of other countries. However, I suppose it is a courtesy so that the country's you were transporting people to weren't having to deal with an overload of illegal arrivals. You wouldn't be fined, but you certainly wouldn't be in their good books.

 

Of course these methods exist and if there was a wall, of course people could still use these methods, but they require money. An over land crossing without documents presents a cost free alternative (apart from death in many cases.) If the other options are so realistic, then why do so many still cross over land? And as for smuggling in trucks, well that is surely a guaranteed way to get caught. Wouldn't literally every truck from Mexico be briefly inspected at the border? Surely that's not a method with a high success rate.

Remember, I restarted this conversation by asking how Kate Steinle's killer would have gotten back into the US after being deported. Now, you said "tunnel." So can you tell me if this is the only way you think he would've gotten in? I assume so, otherwise you would've given me more than just "tunnel."

 

It is very simple and not often mentioned. The left endorses illegal immigration because they believe they will succeed in giving the immigrants citizenship in the future. The illegals are generally poor and uneducated. They will likely vote for democrats in order to get more government services. So they oppose anything that reduces illegal immigration. Politics is truly humanity at its worst.

 

All citizens count, regardless of their educational level.

 

In which case, we should concentrate on what benefits the citizenship as a whole instead of asking the majority of the citizenship to sacrifice in order to protect an education level special interest group. As per my original post.

 

Government's job is to represent everyone, not just an advantaged group that you happen to identify with.

 

See previous post. What you are proposing involves the protection of one special interest group to the detriment of everyone else.

 

No no. Not a "courtesy" at all.

Several countries imposed fines. Others didn't. But in all cases Airlines were responsible for costs incurred. An airline could lose it's operation permits I remember one Airline that was legally charged with "human trafficking". In my case, the worst case was when we received a whole Charter flight. Over 200 passengers. None of them had a Visa. Put yourself in my shoes. What do you do with over 200 people screaming at you because they were not allowed to enter and they weren't told at their embarkation point that they needed a visa, No flights that day back to their own country. Immigration demanding that you return those passengers immediately. And airport authorities that you get them out of the Airport because 200 passengers just staying there in the Terminal until the following day would create havoc the next morning. We had to charter a flight to get them back. But that, in itself, was a huge undertaking too complex to explain. In cases like that, you realize that you would much prefer there were fines and the whole situation was handled like in the U.S.

And, of course, the civil lawsuits the passengers themselves filed when they got back to their country of origin. Not to mention that all their tickets had to be refunded. Huge mess!

 

Well I would ask them why they didn't look into the entry requirements of the country before they purchased tickets and that it isn't the airline's responsibility to 'mother' them, that they should take some responsibility and then I'd finish by telling them to f*ck off! I might even throw in that they are getting a free flight back to the country they came from and they should be grateful.

 

Apparently you do not see the ridiculous lengths your position will take you to.

The left-oriented among us generally support welfare programs which inevitably create an ecological niche which allows the reproduction of ever and ever more low-ability adults...yet you will not allow them employment opportunities?

A "special interest" group is usually seen as an artificial construct, in any case--people of wealth, or government employees, or teachers, etc etc. -- Not a natural segment of a population.

A certain number of people will always be of low ability; it's a simple matter of statistical probability and where they happen to fall on the normal curve. It is government's job, again, to represent the best interests of everyone--and giving someone a bit of money for free while maintaining a position of condescending superiority and treating them like pets or worse is not equivalent to making work available so people can feel they are productive members of society. There are plenty of things low ability people can do for a paycheck--but not when they are being undermined by a government that is tacitly allowing reams of unskilled illegal labor into the country.

I find it fascinating, though, to see how firmly you cling to that "special interest" meme as a support for your ridiculous position. Rather touching, actually.

 

They did look into the requirements: they asked the airline. Unfortunately (for me) it is the airline's responsibility to check the passenger's documentation before putting them deep into that country's territory. Says so right on the Permit the government issues to grant the airline to operate Some idiot didn't read the communication where it was announced that visa requirements had changed two days prior.

 

I'm also for stopping illegal immigration but a wall seems silly for a few reasons:

• costs lots of money
• Drug cartels are expert tunnel diggers, they can easily make tunnels that go under the wall. Just look at how they dug out a lengthy tunnel to help El Chapo escape from prison
• So what if drugs start pouring in from Canada? another wall up north?
• Is the great wall in china still used? point i make is that mexicans will not be crossing the border forever, it may actually flip as time goes by

To me, the wall is just something Trump sold to his base as a political ploy, he himself doesn't care that much about a wall.

I think we can secure the borders by making use of technology (drone surveillance) and many more border agents at strategic points across the border that respond to drone surveillance. This can be combined with some man made barriers in some areas, not across entire border. Building a 'GREAT' wall across the entire border is just dumb...

 

Drug cartels? I wasn't aware they smuggled drugs through the dessert. Why would they need to dig tunnels?

So the cartels will somehow get the drugs all the way to Canada first and then go south to the US?

This could be true, although if it is, I don't think that it means that he doesn't care about ANY form of barrier, just that a "wall" was an effective way to appeal to his base. I'm sure he's had advise on proper solutions. To be fair to him, Trump hasn't ever gone into detail about what his policy actually is. I'm sure if he was asked directly if he would be open to the use of technology and not strictly only opt for a Great Wall of China type solution, he would say "of course." However, to my knowledge, he's not been asked anything along these lines.

I agree.

 

Of course these methods exist and if there was a wall, of course people could still use these methods, but they require money. An over land crossing without documents presents a cost free alternative (apart from death in many cases.) If the other options are so realistic, then why do so many still cross over land? And as for smuggling in trucks, well that is surely a guaranteed way to get caught. Wouldn't literally every truck from Mexico be briefly inspected at the border? Surely that's not a method with a high success rate.

Remember, I restarted this conversation by asking how Kate Steinle's killer would have gotten back into the US after being deported. Now, you said "tunnel." So can you tell me if this is the only way you think he would've gotten in? I assume so, otherwise you would've given me more than just "tunnel."

 

How do you respond to the argument that American's don't want the jobs that illegal aliens do? Therefore, the aliens fill a labour shortage. I've heard this argument used in this thread with regards to Agriculture.

 

Where did you get that idea?

No idea how he got it. Completely fail to see the relevance of that case in the immigration debate.

 

The welfare system is a placebo patch that has slowed the development of transportation infrastructure and other services that would make it feasible to engage in agricultural employment--including loss of eligibility for various freebee programs such as SSI. Welfare programs are a major disincentive to ambition and self improvement, while also freeing local governments from seeking more productive social solutions.

 

What, that it presents a cost free alternative or that it can result in death?

That didn't stop you from suggesting how he MIGHT have got in did it? So then why did you say "tunnel" earlier?