The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Walls Work
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This shows the effect not of the West Bank anti-terrorist wall but of the new fence Israel built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants. Graph is from a new article in VDARE by Westley Parker.

 
Hide 203 CommentsLeave a Comment
203 Comments to "Walls Work"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wonder what happens to that graph if the local version of the #Resistance succeeds: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5130004,00.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Graph encapsulates all the reasons Jews consider it evil for goys to have a border wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel’s border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn’t a history of migration there aren’t people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.

    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    Read More
    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    No history of migration between Egypt and Israel? There’s a whole book of the Bible about it.
    , @bomag

    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy.
     
    Close enough. If a wall cuts crossing by 1/10; or 1/3; or 4/5; we will be ahead.

    When you are drowning, any little breath helps.

    , @bomag

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
     
    Ha ha. I'm waiting for the paper that tells us that we are leaving quadrillion dollar bills on the sidewalk because we are not exterminating humans and replacing them with machines.
    , @Autochthon
    You tell 'em: never give up on your noble dream to sell more diapers and toilet-paper, son.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    CL, My wife and I traveled across the Sinai from Tel Aviv to Cairo by bus, on the first bus to do that after the Six Day War. There is nothing but burning dessert between the two cities. It took us a full day and the only notable sights along the way were burned out wreckage from the war. Not too many illegals sneaking from the US to Canada or vice versa at this end of the country. Well secured bridge crossings or mile of open lakes, Erie and Ontario.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Frankly, the whole “Build a Wall!” nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call “Boob Bait for Bubbas.” Here’s a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @IHTG
    Who are you arguing with, Unz. The Trump administration just recently scuttled a "bipartisan" immigration deal because getting just the Wall wasn't good enough.
    , @Yan Shen
    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I've been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn't from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It's like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can't make him think...

    Now I'm not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at many of the comments here...

    , @Wilkey
    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety.

    Source please? We have no idea how many illegal immigrants we've been getting. I suspect the government has some ballpark estimates, but they aren't telling their subjec....I mean citizens. If we had our current economy with a Bush or Obama type in office the stream across the southern border would be immense. During the Bush II years we had about half as many illegal as legal immigrants, plus several hundred thousand anchor babies a year.

    Mexico has 124 million people and Central America has another 47 million, and pretty much any one of them could reach our (almost entirely) unprotected border in less than a week. It's a safe bet that at least 10% of them would be more than happy to come here, and if our next president is an American Angela Merkel, they will do so.

    A border wall would cost maybe $25 billion or so. I would guess that the cost of building and maintaining one would equate roughly to the cost of building, supplying, manning and maintaining a single US Navy carrier strike group, of which we have 11 (the cost estimate for our newest aircraft carrier is ~$12.8 billion for just the carrier, not counting accompanying ships & fighter aircraft). Leftists have wasted far more than that on dozens of ridiculous, failed programs over the last four decades (e.g., Head Start). Give us $25 billion to blow on a wall and let's see if it works. I'm even willing to go two-for-one with them on defense spending: I'd support cutting $2 from the defense budget for every $1 we spend on a wall. And I'd even up the offer: $2 in extra infrastructure spending straight to all the blue states, and only blue states, for every $1 spent on a wall.

    I don't by any means think that a border wall would solve the illegal immigration problem in entirety. Workplace enforcement, working with (and rewarding) local law enforcement agencies, denial of government benefits, denial of birthright citizenship - all things which matter as much as a a wall. But a wall is a nice beginning - a profound statement of America's right to regulate our immigration policy. Just consider how much people have used another piece or architecture - a statue on our eastern coast, which we did not even build ourselves - to try to tell us what our country stands for.

    , @nebulafox
    Wouldn't a better step be to lock up and financially ruin some employers? I don't mean sentencing them to country-club prisons, either: hard time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, lives in utter ruin. Publicize it. Once you do that, the others will want to keep their money, and trip over themselves to obey immigration laws. They've gotten so spoiled and soft over the last quarter century that they might talk a good game about not collaborating with ICE at first, but they'll easily melt under some real pressure. If nobody's willing to hire you and your kids need food or a hospital appointment today rather than 3 years from now when there might be a change in the White House, then, at best, you'll have to rely off the state-and that'll be an easy issue for anti-illegal immigration people to politically exploit, reducing public sympathy for amnesty.

    There are other things you could do to help increase pressure on illegals, of course. One idea I cooked up recently is to offer cash rewards for American citizens willing to turn them over to the authorities, with the added benefits of stirring up more trouble in the Coalition of the Fringes, since I'm willing to bet many blacks or legal Hispanic immigrants (note that the majority of Hispanic immigrants who spoke English and were assimilating supported Proposition 187 with the rest of California back in the day) will take the 10,000 dollars per illegal caught over being feted by Vox, contrary to liberal dogma. But if you tackle the economic root of the issue, you'll end up having the biggest net positive, because employers will start hiring teenagers and working class people like they used to, thus somewhat alleviating how screwed up the economic system has become for those on the lower rungs. Unless you speak Spanish or have a "connection", it is hard to get your first job as a teenager these days, and since you need experience to get a job later down the line...

    , @candid_observer
    There are, by conservative estimates, about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. There are 37 million legal immigrants.

    So, except temporarily, how can it be that 95% of immigrants are legal?
    , @Anonym
    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Where is the source of this stat?

    Last time I visited LA it seemed like Mexicans were the majority, I doubt that most of them would be legal. While there is increasing Indian and Chinese immigration, the majority still seems to be Mexican. I certainly agree with you that legal immigration needs a massive cut.

    To me, just like in the software world, you need defense in depth. So you have a wall on the Southern border. You have e-verify. You massively reduce the legal immigration. Anyone coming into contact with the law is verified to be a US citizen or sent back. The wall (security fence) is one very necessary part of that layered security approach, just as in Israel. It is currently in the vaporware stage.

    I am growing tired of the stump speeches (Boob Bait for Bubbas as you/Clinton put it) and would like to see something like what was originally promised.

    On the original topic, I wonder why the Sub-Saharans haven't procured 9m ladders (the wall is now 8m tall, up from 5m).

    https://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/01/18/news/u/israel-raises-height-of-border-fence-with-egypt-by-3-meters/amp/
    , @Pincher Martin

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.
     
    It's not true, Ron. And repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

    While a substantial proportion of illegals - probably around 60 percent, according to the last figures I saw - legally enter the United States and then overstay their visas, that still leaves a large percentage who have to illegally enter the United States.

    Not everyone can get a visa to the U.S. They're too poor or they have criminal records or they have something else that sends up a red flag at our consulates. Many of these people who can't secure a U.S. visa (but not all) come through our southern border.

    If you had any common sense, Ron, it would tell you that the people who have to illegally enter the U.S. are either 1) more likely to be a higher risk to engage in criminal activity than someone who gets a visa and then overstays and/or 2) to be desperately poor and therefore a larger burden to the country than someone who gets a visa and then overstays. They're also more likely to be taken advantage of by criminal syndicates.

    Smart restrictionists want both a wall *and* E-verify. But we need the wall to curb those who are interested in coming to the U.S. not for jobs, but to engage in either criminal activities or the shadow economy.

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    While it's nice to see that you agree that we need to drastically reduce legal immigration, the fact still remains that known, attempted illegal crossings have totaled rather high numbers, especially in some years:

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/12/FT_14.12.26_BorderApprehensions.png

    (Graph copied from Pew Research article: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/30/u-s-border-apprehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/)

    1.5 Million Mexicans, as in the years 1986 and 2000, is not a small number. Neither is half a million combined Mexicans and non-Mexicans illegally crossing in 2014, the year of the lowest total shown.

    Admittedly those are apprehensions, not successful crossings, but the question remains: How many got through? Wouldn't it be nice to just have something that would block everybody?

    A border wall is "Boob Bait for Bubbas" that would have stopped millions of people.

    Besides, we need a little boob bait to make the point to our own selves and future political leaders, as well as to our neighbors, that trespassing is illegal. Symbols and boob bait are part of mass communication. That is something a so-called "buffoon" like Donald Trump understands better than other types of geniuses.
    , @Whiskey
    What do the Israelis, Indians, Mexicans, Romans, and Chinese know that you don't. You are outside your are of expertise. Most likely about 60% of California pop is illegal or direct kids of illegals

    Source my own eyes
    , @songbird
    The current border, like the TSA, is mostly about theater of the mind. Exactly as you said, both do not get to the root of the problem: immigration. However, unlike the TSA, the Trumpian Wall is about signalling the virtue of having a border. It is basically a proxy fight about immigration.

    Build it and maybe it becomes okay to reduce immigration. Don't build it, and it is never okay. It is a sad state of affairs - not first world politics. But I don't really see any half-realistic approach that would get through Congress, other than possibly a wall.

    Radical solution: annex Mexico (vast majority Mexicans would approve) and try to get Hispanics to come down against Africans and Muslims. Not ideal, but perhaps a better solution than where we are heading now. I fear America is already too diverse to politically enforce a border. Europe is close to it, and I really hope they wake up to it.
    , @George
    The wall probably will not be as effective as expected. Migrants could simply switch to boats. As long as there is demand for migrants they can fly into Canada, and there will be no wall.

    It is unpleasant but e-verify and immigration raids of business are necessary. What would also work is base representation on the number of legal residents. That would make states with large numbers of illegals pay for their upkeep. Why do immigrants get federal small business loans?

    I also think giving illegal aliens the vote in local elections would scare the b-jesus out of local immigration supporters.

    Walls are monuments to man's stupidy - Gen. George Patton (Hollywood version)

    , @Perspective

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.
     
    Because it's low hanging fruit, also a lot of people feel they have moral validation behind them when criticizing illegal immigration because it's illegal. People that speak out against legal immigration are mainly doing so because of the economic, demographic and social cohesion issues, but that's racists, so that negates the argument.

    I'm not American, so I will leave it up to Americans to opine what kind of immigration system they want for their country. For Canada, I would lower immigration to around 185K per year, of that, 85 percent of the spots or so would be reserved for Europeans and the Anglosphere. The remainder should be mainly focused on groups that assimilate more readily, such as East Asian (in small - medium numbers they integrate quite well from my experience), and Christian/non-Muslim Middle Easterns.
    , @Ali Choudhury
    If you're finding the software work difficult Ron, you can always try elance.com.
    , @anon
    Nothing made we wince so much as when Trump would immediately follow his bombastic condemnation of illegal immigration with comments like: "But we *love* legal immigrants! We wanna have a BIG, beautiful gate on that wall to bring in lots of legal immigrants. I love them! Illegal bad. Legal good. Am I right folks?" Then the audience would stupidly cheer.
    , @istevefan
    What you write is mostly true. It is not illegal immigration that has caused people to notice the nation changing. It is mass, legal immigration that has done that.

    However, building a wall is a necessary step in changing the mindset that we have had for the past fifty years. Prior to 1965, the US thought of itself as a European nation. Additionally, it had set about to curtail immigration, even from Europe, because the nation was essentially settled.

    The 1965 act both changed the notion that we were a European nation, and it has lead to treating immigration similar to how we treat the budget of a government department; it must forever increase year after year.

    Building the wall changes that mindset. Just like Trump has helped to change what is allowed in public discourse, building the wall makes a statement that the salad days of waltzing across the border, as though it did not exist, are done. Once this is established, it is not too much of a stretch to move on to the reduction of legal immigration.

    In fact with all this talk about the wall, Trump has done exactly that. Trump is now forcing people to discuss LEGAL immigration in the guise of the diversity lotto, chain migration, H1 visas and and overall reduction of immigration in general to improve the lot of American workers.

    So I think the wall is important in helping change the overall mindset on the total issue of immigration. At the very least it is worrying the people who should be worried that Americans are fed up with mass immigration. And it might lead to concessions in legal immigration just to prevent its construction.

    , @bartok
    Mr. Unz, think of it this way: Even if a wall didn't work, it injures our ideological enemies enormously (cutting through skin, fat and muscle and nicking the bone). It's an ugly scar across the face of Aztlan. It's law-and-order reified, as in olde English times when a traitor's head was mounted on the Bridge of London to rot in public view.

    It would be great be if Netanyahu volunteered to chip in $2 billion, as a way to share Israel's know-how and to say to the USA 'thank you for your support." Admitting guilt on the USS Liberty would be too much, so I won't suggest that to Mr. Netanyahu.

    As a token of appreciation, the US Government should donate that Ellis Island plaque to the Herzl Museum, as it is a relic of Zionism. It belongs in a museum!


    Or would you have a GOP president break his signature campaign promise like "wobbly" George H.W. Bush?
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out. If we do not build the wall now it will certainly be built then, but by that time it will be too late for it to serve its primary purpose of protecting American lives.
    , @Anonymous

    that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category.
     
    Photo or it didn't happen. Seriously, where are the statistics and explanation for this. There is something fishy here. It's like gun killing stats that include suicides, but fail to mention that.

    First of all "if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category." This is a huge difference. Ten percent can support the other ninety percent. This kind of difference tends to obey a power law. You're saying something like "The Unz Review hardly gets any traffic at all if you exclude the most popular 10 percent of the pages and only count the long tail."

    Secondly, numbers, please.

    Thirdly, are we talking about "legal" immigrants like immediate family, spouses and fiancees, and the class of we-give-up-here's-a-green-card "legal" immigrant that was common in the Obama administration, where people were known and registered with immigration, but they never got around to expelling them from the country?

    Fourtly, "immigrant" is a term of art in law, and it has a specific meaning, someone with an "immigrant visa" (see state.gov). Are you including people who are "legal" because they have what United States law calls a "non-immigrant" visa, like an H-2B or a student visa? I hate to state the obvious, but non-immigrants are not immigrants. By definition in the law a non-immigrant visa holder must have the intent to return home. To get an immigrant visa, in principle, a non-immigrant needs to return home and visa the U.S. embassy or consulate in his native country to apply for an immigrant visa. You cannot apply from U.S. soil, in principle. This principle has been eroded by many one-time exceptions, but we should return to the principle. People who cannot return home to apply for an immigrant visa withoug thier lives falling apart are losers and liers, and we don't want them.

    Fifthly, your "illegal immigrants" or illegal alians, are 100 percent from Mexicco and central America. Legal immigrants come from all over.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    It was Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the expression “boob bait for bubba” in regard to Bill Clinton’s 1992 pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” Clinton never said it.
    , @MEH 0910
    Ron, thanks for The Unz Review. President Trump, where's my Wall?
    , @Prof. Woland
    One reason opponents of the wall don't want it built is that they have staked so much rhetorical capital telling everyone it won't work that if it does, it will diminish the other specious arguments they have offered. It will either work or it won't. They could build a test section but I think we all know what will happen; it will work and the illegals will cross somewhere else.

    While I am at it, most of the illegals that end up on the news for killing or harming innocent Americans usually have been deported and then reentered many times. NONE of them flew here or took a boat and then over stayed a visa which is part of the selection process. They are youngish physically fit single men who just went far enough out into the desert where everybody knows you can cross unhindered. A continuous wall will keep out the worst of the illegals and we will save many lives and the expense of all the collateral damage they cause.
    , @Jack Hanson
    "Boob bait for Bubbas" posted from one of the most expensive zip codes in the country.

    Tell me about your house with no door, Ron.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Per Wikipedia, your claim that 95% of immigration is legal is way off base:

    Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year.
     
    Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
    , @Colleen Pater
    AMNESTY is what makes "legal" illegal aliens. Amnesty becomes "necessary" when enough illegals have gotten in and now are oppressed by living in the shadows.

    Crime and drugs are highest among illegal aliens.

    The sense of lawlessness that not enforcing our borders engenders leads to more immigration. Currently our own immigration bureaucrats advise immigrants on how best to game the system for themselves and the chain of tribal villagers they wish to haul behind them. Our bureaucrats sense that no one will prosecute them because no one is serious about stopping illegal immigration, illegal in all the senses that includes passing amnesties that are to have a balance that never happens and bureaucrats that advise immigrants on how to game the immigration authority. The fact is most "legal Immigration" is really illegal.
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    Southern California seems, except for the wealthiest suburbs, utterly dominated by dark-skinned, mestizo-type Mexicans and South Americans. In 25 years they haven't changed a bit: They never age, they never get any better at learning English, and they still aren't founding billion-dollar, high-tech companies. Where do they keep coming from and how do they get here? They're over-staying visas? Of course, it's too late to do anything to save California. The die is cast. But maybe the other states. And yes, by all means, slash legal immigration except for in exceptional cases.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW

    Ron Unz is an essentialist. He gets right to it. What is the essential nature of the problem or dilemma, get right to it.

    Legal immigration is where the future demography will come from, but the GOP ruling class, even after losing California due to mass legal immigration, will not push an immigration moratorium. Slow motion demographic transformation is the result. Now, even the morons can see the demographic transformation accelerating.

    Trumpy is placating the GOP Cheap Labor Faction by promising more guest workers and visa workers while he doles out the "Boob Bait For Bubba" by talking about a wall that has yet to be built and other immigration restrictionist measures.

    Legal immigration must be halted and tens of millions of legal immigrants will have to be denaturalized and deported. If they are permanent legal residents, that can be revoked as well. This is serious radical business, but it must be done. This is why Civil War II is not too far-fetched.

    Monetary policy and immigration policy are driving politics in the world today.

    I say raise the interest rates and deport the foreigners.
    , @dfordoom

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…
     
    Spot on.

    Australia has something much better than a wall. We're surrounded by ocean. It hasn't stopped, or even slowed down, the relentless pace of population replacement.

    The illegal immigration issue is being used in the US the same way it has been used in Australia - as a distraction so that people don't notice that legal immigration is the real problem. And fools and cucks fall for it every time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Walls only work for Jews. They don’t work for gentiles. Because the Holocaust.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The essence of every conversation I’ve ever had with an open borders nutjob:

    “We need a border wall”
    “That won’t work”

    “We need to ban them from having driver’s licenses”
    “That won’t work”

    “We need to deny them from in-state tuition at public schools”
    “That won’t work”

    “We need to bar their children from public schools”
    “That won’t work”

    “Clearly you don’t believe in securing our borders against illegal immigration”
    “No, I totally do. But those things won’t work”

    “Alright, tell we what policies you would implement to secure our borders”
    {Crickets}

    Read More
    • Replies: @anony-mouse
    E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive.
    , @istevefan
    Just remember, the things that they say won't work usually do work which is why they tell us they won't. They don't want to curb the problem so the best thing for them to do is to prevent any solutions.
    , @WowJustWow
    "Okay, at least make their drivers' licenses look different from citizens' licenses so they can't be used to apply for citizen-only benefits."
    "That won't work."
    "Really? You're from Massachusetts. Where licenses are printed with a portrait layout if you're under 21 and landscape layout if you're over 21."
    {Crickets}

    What really blows my mind is when the person on the other side of the conversation, when discussing any other topic, believes the government has the requisite superpowers to make anything happen in opposition to all known laws of economics (and sometimes the laws of physics too).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Who are you arguing with, Unz. The Trump administration just recently scuttled a “bipartisan” immigration deal because getting just the Wall wasn’t good enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. “built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants.”

    *Sigh* Steve. You have a blindspot once the word “African” is involved.

    Now unless the map in high IQ land is different, I’m pretty sure that Israel has Egypt as a buffer. Also, why doesn’t Egypt have immigration problems? or do they?

    But I digress, the difference between them and your people is that folks who think like this:

    https://twitter.com/normative/status/967385524347588608

    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you. Y’all correlate and causate.

    Politics, politics is everything. It birthed the wall, it will tear it down.

    Then again, it’s possible that you’re a Populist Macchiavellian giving a forum for men threatened by Black men and repressing their unrequited attraction to Black women to come and vent.

    P.S Before the usual “why do you care?” ignorance. Simple. Your Globalist elites are extremely socially Liberal, the more they’re focused inwards, the higher my odds of dying with my eyes and ears shut to the peccadilloes your country exports and that’s just the least of it. Our interests align, for now.

    or maybe, I’m Russian. *Evil laugh*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Your comments are the empty suit variety same as your East African guru, the empty suit Obama. Who is more accurately described as the black empty suit. You can read more about empty black suits over here in this right wing internet greatest hit >>
    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011380.html
    , @bomag

    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you.
     
    It's a modest barrier. Without it, the flow would be higher; our problems greater.

    Politics, politics is everything.
     
    Tell us, then, what political change will keep the wonderful African people in Africa so they can enjoy their own company, and Europeans in Europe so they can suffer their own kind?
    , @songbird
    The Rio Grand is a pretty rinky-dink river. It makes a very poor defensive barrier, if the people I know who have seen it firsthand can be believed. They probably siphon a lot of water off it too for agriculture. Ends up being little more than a mud puddle.

    I know a lot of blacks are moving into the Maghreb and, quite surprisingly, even into Yemen. Israel does seem to have a problem with blacks, but I'll be darned if I know how they get there. I always assumed planes. Up the Nile would be a pretty tough trek, but some have made hard treks. You've got to be pretty motivated, if you are willing to move into Yemen.

    I've said it before, but I fear we are past normal politics. Back in Eisenhower's day, there wasn't a lot of people yelling "racist!". You could round up large numbers of people and deport them with political ease. There's a snowball effect though. The more who settle, the greater the sympathy and the greater the political resistance. The normal condition of politicians is spinelessness. Most cannot do anything but parrot the narrative that diversity = good. Many ethnic groups are just special interest groups, and they make sure the line is parroted. It works out for them, as long as it allows them to grow their group. That's why globalism is a thing, it is not bilateral movement of the same numbers. If it were, it would never exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Wilkey
    The essence of every conversation I've ever had with an open borders nutjob:

    "We need a border wall"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to ban them from having driver's licenses"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to deny them from in-state tuition at public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to bar their children from public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "Clearly you don't believe in securing our borders against illegal immigration"
    "No, I totally do. But those things won't work"

    "Alright, tell we what policies you would implement to secure our borders"
    {Crickets}

    E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive."

    And fining employers, as well. Leftists complain that Republicans don't want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either.

    They want the illegals, and they don't want any program that would actually get rid of them or stop them from coming.
    , @Luke Lea
    Better yet a biometric Social Security card for every American citizen, with biometric visas for those who are visiting legally. Would have to presented at various points -- when you cash a check, use a credit card, vote, get a job, buy groceries with cash, etc. -- enough to make it impossible to live if you are here illegally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. OT: have you seen this ad that’s been running during the Olympics?

    https://www.ispot.tv/ad/weoJ/ancestrydna-winter-sale-greatness

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. This shows the effect not of the West Bank anti-terrorist wall but of the new fence Israel built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants.

    The West Bank wall has shoot to kill backup if need be. The anti-African migrant fence has performed impressively and is more comparable to what Donald Trump will put up and try to put up. I would like to know many Africans have been arrested trying to get past the new fence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I’ve been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn’t from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It’s like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can’t make him think…

    Now I’m not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at many of the comments here…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I’ve been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.
     
    Complete horseshit. You don't understand a thing about economics.

    Most of the U.S. job losses in manufacturing in the eighties was due to productivity gains.

    , @bomag
    Once again Yan Shen makes his favorite point: East Asian math skills will render them the rulers of the future.

    But by pointing out the achievements of China and Japan, you highlight that there is scant relation between immigration and economic accomplishment.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    This comment doesn't make much sense. But don't worry, Comrade Shen, it's because you're relative High M/Low V, I'm sure.
    , @unpc downunder
    Most western ethno-nationalists are against free trade. However, trade policy isn't a very emotive issue so it doesn't attract much discussion on the Internet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. That’s dramatic proof right there.

    It’s interesting how rapidly the numbers grew from ’06 to ’11. Israel was facing the same alarming problem as many Western countries, and it put a stop to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. I wish we could build more walls around Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Why all this silly talk about walls and such, as if this were uh Westeros facing the impending invasion of the Night’s King and his army of white walkers?

    America’s real problem is that whites, unlike East Asians, are highly prone to the negative influences of blacks and Hispanics. Wherever a large population of blacks, Hispanics, whites, and East Asians all live together, you invariably see things like the infamous Asian guy in the library, whereby a quantitatively adept person of East Asian descent, who’s been taught his entire life to focus on what actually matters, can only shake his head at the masses of blacks, Hispanics, and their supposedly “progressive” white allies all bleating post-modern PC non-sense as if it were the Gospel. And the bad behavior of these far left fanatics inevitably provokes equally bad behavior from whites on the far right.

    In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class as an exemplar of good behavior, such as Canada or Australia, whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy based on cognitive skills.

    Of course none of this is uh news to anyone who’s been paying attention to anything I’ve been saying over the past few years. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video surely must be worth at least a million…

    Read More
    • Agree: Yan Shen
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class ... whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy ... "

    Good point, but Hispanics, along with Whites and your uh favored Asians, can be included in a good mix for a healthy diverse society. The society becomes ill when you add Blacks to the mixture.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Yan, are there two Trolls named Yan Shen or just one who likes himself so much that he clicks the "Agree" button on his own posts? Isn't that kinda like masturbating, where you are the best partner you can find?
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Confucius taught Family Think,
    So there's much to admire in the Chink.
    Read him over again,
    Greatly Honored Yan Shen:
    Pride that's over the mark starts to stink.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety.

    Source please? We have no idea how many illegal immigrants we’ve been getting. I suspect the government has some ballpark estimates, but they aren’t telling their subjec….I mean citizens. If we had our current economy with a Bush or Obama type in office the stream across the southern border would be immense. During the Bush II years we had about half as many illegal as legal immigrants, plus several hundred thousand anchor babies a year.

    Mexico has 124 million people and Central America has another 47 million, and pretty much any one of them could reach our (almost entirely) unprotected border in less than a week. It’s a safe bet that at least 10% of them would be more than happy to come here, and if our next president is an American Angela Merkel, they will do so.

    A border wall would cost maybe $25 billion or so. I would guess that the cost of building and maintaining one would equate roughly to the cost of building, supplying, manning and maintaining a single US Navy carrier strike group, of which we have 11 (the cost estimate for our newest aircraft carrier is ~$12.8 billion for just the carrier, not counting accompanying ships & fighter aircraft). Leftists have wasted far more than that on dozens of ridiculous, failed programs over the last four decades (e.g., Head Start). Give us $25 billion to blow on a wall and let’s see if it works. I’m even willing to go two-for-one with them on defense spending: I’d support cutting $2 from the defense budget for every $1 we spend on a wall. And I’d even up the offer: $2 in extra infrastructure spending straight to all the blue states, and only blue states, for every $1 spent on a wall.

    I don’t by any means think that a border wall would solve the illegal immigration problem in entirety. Workplace enforcement, working with (and rewarding) local law enforcement agencies, denial of government benefits, denial of birthright citizenship – all things which matter as much as a a wall. But a wall is a nice beginning – a profound statement of America’s right to regulate our immigration policy. Just consider how much people have used another piece or architecture – a statue on our eastern coast, which we did not even build ourselves – to try to tell us what our country stands for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @anony-mouse
    E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive.

    “E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive.”

    And fining employers, as well. Leftists complain that Republicans don’t want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either.

    They want the illegals, and they don’t want any program that would actually get rid of them or stop them from coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Leftists complain that Republicans don’t want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either
     
    Ha! Forty years ago Cesar Chavez was told to shut up about it by Hispanic activists, who had a lot less power then than now. And he did.
    , @fnn
    GOPe has never wanted workplace enforcement for the predictable reasons. They sabotaged the workplace enforcement provisions of Simpson-Mazzoli. But Trump still has to work with them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Wouldn’t a better step be to lock up and financially ruin some employers? I don’t mean sentencing them to country-club prisons, either: hard time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, lives in utter ruin. Publicize it. Once you do that, the others will want to keep their money, and trip over themselves to obey immigration laws. They’ve gotten so spoiled and soft over the last quarter century that they might talk a good game about not collaborating with ICE at first, but they’ll easily melt under some real pressure. If nobody’s willing to hire you and your kids need food or a hospital appointment today rather than 3 years from now when there might be a change in the White House, then, at best, you’ll have to rely off the state-and that’ll be an easy issue for anti-illegal immigration people to politically exploit, reducing public sympathy for amnesty.

    There are other things you could do to help increase pressure on illegals, of course. One idea I cooked up recently is to offer cash rewards for American citizens willing to turn them over to the authorities, with the added benefits of stirring up more trouble in the Coalition of the Fringes, since I’m willing to bet many blacks or legal Hispanic immigrants (note that the majority of Hispanic immigrants who spoke English and were assimilating supported Proposition 187 with the rest of California back in the day) will take the 10,000 dollars per illegal caught over being feted by Vox, contrary to liberal dogma. But if you tackle the economic root of the issue, you’ll end up having the biggest net positive, because employers will start hiring teenagers and working class people like they used to, thus somewhat alleviating how screwed up the economic system has become for those on the lower rungs. Unless you speak Spanish or have a “connection”, it is hard to get your first job as a teenager these days, and since you need experience to get a job later down the line…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Most illegals are hired by small businesses: franchise restaurant owners, residential contractors, contractors to larger companies (I worked for a large telecom in an office for years that had people I knew were illegal doing janitorial work). Make it expensive, very expensive to do that. All the way up the chain: if your contractor's contractor even brings illegals on the property you are strictly, and jointly and severally liable.

    Employers "pretty much know" who is legal and who is not. I know that from watching.
    , @Prof. Woland
    There is a certain karma to employment verification. The employers that use illegal labor have a very good idea of who they are hiring and many go out of their way to hire as many as they can to underbid their competitors. As a result, these companies gain a huge competitive advantage because they are hiring a disposable labor force and will swell up and dominate while the Americans languish. I sell employee benefits so I painfully know of what I am saying. I have lost so many hundreds of thousands of dollars over my career because of entire industries such as restaurants, drywall installers, senior home care, etc. have had the bottom dropped out of the wage scale. The spit in the eye is that these are the same bums that show up at the ER room for their free health care.

    These companies have perfected the art of bitching about E-Verify has too many false positives or ultimately the computer that cross checks the SS# and TI# is actually racist. The same computer that checks the identical numbers to collect taxes is "progressive".

    The companies that will be harmed by E-Verify are the exact sames ones that have benefited by cheating. Without disposable labor, these companies will atrophy to where they should have been all along. Karma is a bitch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    There are, by conservative estimates, about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. There are 37 million legal immigrants.

    So, except temporarily, how can it be that 95% of immigrants are legal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    The "Dreamers" alone are 1.8 million, at least. That's 5% of 37 million.

    So there are no other illegal immigrants? How about their parents, at least?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Where is the source of this stat?

    Last time I visited LA it seemed like Mexicans were the majority, I doubt that most of them would be legal. While there is increasing Indian and Chinese immigration, the majority still seems to be Mexican. I certainly agree with you that legal immigration needs a massive cut.

    To me, just like in the software world, you need defense in depth. So you have a wall on the Southern border. You have e-verify. You massively reduce the legal immigration. Anyone coming into contact with the law is verified to be a US citizen or sent back. The wall (security fence) is one very necessary part of that layered security approach, just as in Israel. It is currently in the vaporware stage.

    I am growing tired of the stump speeches (Boob Bait for Bubbas as you/Clinton put it) and would like to see something like what was originally promised.

    On the original topic, I wonder why the Sub-Saharans haven’t procured 9m ladders (the wall is now 8m tall, up from 5m).

    https://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/01/18/news/u/israel-raises-height-of-border-fence-with-egypt-by-3-meters/amp/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    It’s not true, Ron. And repeating it doesn’t make it any truer.

    While a substantial proportion of illegals – probably around 60 percent, according to the last figures I saw – legally enter the United States and then overstay their visas, that still leaves a large percentage who have to illegally enter the United States.

    Not everyone can get a visa to the U.S. They’re too poor or they have criminal records or they have something else that sends up a red flag at our consulates. Many of these people who can’t secure a U.S. visa (but not all) come through our southern border.

    If you had any common sense, Ron, it would tell you that the people who have to illegally enter the U.S. are either 1) more likely to be a higher risk to engage in criminal activity than someone who gets a visa and then overstays and/or 2) to be desperately poor and therefore a larger burden to the country than someone who gets a visa and then overstays. They’re also more likely to be taken advantage of by criminal syndicates.

    Smart restrictionists want both a wall *and* E-verify. But we need the wall to curb those who are interested in coming to the U.S. not for jobs, but to engage in either criminal activities or the shadow economy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Clyde

    If you had any common sense, Ron, it would tell you that the people who have to illegally enter the U.S. are either 1) more likely to be a higher risk to engage in criminal activity than someone who gets a visa and then overstays and/or 2) to be desperately poor and therefore a larger burden to the country than someone who gets a visa and then overstays. They’re also more likely to be taken advantage of by criminal syndicates.
     
    As a generalization this is true. The illegal aliens who got here as visa over stayers are a more desirable population than the border jumpers. They have more money and education. But a big but.... Many via overstayers came here as a form of chain migration. Their existing family in the US has sponsored them to immigrate but no one was willing to wait the five to ten years it takes for legal approval as part of say the Philippines legal quota. So Filipino X comes here on a visa and never leaves. Most of family reunification aka chain migration is low class 3rd world people bringing in other low class family members. So low class that Ron Unz is somewhat correct that they are on the same level as border jumpers. With similar welfare usage and high school drop out rates.
    Reminder - If you want to bring in ma and pa to retire here even though they never put money into the SS system, then ma and pa have to be brought here legally. The Chinese are specialists in this. Norman Matloff has criticized this for 25 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site’s readers double combo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site’s readers double combo.

    My preference is to speak truth to (much more deserving powers) who would never in a million years create or allow a free speech platform like this one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. There are, by conservative estimates, about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. There are 37 million legal immigrants. So, except temporarily, how can it be that 95% of immigrants are legal?

    His graph for illegal immigration is right next to the one for “Number of Americans Killed By Terrorists Since 9/12/01.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @candid_observer
    There are, by conservative estimates, about 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. There are 37 million legal immigrants.

    So, except temporarily, how can it be that 95% of immigrants are legal?

    The “Dreamers” alone are 1.8 million, at least. That’s 5% of 37 million.

    So there are no other illegal immigrants? How about their parents, at least?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Some OT iSteve-y gossip:

    I’ve heard through a mutual friend that an acquaintance of mine is planning on filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against a TV news analyst. The acquaintance is the craziest f**king woman I’ve met in my entire life – she’s been cucking her husband for over a decade and when the affairs end, she does everything in her power to destroy the lives of the men who were dumb enough to sleep with her.

    But it’s very unlikely she was even sleeping with this guy. If he’d ever so much as made a pass at her, she would have bragged about it to the mutual friend like she brags about all her affairs.

    The analyst has political aspirations, so he’s quite vulnerable and will probably settle. There are more details that make this much juicier, but you get the idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. OT: Have you seen this ad that’s been running during the Olympics?

    https://www.ispot.tv/ad/weoJ/ancestrydna-winter-sale-greatness

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    While it’s nice to see that you agree that we need to drastically reduce legal immigration, the fact still remains that known, attempted illegal crossings have totaled rather high numbers, especially in some years:

    (Graph copied from Pew Research article: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/30/u-s-border-apprehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/)

    1.5 Million Mexicans, as in the years 1986 and 2000, is not a small number. Neither is half a million combined Mexicans and non-Mexicans illegally crossing in 2014, the year of the lowest total shown.

    Admittedly those are apprehensions, not successful crossings, but the question remains: How many got through? Wouldn’t it be nice to just have something that would block everybody?

    A border wall is “Boob Bait for Bubbas” that would have stopped millions of people.

    Besides, we need a little boob bait to make the point to our own selves and future political leaders, as well as to our neighbors, that trespassing is illegal. Symbols and boob bait are part of mass communication. That is something a so-called “buffoon” like Donald Trump understands better than other types of geniuses.

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe
    • Replies: @istevefan

    A border wall is “Boob Bait for Bubbas” that would have stopped millions of people.
     
    Bill Clinton was also the one who told people that it was unnecessary to amend the Constitution to protect the institution of marriage when he was president. Instead he assured them that the Defense of Marriage Act would fit the bill.

    So any advice Clinton gives concerning the wall I'd take with a big grain of salt. Remember guys like Clinton support things that won't work, like the aforementioned DOMA or the virtual wall boondoggle, but oppose things that do, like the real wall.

    , @Mokiki
    The "other than Mexicans" get catch and release treatment. They are served an order to appear and are sent on their way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    What do the Israelis, Indians, Mexicans, Romans, and Chinese know that you don’t. You are outside your are of expertise. Most likely about 60% of California pop is illegal or direct kids of illegals

    Source my own eyes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    The current border, like the TSA, is mostly about theater of the mind. Exactly as you said, both do not get to the root of the problem: immigration. However, unlike the TSA, the Trumpian Wall is about signalling the virtue of having a border. It is basically a proxy fight about immigration.

    Build it and maybe it becomes okay to reduce immigration. Don’t build it, and it is never okay. It is a sad state of affairs – not first world politics. But I don’t really see any half-realistic approach that would get through Congress, other than possibly a wall.

    Radical solution: annex Mexico (vast majority Mexicans would approve) and try to get Hispanics to come down against Africans and Muslims. Not ideal, but perhaps a better solution than where we are heading now. I fear America is already too diverse to politically enforce a border. Europe is close to it, and I really hope they wake up to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    The wall probably will not be as effective as expected. Migrants could simply switch to boats. As long as there is demand for migrants they can fly into Canada, and there will be no wall.

    It is unpleasant but e-verify and immigration raids of business are necessary. What would also work is base representation on the number of legal residents. That would make states with large numbers of illegals pay for their upkeep. Why do immigrants get federal small business loans?

    I also think giving illegal aliens the vote in local elections would scare the b-jesus out of local immigration supporters.

    Walls are monuments to man’s stupidy – Gen. George Patton (Hollywood version)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    Because it’s low hanging fruit, also a lot of people feel they have moral validation behind them when criticizing illegal immigration because it’s illegal. People that speak out against legal immigration are mainly doing so because of the economic, demographic and social cohesion issues, but that’s racists, so that negates the argument.

    I’m not American, so I will leave it up to Americans to opine what kind of immigration system they want for their country. For Canada, I would lower immigration to around 185K per year, of that, 85 percent of the spots or so would be reserved for Europeans and the Anglosphere. The remainder should be mainly focused on groups that assimilate more readily, such as East Asian (in small – medium numbers they integrate quite well from my experience), and Christian/non-Muslim Middle Easterns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Israel’s wall gets mentioned a lot here. Something similar in the US may well protect it from hordes of future drains on the public purse. Their similarly sensible laws on gun control not so much. It would be nice to have a post on whether anything practical could be done to shut down school shootings without taking away constitutional rights and guns from the law-abiding who want to protect their cultural traditions, families and homes.

    You wouldn’t know the biggest story in recent days is seventeen kids being killed by some violent loser from reading this site, a sad and inherently predictable outrage. Trump’s proposed solution to this is not realistic, most teachers simply would not function well as armed protectors particularly the AA hires and nice white ladies.

    https://nypost.com/2018/02/15/israels-gun-control-laws-can-make-the-us-safer-too/

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > You wouldn’t know the biggest story in recent days is seventeen kids being killed by some violent loser from reading this site, a sad and inherently predictable outrage.

    I look to unz.com for commentary, so the coverage of the Parkland school shooting didn't escape me.

    > Trump’s proposed solution to this is not realistic, most teachers simply would not function well as armed protectors particularly the AA hires and nice white ladies.

    Yeah, it's a crummy idea from a policy point of view (to the extent that anybody cares about that perspective, any more). School shootings are tragic, and also very, very rare on a per-school per-year basis. Encouraging lots of teachers to carry will, predictably, lead to orders of magnitude more incidents, from Dropped Pistol With Safety Off Discharges, to Unbalanced Teacher Snaps.

    As a thought experiment, consider a program that districts could opt into. Teachers vetted by the district agree to have a gun safe placed in their homeroom. The safe can be unlocked by the teacher's key, but only after a Wifi signal is received from the school office. For that matter, Siri or Alexa could be contracted to monitor the PA system for the words "shooter on campus, this is no drill" in the principal's or vice-principal's voice.

    Such a program would have most of the upsides and few of the downsides of "arm the teachers." It's feasible with today's technology, and wouldn't be ruinously expensive.

    It's also a complete non-starter. It would be entirely unacceptable to the elites, because it doesn't support their "only gun control can save lives" narrative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    If you’re finding the software work difficult Ron, you can always try elance.com.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Nothing made we wince so much as when Trump would immediately follow his bombastic condemnation of illegal immigration with comments like: “But we *love* legal immigrants! We wanna have a BIG, beautiful gate on that wall to bring in lots of legal immigrants. I love them! Illegal bad. Legal good. Am I right folks?” Then the audience would stupidly cheer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @35 anon: "Nothing made we wince so much as when Trump would immediately follow his bombastic condemnation of illegal immigration with comments like: “But we *love* legal immigrants! We wanna have a BIG, beautiful gate on that wall to bring in lots of legal immigrants. I love them! Illegal bad. Legal good. Am I right folks?” Then the audience would stupidly cheer."

    As a survivor of my own 18 months of visa hell as an FSO, I will repeat what I've written elsewhere numerous times to no avail: The only difference between legal and illegal is three damned letters. Fake fiancees, adjusting status, overstaying and getting some cucked churchian or employer to file for you, etc. ad nauseam - in my experience and those of my peers I later discussed this with, anywhere from 75 to 95% of "legal" immigrants began as illegals. Add in clueless administrations constantly removing earlier visa restrictions for various diseases or crimes plus increasingly "diverse" FSOs to supplement and then supplant the White or (((White))) SJWs, and you have today's America 3.0 or 4.0 - a multicultural sh?thole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. The border wall is not “boob bait for bubbas”, it is the physical manifestation of the cultural confidence of the West to finally say “enough!”. It will be a powerful symbol to the American people that they can control their destiny, and will also give great succor to the English, French, Germans and others that they too can correct this great wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    What’s your point? That 1m legal immigrants + 1m criminal infiltrators = 1m legal immigrants?

    Do you even math, bro?

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    A sliver adds up over time; 20m+ living here. That’s a pretty big sliver. Let’s stop adding to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Ron is still bitter that everyone ignored his pointless stupid and untimately completely forgotten Senate run.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @anony-mouse
    E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive.

    Better yet a biometric Social Security card for every American citizen, with biometric visas for those who are visiting legally. Would have to presented at various points — when you cash a check, use a credit card, vote, get a job, buy groceries with cash, etc. — enough to make it impossible to live if you are here illegally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Maybe I should just get a chip implanted or old-fashioned bar-code on my forehead to go full "Mark-o-the-Beast", eh? We've been through this before with you Luke, yet you've learned exactly squat.

    Most of us would not care to defend our country anymore once it gets just to the level of police state that you seem to unwittingly support.

    "1984" was a novel, man - please don't mistake it for an instruction manual.
    , @Macumazahn
    Yeah, because the US Government would never use such a system to punish its critics.
    Do you think that a President Harris would hesitate to "make it impossible to live if you are" a conservative?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Illegal immigrants are entering the country. They are an expensive and destructive and murderous population in terms of policing, murder and mayhem, welfare services, etc. They have no right to be here – humanitarian and otherwise – Do whatever it takes to keep them out or remand them to their own countries. Build a wall? Dig a moat? Weaponize the border – whatever. Just keep them out – O-U-T- out!

    Give me a really good – I mean, good – reason we shouldn’t send ‘em all back. DACA – their parents brought them here when they were young and left them on my doorstep? And, now I’m responsible for them? Gee, how milquetoast can you be to believe such a foolhardy proposition. Let the children of these obviously felonious parents suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions. I should love them more than their parents? Get real!

    The USA does not need any more illegal murderers, rapists, valedictorians, engineers, computer geniuses, etc – we have enough native born to supply our needs.

    /rant

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site’s readers double combo.

    Ron’s a built up a lot of mensch points with me.
    1) I remember what Steve’s blog was like (technically-speaking) on g**gle hosting: ass.
    2) I remember years back, first reading his takedown of the myth of Ivy-League meritocracy and thinking, “who TF is this guy.
    3) Not to belabor 1), but free speech zones don’t grow on trees.

    That said, he’s wrong in immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    What you write is mostly true. It is not illegal immigration that has caused people to notice the nation changing. It is mass, legal immigration that has done that.

    However, building a wall is a necessary step in changing the mindset that we have had for the past fifty years. Prior to 1965, the US thought of itself as a European nation. Additionally, it had set about to curtail immigration, even from Europe, because the nation was essentially settled.

    The 1965 act both changed the notion that we were a European nation, and it has lead to treating immigration similar to how we treat the budget of a government department; it must forever increase year after year.

    Building the wall changes that mindset. Just like Trump has helped to change what is allowed in public discourse, building the wall makes a statement that the salad days of waltzing across the border, as though it did not exist, are done. Once this is established, it is not too much of a stretch to move on to the reduction of legal immigration.

    In fact with all this talk about the wall, Trump has done exactly that. Trump is now forcing people to discuss LEGAL immigration in the guise of the diversity lotto, chain migration, H1 visas and and overall reduction of immigration in general to improve the lot of American workers.

    So I think the wall is important in helping change the overall mindset on the total issue of immigration. At the very least it is worrying the people who should be worried that Americans are fed up with mass immigration. And it might lead to concessions in legal immigration just to prevent its construction.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Building the wall changes that mindset.
     
    Exactly.

    And this:

    Prior to 1965, the US thought of itself as a European nation. Additionally, it had set about to curtail immigration, even from Europe, because the nation was essentially settled.
     
    The nation was essentially settled. Exactly. This is hard for people to grasp, but it is key to quality of life.

    There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a people saying to themselves and to the world, "This is our land. We have settled it. It is a done deal." And it was a done deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. 4) Actually, Ron gets double points on tech from me; TUR is perfectly serviceable with images and Javashit disabled. That’s rare, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Steve, that’s a funny graph. It has two punchlines: “barrier complete” (from over 10k to 43 (forty-three)), and “barrier improved” (from 18 to 0 (zero)).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s do as Israel does:

    Let’s have an ethno-religious test for immigration. If we need “temporary workers” we should make them sign a contract promising they won’t have sexual relations with White American women. Also, get rid of birthright citizenship, and picket the houses of any activist judges who balk at these proposals. Furthermore, ostracize left-wing activists as “traitors”, “Nazis” and “set on the genocide of our people.”

    If any brown people manage to sneak through our maze of armed-guard manned, barbed wire crested, 30 foot concrete walls, we should sterilize them without their knowledge or consent.

    If a Christian woman has consensual sex with a Jewish or Muslim man because he lied and claimed he was Christian, she should then be able to sue him for rape, and he should be found guilty for misrepresenting himself.

    Most importantly, revoke the media licenses of all television and newspapers we view as undermining these policies.

    We love Israel so much, we should be just like them, and adopt these policies!

    Oh, and we should be building colonies in Mexico, with roads and utilities that are only available to Gringos, and Mexicans should have to pass through gates manned by Americans soldiers to go to and from work for American businesses, in their own country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Wouldn't a better step be to lock up and financially ruin some employers? I don't mean sentencing them to country-club prisons, either: hard time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, lives in utter ruin. Publicize it. Once you do that, the others will want to keep their money, and trip over themselves to obey immigration laws. They've gotten so spoiled and soft over the last quarter century that they might talk a good game about not collaborating with ICE at first, but they'll easily melt under some real pressure. If nobody's willing to hire you and your kids need food or a hospital appointment today rather than 3 years from now when there might be a change in the White House, then, at best, you'll have to rely off the state-and that'll be an easy issue for anti-illegal immigration people to politically exploit, reducing public sympathy for amnesty.

    There are other things you could do to help increase pressure on illegals, of course. One idea I cooked up recently is to offer cash rewards for American citizens willing to turn them over to the authorities, with the added benefits of stirring up more trouble in the Coalition of the Fringes, since I'm willing to bet many blacks or legal Hispanic immigrants (note that the majority of Hispanic immigrants who spoke English and were assimilating supported Proposition 187 with the rest of California back in the day) will take the 10,000 dollars per illegal caught over being feted by Vox, contrary to liberal dogma. But if you tackle the economic root of the issue, you'll end up having the biggest net positive, because employers will start hiring teenagers and working class people like they used to, thus somewhat alleviating how screwed up the economic system has become for those on the lower rungs. Unless you speak Spanish or have a "connection", it is hard to get your first job as a teenager these days, and since you need experience to get a job later down the line...

    Most illegals are hired by small businesses: franchise restaurant owners, residential contractors, contractors to larger companies (I worked for a large telecom in an office for years that had people I knew were illegal doing janitorial work). Make it expensive, very expensive to do that. All the way up the chain: if your contractor’s contractor even brings illegals on the property you are strictly, and jointly and severally liable.

    Employers “pretty much know” who is legal and who is not. I know that from watching.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @27 year old
    Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site's readers double combo.

    Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site’s readers double combo.

    My preference is to speak truth to (much more deserving powers) who would never in a million years create or allow a free speech platform like this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    "Free speech platform" lol yah okay.

    Veer outside of the parameters of boomer posting or ironic shitposting and see what gets through.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Buzz Mohawk
    While it's nice to see that you agree that we need to drastically reduce legal immigration, the fact still remains that known, attempted illegal crossings have totaled rather high numbers, especially in some years:

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/12/FT_14.12.26_BorderApprehensions.png

    (Graph copied from Pew Research article: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/30/u-s-border-apprehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/)

    1.5 Million Mexicans, as in the years 1986 and 2000, is not a small number. Neither is half a million combined Mexicans and non-Mexicans illegally crossing in 2014, the year of the lowest total shown.

    Admittedly those are apprehensions, not successful crossings, but the question remains: How many got through? Wouldn't it be nice to just have something that would block everybody?

    A border wall is "Boob Bait for Bubbas" that would have stopped millions of people.

    Besides, we need a little boob bait to make the point to our own selves and future political leaders, as well as to our neighbors, that trespassing is illegal. Symbols and boob bait are part of mass communication. That is something a so-called "buffoon" like Donald Trump understands better than other types of geniuses.

    A border wall is “Boob Bait for Bubbas” that would have stopped millions of people.

    Bill Clinton was also the one who told people that it was unnecessary to amend the Constitution to protect the institution of marriage when he was president. Instead he assured them that the Defense of Marriage Act would fit the bill.

    So any advice Clinton gives concerning the wall I’d take with a big grain of salt. Remember guys like Clinton support things that won’t work, like the aforementioned DOMA or the virtual wall boondoggle, but oppose things that do, like the real wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fabian Forge
    I wish I could remember who first wrote, "The argument about the wall is not about the effectiveness of the wall. It's about the right of the US to build the wall."

    And that is why we have to build it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @istevefan
    What you write is mostly true. It is not illegal immigration that has caused people to notice the nation changing. It is mass, legal immigration that has done that.

    However, building a wall is a necessary step in changing the mindset that we have had for the past fifty years. Prior to 1965, the US thought of itself as a European nation. Additionally, it had set about to curtail immigration, even from Europe, because the nation was essentially settled.

    The 1965 act both changed the notion that we were a European nation, and it has lead to treating immigration similar to how we treat the budget of a government department; it must forever increase year after year.

    Building the wall changes that mindset. Just like Trump has helped to change what is allowed in public discourse, building the wall makes a statement that the salad days of waltzing across the border, as though it did not exist, are done. Once this is established, it is not too much of a stretch to move on to the reduction of legal immigration.

    In fact with all this talk about the wall, Trump has done exactly that. Trump is now forcing people to discuss LEGAL immigration in the guise of the diversity lotto, chain migration, H1 visas and and overall reduction of immigration in general to improve the lot of American workers.

    So I think the wall is important in helping change the overall mindset on the total issue of immigration. At the very least it is worrying the people who should be worried that Americans are fed up with mass immigration. And it might lead to concessions in legal immigration just to prevent its construction.

    Building the wall changes that mindset.

    Exactly.

    And this:

    Prior to 1965, the US thought of itself as a European nation. Additionally, it had set about to curtail immigration, even from Europe, because the nation was essentially settled.

    The nation was essentially settled. Exactly. This is hard for people to grasp, but it is key to quality of life.

    There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a people saying to themselves and to the world, “This is our land. We have settled it. It is a done deal.” And it was a done deal.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic, Hubbub
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Reminds me of this piece on the Israeli wall with the West Bank written some years ago (when Slate wasn’t completely insane):

    Here’s one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don’t always make good neighbors. It didn’t happen in the West Bank, and it probably won’t happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.

    As America debates the question of erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, two precedents are mentioned by proponents and opponents: the Berlin wall and the Israeli barrier. The former is usually the negative example, the latter the more practical illustration. Most calculations of the projected cost of a U.S. fence cite the Israeli model: “[B]ased on the price of the Israeli security barrier,” the National Journal estimated that 2,000 miles of fence will cost the United States $6.4 billion.

    But a real calculation is much more complicated than just multiplying the Israeli cost per mile by the number of miles on the American border. It is trickier for technical reasons like terrain and climate and the number and cost of high-tech devices involved. But first and foremost, the cost depends on what kind of fence the United States would want on its border. What kind of investment would Washington make to keep the fence efficient? How high should it be? What are its planners’ expectations? How many guards will be on hand to keep it up and running?

    The Israeli West Bank barrier, when finished, will run for more than 400 miles and will consist of trenches, security roads, electronic fences, and concrete walls. Its main goal is to stop terrorists from detonating themselves in restaurants and cafes and buses in the cities and towns of central Israel. So, planners set the bar very high: It is intended to prevent every single attempt to cross it. The rules of engagement were written accordingly. If someone trying to cross the fence in the middle of the night is presumed to be a terrorist, there’s no need to hesitate before shooting. To kill.

    As such, the Israeli fence is very efficient. The number of fatalities from terror attacks within Israel dropped from more than 130 in 2003 to fewer than 25 in 2005. The number of bombings fell from dozens to fewer than 10. The cost for Israel is in money and personnel; the cost for Palestinians is in unemployment, health, frustration, and blood. The demographic benefit—keeping out the Palestinians—is just another positive side effect for the Israelis.

    No wonder the fence is considered a good deal by those living on its western side. But applying this model to the U.S.-Mexico border will not be easy. U.S. citizens will find it hard to justify such tough measures when their only goal is to stop people coming in for work—rather than preventing them from trying to commit murder. And the cost will be more important. It’s much easier to open your wallet when someone is threatening to blow up your local cafe.

    Still, some of the lessons from the Israeli experience apply. The first is one opponents don’t like to hear: A wisely planned fence is capable of preventing almost every attempt to enter a country illegally.

    When Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano declares, “You show me a 50-foot wall, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border,” the answer is fairly straightforward: You show me a 51-foot ladder, and I’ll show you a guardsman standing on the other side of the wall waiting to arrest the person using it. The fence is not the only thing keeping people from entering. The fence has just two objectives: slowing the intruders and making them visible to members of the border patrol. The rest of the work is done by human beings.

    And generally speaking, this is the biggest lesson. It’s not the fence, stupid—it is the decisions that the planners make. How tough are you willing to be with illegals? How much money do you want to spend? How important is it to maintain good relations with the towns on the Mexican side of the border? How sympathetic are you to would-be border crossers’ needs and desires?

    The more you answer these questions the Israeli way, the more unbeatable your fence will be. But don’t forget: Years of terror attacks hardened Israelis’ hearts toward their neighbors (just as years of occupation hardened Palestinians’ hearts toward Israelis). This brought them to a point where they were ready to do whatever it took to make the bloodshed stop. So, here’s an easy way to figure out if an American fence will work: Measure the anger and despair. Has it grown big enough to make that same commitment?

    A problem with using West Bank wall as a talking point is its (probable) illegality. Mind you, it’s irrelevant to the argument (the barrier could follow the Green line perfectly and its effectiveness would still be same for Israelis within the pre-1967 borders), but these are often far leftist open border fanatics, so it would trigger them and they would through it back in your face.

    Some people might actually like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    This is about the Sinai fence. The (incomplete and only semi-successful) West Bank fence is a different issue, built with a different rationale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Mr. Unz, think of it this way: Even if a wall didn’t work, it injures our ideological enemies enormously (cutting through skin, fat and muscle and nicking the bone). It’s an ugly scar across the face of Aztlan. It’s law-and-order reified, as in olde English times when a traitor’s head was mounted on the Bridge of London to rot in public view.

    It would be great be if Netanyahu volunteered to chip in $2 billion, as a way to share Israel’s know-how and to say to the USA ‘thank you for your support.” Admitting guilt on the USS Liberty would be too much, so I won’t suggest that to Mr. Netanyahu.

    As a token of appreciation, the US Government should donate that Ellis Island plaque to the Herzl Museum, as it is a relic of Zionism. It belongs in a museum!

    Or would you have a GOP president break his signature campaign promise like “wobbly” George H.W. Bush?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Actually, I think it's possible a wall will hurt us. If the wall is only partially-finished, or is built incompetently, or is unmanned/unsupported after being built, or any number of other things, it won't work as advertised. Will people then say, "hey, Israel's wall worked, so let's look at ours and see how to fix it"? No. They'll say, "hey, we tried your stupid wall, and all we got was $25 billion down the drain. Lots of immigrants are still coming in."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @istevefan

    A border wall is “Boob Bait for Bubbas” that would have stopped millions of people.
     
    Bill Clinton was also the one who told people that it was unnecessary to amend the Constitution to protect the institution of marriage when he was president. Instead he assured them that the Defense of Marriage Act would fit the bill.

    So any advice Clinton gives concerning the wall I'd take with a big grain of salt. Remember guys like Clinton support things that won't work, like the aforementioned DOMA or the virtual wall boondoggle, but oppose things that do, like the real wall.

    I wish I could remember who first wrote, “The argument about the wall is not about the effectiveness of the wall. It’s about the right of the US to build the wall.”

    And that is why we have to build it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Please, everyone, including Mr Unz, read the article Mr. Sailer linked to. Westley Parker gave numerous examples with lots of pictures that can be worth 1,000 comments.

    Just one example, a just > 100 mile Hungarian 13′ fence cost $1 million per mile. That happens to be what Peak Stupidity gave as an order-of-magnitude estimate as in comparison to interstate highway mileage a year back. However, PS was figuring on a double fence with road type. I could see it being double, but there are economies of scale that can come in when a job becomes an order of magnitude bigger, but no more complex. (Yeah, the US Feral government introduces un-economies of scale too …)

    Let’s just quintuple it to $5,000,000/mile. At, 2,000 miles (neglecting to subtract the inaccessible that really don’t need the barrier), we get a nice round $10,000,000,000 figure, which the US Feral gov’t spends in one day, working it’s ass of at that process.

    Hey, even given Mr. Unz’s rectally extracted figures on the exact number of illegal aliens that enter the country, why not give it a go, and forego 1 day’s spending? The occasional Moslem terrorist you may block once per month is just a nice bonus.

    Directly from the VDare article:

    Construction:

    Results:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Luke Lea
    Better yet a biometric Social Security card for every American citizen, with biometric visas for those who are visiting legally. Would have to presented at various points -- when you cash a check, use a credit card, vote, get a job, buy groceries with cash, etc. -- enough to make it impossible to live if you are here illegally.

    Maybe I should just get a chip implanted or old-fashioned bar-code on my forehead to go full “Mark-o-the-Beast”, eh? We’ve been through this before with you Luke, yet you’ve learned exactly squat.

    Most of us would not care to defend our country anymore once it gets just to the level of police state that you seem to unwittingly support.

    “1984″ was a novel, man – please don’t mistake it for an instruction manual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    It is quite a leap from everyone being able to easily prove they have a legal right to work and to be in theiscountry and living in a police state.

    Which is not to say that real legal safeguards would not have to be built into such a system of information. But that is something we are going to have to do anyway, and are beginning to do already, in this new age of Google and the NSA . Just because the potential for tyranny exist using modern information technology does not mean we have to become like China.

    Anyway, as a first step the whole issue needs to be explored very carefully, and very publically, rather than being reacted to in a fit of paranoiac horror.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. OT: NPR was talking “gun control” today. They had a pretty good trio on the issue of arming teachers. I for one have no dog in that fight; I’m extremely pro-2nd, but I just don’t see any quick answer to whether programs meant to arm teachers in the classroom are a good idea. But I was impressed with how well-spoken the guy from Pennsylvania advocating the idea was. He outclassed his opponents easily.

    They had a couple of quotes from “millennials” about “gun control” and one stuck out as especially stupid. It went something like, “I can understand wanting a hunting rifle, or a handgun, but not these assault rifles that fire high-caliber bullets through walls and armor and stuff.” I guess ignorance goes with the territory for the young, so they just parrot leftist stupidity.

    Facts:

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively *low-powered* rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum. One of the main reasons for this is that box-fed semi-auto rifles need lower-powered rounds to reduce recoil and thus take the greatest advantage from semi-auto firing rates. Also, the rounds are lighter, keeping the weight of the weapon lower, for better handling and lessened shooter fatigue.

    If you want a rifle round with the best penetration, you’re going to have to shop in the hunting rifle section.

    IIRC, 5.56 is actually *banned* for hunting large game in many jurisdictions, because it doesn’t reliably kill the animal; it’s considered inhumane to use a round with such a low chance of a one-hit-kill.

    This is why people grow out of leftism; because it’s stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    There have also been multiple sightings of the idea that a pistol would be useless against a rifle because apparently the guns know each others' sizes and are very self-conscious.
    , @International Jew

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively low-powered rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    They're low-powered relative to what hunters use on deer, yes, but these two you mentioned deliver about three times the energy of what is considered high-powered ammo for semi-auto pistols:
    http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bullet-kinetic-energy.php

    If you don't mind my saying so, it's surprising to meet a pathological antisemite who apparently isn't into guns.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out. If we do not build the wall now it will certainly be built then, but by that time it will be too late for it to serve its primary purpose of protecting American lives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels...
     
    Lately people are trying to argue that since there has been a reduction in immigration from Mexico, some even say a net negative one at that, we should no longer worry about a wall because the emigration from Mexico has already taken place and it is unnecessary.

    But I think you are correct to worry about Mexico 5 years and more down the road. It seems no matter how many factories they build in Mexico, it will always be one earthquake, hurricane, or political crisis away from a massive emigration. To just look at the last few years and conclude that Mexico is no longer a threat to our southern border is willfully ignorant.
    , @Clyde
    Another great reason to build The Wall.

    in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out.
     
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I stood upon the bank of the river:
    And, behold, there came up out of the river seven cattle, fat-fleshed and well favored;
    and they fed in a meadow:
    And, behold, seven other cattle came up after them, poor and very ill favored and lean-fleshed
    And the lean and the ill favored cattle did eat up the first seven fat cattle:
    And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning.
    So I awoke.

    The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. How much would it cost to use the engineering resources of the Defense Department (100 battalions) to build the fence with sensors?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    How much would it cost to use the engineering resources of the Defense Department (100 battalions) to build the fence with sensors?
     
    Very little marginal cost since we are paying them whether they sit on their butts or actually do some engineering work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category.

    Photo or it didn’t happen. Seriously, where are the statistics and explanation for this. There is something fishy here. It’s like gun killing stats that include suicides, but fail to mention that.

    First of all “if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category.” This is a huge difference. Ten percent can support the other ninety percent. This kind of difference tends to obey a power law. You’re saying something like “The Unz Review hardly gets any traffic at all if you exclude the most popular 10 percent of the pages and only count the long tail.”

    Secondly, numbers, please.

    Thirdly, are we talking about “legal” immigrants like immediate family, spouses and fiancees, and the class of we-give-up-here’s-a-green-card “legal” immigrant that was common in the Obama administration, where people were known and registered with immigration, but they never got around to expelling them from the country?

    Fourtly, “immigrant” is a term of art in law, and it has a specific meaning, someone with an “immigrant visa” (see state.gov). Are you including people who are “legal” because they have what United States law calls a “non-immigrant” visa, like an H-2B or a student visa? I hate to state the obvious, but non-immigrants are not immigrants. By definition in the law a non-immigrant visa holder must have the intent to return home. To get an immigrant visa, in principle, a non-immigrant needs to return home and visa the U.S. embassy or consulate in his native country to apply for an immigrant visa. You cannot apply from U.S. soil, in principle. This principle has been eroded by many one-time exceptions, but we should return to the principle. People who cannot return home to apply for an immigrant visa withoug thier lives falling apart are losers and liers, and we don’t want them.

    Fifthly, your “illegal immigrants” or illegal alians, are 100 percent from Mexicco and central America. Legal immigrants come from all over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. The graph shows that there is a “last mile” benefit in wall construction, at least in Israel, as in dike construction in the Netherlands. You just funnel the illegals through a smaller hole until the wall is completed. But the geographical realities of the Mexican-United States border are such that not all miles are equal, and remote desert locations are less likely to attract illegals, so I think things would improve on closer to a linear basis in the U.S.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Wilkey
    The essence of every conversation I've ever had with an open borders nutjob:

    "We need a border wall"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to ban them from having driver's licenses"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to deny them from in-state tuition at public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to bar their children from public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "Clearly you don't believe in securing our borders against illegal immigration"
    "No, I totally do. But those things won't work"

    "Alright, tell we what policies you would implement to secure our borders"
    {Crickets}

    Just remember, the things that they say won’t work usually do work which is why they tell us they won’t. They don’t want to curb the problem so the best thing for them to do is to prevent any solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A wall for the record (well, a more militarized wall than most, but still):

    Moroccan Western Sahara Wall:

    “…approximately 2,700 km (1,700 mi) long structure, mostly a sand wall (or “berm”), running through Western Sahara and the southeastern portion of Morocco…

    … sand and stone walls or berms about 3 m (10 ft) in height, with bunkers, fences and landmines throughout. The barrier minebelt that runs along the structure is thought to be the longest continuous minefield in the world

    …radar masts and other electronic surveillance equipment scan the areas in front…

    …A series of overlapping fixed and mobile radars are also positioned throughout…

    …The radars are estimated to have a range of between 60 and 80 km (37 and 50 mi)…

    … six lines of berms have been constructed…

    …The main (“external”) line of fortifications extends for about 2,500 km (1,600 mi)

    …In the summer of 2005, the Moroccan Army accelerated the expulsion (started in late 2004) of illegal immigrants detained in northern Morocco to the eastern side of the wall, into the Free Zone

    …Western attention to the wall, and to the Moroccan annexation of the Western Sahara in general, has been minimal, apart from Spain…”

    Al Jazerra (or at least Hannah McNeish) is on the case:

    “Western Sahara’s struggle for freedom cut off by a wall: Tucked away behind the second-largest wall in the world, an African independence struggle forgotten by the world.”, Hannah McNeish, Al Jazerra, 05 Jun 2015:

    “…the millions of land mines surrounding the Berm have wounded at least 2,500 people.”

    “Life behind the Sahara desert ‘wall of shame’, AFP, Daily Mail, 7 February 2017:

    “…It has been dubbed the world’s oldest functioning security barrier…

    …”It’s one of the longest walls in the world and it has tightly sealed off Western Sahara,”…

    …both Morocco and the Polisario planted mines in the region. According to various estimates between five million and 10 million mines are still there…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Israelis can have a wall that works, because, well, you know, but you Bubbas are too stupid to even think about it.

    Just listen to your intellectual and moral betters, while we selflessly work this all out for you.

    You could say we are practically martyring ourselves for your benefit.

    After all, you wouldn’t know how to look out for your own best interests.

    We’re doing it all for you. Trust us or be a hater.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @nebulafox
    Wouldn't a better step be to lock up and financially ruin some employers? I don't mean sentencing them to country-club prisons, either: hard time, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, lives in utter ruin. Publicize it. Once you do that, the others will want to keep their money, and trip over themselves to obey immigration laws. They've gotten so spoiled and soft over the last quarter century that they might talk a good game about not collaborating with ICE at first, but they'll easily melt under some real pressure. If nobody's willing to hire you and your kids need food or a hospital appointment today rather than 3 years from now when there might be a change in the White House, then, at best, you'll have to rely off the state-and that'll be an easy issue for anti-illegal immigration people to politically exploit, reducing public sympathy for amnesty.

    There are other things you could do to help increase pressure on illegals, of course. One idea I cooked up recently is to offer cash rewards for American citizens willing to turn them over to the authorities, with the added benefits of stirring up more trouble in the Coalition of the Fringes, since I'm willing to bet many blacks or legal Hispanic immigrants (note that the majority of Hispanic immigrants who spoke English and were assimilating supported Proposition 187 with the rest of California back in the day) will take the 10,000 dollars per illegal caught over being feted by Vox, contrary to liberal dogma. But if you tackle the economic root of the issue, you'll end up having the biggest net positive, because employers will start hiring teenagers and working class people like they used to, thus somewhat alleviating how screwed up the economic system has become for those on the lower rungs. Unless you speak Spanish or have a "connection", it is hard to get your first job as a teenager these days, and since you need experience to get a job later down the line...

    There is a certain karma to employment verification. The employers that use illegal labor have a very good idea of who they are hiring and many go out of their way to hire as many as they can to underbid their competitors. As a result, these companies gain a huge competitive advantage because they are hiring a disposable labor force and will swell up and dominate while the Americans languish. I sell employee benefits so I painfully know of what I am saying. I have lost so many hundreds of thousands of dollars over my career because of entire industries such as restaurants, drywall installers, senior home care, etc. have had the bottom dropped out of the wage scale. The spit in the eye is that these are the same bums that show up at the ER room for their free health care.

    These companies have perfected the art of bitching about E-Verify has too many false positives or ultimately the computer that cross checks the SS# and TI# is actually racist. The same computer that checks the identical numbers to collect taxes is “progressive”.

    The companies that will be harmed by E-Verify are the exact sames ones that have benefited by cheating. Without disposable labor, these companies will atrophy to where they should have been all along. Karma is a bitch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    It was Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the expression “boob bait for bubba” in regard to Bill Clinton’s 1992 pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” Clinton never said it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Apparently the Mexican El Presidente is pretty peeved about Trump’s wall – so much so that he’s refusing to visit the White House.

    Sarah Palin was mocked for saying you could see Russia from some parts of Alaska, but the Left is totally understanding when a president of Mexico gets his panties in a wad over a wall he’ll never be able to see from Mexico City.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Sarah Palin was mocked for saying you could see Russia from some parts of Alaska...
     
    Palin did not say that. Tina Fey said it playing Palin on SNL.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noSw5iZ8fLA

    But your recollection is now the received Truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Ron, thanks for The Unz Review. President Trump, where’s my Wall?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Walls have always worked….the efficacy of walls, should always be discussed later, in history :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Mindset?

    Mexican wall=Maginot Line

    Canada=Ardennes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Is the Wall an impractical scheme?
    Concrete and barbed wire, it would seem,
    Always work like a charm;
    And their only real harm
    Is awakening some from a dream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    One reason opponents of the wall don’t want it built is that they have staked so much rhetorical capital telling everyone it won’t work that if it does, it will diminish the other specious arguments they have offered. It will either work or it won’t. They could build a test section but I think we all know what will happen; it will work and the illegals will cross somewhere else.

    While I am at it, most of the illegals that end up on the news for killing or harming innocent Americans usually have been deported and then reentered many times. NONE of them flew here or took a boat and then over stayed a visa which is part of the selection process. They are youngish physically fit single men who just went far enough out into the desert where everybody knows you can cross unhindered. A continuous wall will keep out the worst of the illegals and we will save many lives and the expense of all the collateral damage they cause.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    There is a wall in California/Yuma that drastically cut down illegal entries that has worked amazingly well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    “Boob bait for Bubbas” posted from one of the most expensive zip codes in the country.

    Tell me about your house with no door, Ron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Wilkey
    "E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive."

    And fining employers, as well. Leftists complain that Republicans don't want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either.

    They want the illegals, and they don't want any program that would actually get rid of them or stop them from coming.

    Leftists complain that Republicans don’t want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either

    Ha! Forty years ago Cesar Chavez was told to shut up about it by Hispanic activists, who had a lot less power then than now. And he did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Intelligent Dasein
    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out. If we do not build the wall now it will certainly be built then, but by that time it will be too late for it to serve its primary purpose of protecting American lives.

    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels…

    Lately people are trying to argue that since there has been a reduction in immigration from Mexico, some even say a net negative one at that, we should no longer worry about a wall because the emigration from Mexico has already taken place and it is unnecessary.

    But I think you are correct to worry about Mexico 5 years and more down the road. It seems no matter how many factories they build in Mexico, it will always be one earthquake, hurricane, or political crisis away from a massive emigration. To just look at the last few years and conclude that Mexico is no longer a threat to our southern border is willfully ignorant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Indeed. I think the key here is to realize that the "immigration debate" as we've all known it for so long is never going to be resolved within the currently accepted framework, but will rather be superceded by a paradigmatic shift in the salient facts.

    Mexico has no viable future as a political entity. Already its survival has depended for years on the largess of the United States, which has provided the market for its agricultural and mineral exports and, through its absorption of cheap Mexican labor, has acted as both a check on Mexican wage decreases and a valuable source of remittances.

    Is it any wonder that the Mexican government agitates so fiercely for open borders with the United States? What sort of government would actually want its labor---its very people, the ultimate source of its wealth and strength---migrating out of the country to live and work someplace else? Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else's problem. Mexico does both.

    In no wise is any of this beneficial to the American people. It only serves as a short term benefit to the class interests of the oligarchs who, through their unquestioned control of both the bureaucracy and the press, have managed to make it the de facto law of the land and to promote it as the public good. The Mexican emigres themselves are mere objects in a scheme of financial repression that they neither perceive nor comprehend. The American upper class has achieved a practical agreement with the Mexican upper class for an arrangement that aligns the elites of both countries against the interests of the peoples of each.

    That the emigres in the United States often make a show of being, and indeed feel themselves to be, "patriotic Mexicans" is nothing but an effect of elite propaganda, which must at all costs keep the colonists from going native lest the source of remittances dry up and their value as an exploitable underclass be negated. They have been conditioned to feel a nationalistic pride for a nation that has no use for them. To this end, the artificially contrived notion of an Hispanic "race," which exists in conscious opposition to the America "white" race, has been an invaluable tool. In reality, and to echo Marx, the interests of the White working class and of the Mexican working class are the same; but, not to echo Marx, that interest is served not by international communism but by a sincerely practiced nationalism in the respective countries. Mexican nationalism as practiced in America is artificial, but a Mexican nationalism practiced in Mexico would be genuine and respectable. An interesting question to ask one familiar with Mexico is, "Does there exist in Mexico a Far-Right/Traditionalist movement that is opposed to Mexican emigration on these grounds? If so, I should like to know more about them.

    But to return to the original point, the failure of the Mexican state is both inevitable and, for the citizens of America, extremely dangerous unless we can take some measure to prevent the poverty and chaos from surging across our southern border. This can only be accomplished by a wall, and not just any wall but an imposing and defensible military barrier. The idea that we must use E-Verify and interior enforcement to remove the economic incentives for illegal immigration is certainly true, but it is a debate for yesterday, a train that has already left the station. The true task of tomorrow is to fortify the border against determined incursions by armed and violent militias and the endless hordes of refugees in their wake. This is no longer a matter of factory jobs disappearing from the Midwest, but of territorial invasion, loss of sovereignty, and loss of life.

    It is no longer advisable to cloak these concerns in the cryptic terminology of wage depression or even solicitude for a disappearing American "culture." Events are bringing the concrete facts of possession and existence to the fore. That is what the border wall is really about. Sovereignty is ultimately the ability to assert control over territory. It can be more, but it certainly cannot be less. In response to the complaint that God did not make borders, we must assert that God made borders as soon as he made free-moving life. Every animal from the roving tiger down to the paramecium knows the difference between "mine" and "yours," which is identical with its very living activity, and none can tolerate a rival in its own domain. The choice before us is not between a border wall and no border wall, but between a wall that can act as a protective shield or one hastily thrown up as defensive scar. The future aspect of the nation will forever depend on the timeliness of our decision. Beauty preserved or disfigurement endured, the burden or the blessing will be ours to bear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Yan Shen
    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I've been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn't from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It's like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can't make him think...

    Now I'm not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at many of the comments here...

    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I’ve been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    Complete horseshit. You don’t understand a thing about economics.

    Most of the U.S. job losses in manufacturing in the eighties was due to productivity gains.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Classical Liberal
    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel's border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn't a history of migration there aren't people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    No history of migration between Egypt and Israel? There’s a whole book of the Bible about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Svigor
    OT: NPR was talking "gun control" today. They had a pretty good trio on the issue of arming teachers. I for one have no dog in that fight; I'm extremely pro-2nd, but I just don't see any quick answer to whether programs meant to arm teachers in the classroom are a good idea. But I was impressed with how well-spoken the guy from Pennsylvania advocating the idea was. He outclassed his opponents easily.

    They had a couple of quotes from "millennials" about "gun control" and one stuck out as especially stupid. It went something like, "I can understand wanting a hunting rifle, or a handgun, but not these assault rifles that fire high-caliber bullets through walls and armor and stuff." I guess ignorance goes with the territory for the young, so they just parrot leftist stupidity.

    Facts:

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively *low-powered* rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56x45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum. One of the main reasons for this is that box-fed semi-auto rifles need lower-powered rounds to reduce recoil and thus take the greatest advantage from semi-auto firing rates. Also, the rounds are lighter, keeping the weight of the weapon lower, for better handling and lessened shooter fatigue.

    If you want a rifle round with the best penetration, you're going to have to shop in the hunting rifle section.

    IIRC, 5.56 is actually *banned* for hunting large game in many jurisdictions, because it doesn't reliably kill the animal; it's considered inhumane to use a round with such a low chance of a one-hit-kill.

    This is why people grow out of leftism; because it's stupid.

    There have also been multiple sightings of the idea that a pistol would be useless against a rifle because apparently the guns know each others’ sizes and are very self-conscious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. OT
    It was previously believed that Garrison Keillor was accused of sexual harassment and fired for accidentally touching a coworker’s bare back through a hole in her dress. However, it’s now come out that he was accused of harassment for exchanging romantic emails with the same woman.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/keillor-relationship-accuser-simply-romantic-writing-53333818

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    They both shared wishes or fantasies of being intimate, sometimes in detail.

    It was little more than a mutual exchange of randy emails.

    The woman responded, via her attorney, that Keillor's power over her job made her afraid to say no to him.

    Some women are such craven, pathetic creatures.

    MPR has removed archived Keillor shows from its website and no longer rebroadcasts shows he hosted. It also ended broadcasts of "The Writer's Almanac," his daily reading of literary events and a poem. Talks between Keillor and MPR over transitioning their business relationship have gone nowhere since early January.

    Some organizations/leadership cadres as well -- they immediately and absolutely un-personed him over little more than a flimsy allegation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Svigor
    OT: NPR was talking "gun control" today. They had a pretty good trio on the issue of arming teachers. I for one have no dog in that fight; I'm extremely pro-2nd, but I just don't see any quick answer to whether programs meant to arm teachers in the classroom are a good idea. But I was impressed with how well-spoken the guy from Pennsylvania advocating the idea was. He outclassed his opponents easily.

    They had a couple of quotes from "millennials" about "gun control" and one stuck out as especially stupid. It went something like, "I can understand wanting a hunting rifle, or a handgun, but not these assault rifles that fire high-caliber bullets through walls and armor and stuff." I guess ignorance goes with the territory for the young, so they just parrot leftist stupidity.

    Facts:

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively *low-powered* rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56x45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum. One of the main reasons for this is that box-fed semi-auto rifles need lower-powered rounds to reduce recoil and thus take the greatest advantage from semi-auto firing rates. Also, the rounds are lighter, keeping the weight of the weapon lower, for better handling and lessened shooter fatigue.

    If you want a rifle round with the best penetration, you're going to have to shop in the hunting rifle section.

    IIRC, 5.56 is actually *banned* for hunting large game in many jurisdictions, because it doesn't reliably kill the animal; it's considered inhumane to use a round with such a low chance of a one-hit-kill.

    This is why people grow out of leftism; because it's stupid.

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively low-powered rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.

    They’re low-powered relative to what hunters use on deer, yes, but these two you mentioned deliver about three times the energy of what is considered high-powered ammo for semi-auto pistols:

    http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bullet-kinetic-energy.php

    If you don’t mind my saying so, it’s surprising to meet a pathological antisemite who apparently isn’t into guns.

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Anonym

    The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    Svigor is correct. In fact the only rifle caliber round listed of less energy on the page you linked to, the 17 Remington, is only suitable for varmints.

    The 5.56mm round (v. Similar to .223) as used in the AR-15 was designed specifically to be basically the lightest round that would still be lethal enough out to a certain range, used in an assault rifle. A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.

    It is kind of immaterial though in the class room, not many kids come to school wearing level IV armor. It's a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.
    , @Old Jew
    Also:

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.

    Svigor is revealing new aspects of his personality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Pincher Martin

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.
     
    It's not true, Ron. And repeating it doesn't make it any truer.

    While a substantial proportion of illegals - probably around 60 percent, according to the last figures I saw - legally enter the United States and then overstay their visas, that still leaves a large percentage who have to illegally enter the United States.

    Not everyone can get a visa to the U.S. They're too poor or they have criminal records or they have something else that sends up a red flag at our consulates. Many of these people who can't secure a U.S. visa (but not all) come through our southern border.

    If you had any common sense, Ron, it would tell you that the people who have to illegally enter the U.S. are either 1) more likely to be a higher risk to engage in criminal activity than someone who gets a visa and then overstays and/or 2) to be desperately poor and therefore a larger burden to the country than someone who gets a visa and then overstays. They're also more likely to be taken advantage of by criminal syndicates.

    Smart restrictionists want both a wall *and* E-verify. But we need the wall to curb those who are interested in coming to the U.S. not for jobs, but to engage in either criminal activities or the shadow economy.

    If you had any common sense, Ron, it would tell you that the people who have to illegally enter the U.S. are either 1) more likely to be a higher risk to engage in criminal activity than someone who gets a visa and then overstays and/or 2) to be desperately poor and therefore a larger burden to the country than someone who gets a visa and then overstays. They’re also more likely to be taken advantage of by criminal syndicates.

    As a generalization this is true. The illegal aliens who got here as visa over stayers are a more desirable population than the border jumpers. They have more money and education. But a big but…. Many via overstayers came here as a form of chain migration. Their existing family in the US has sponsored them to immigrate but no one was willing to wait the five to ten years it takes for legal approval as part of say the Philippines legal quota. So Filipino X comes here on a visa and never leaves. Most of family reunification aka chain migration is low class 3rd world people bringing in other low class family members. So low class that Ron Unz is somewhat correct that they are on the same level as border jumpers. With similar welfare usage and high school drop out rates.
    Reminder – If you want to bring in ma and pa to retire here even though they never put money into the SS system, then ma and pa have to be brought here legally. The Chinese are specialists in this. Norman Matloff has criticized this for 25 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    We have never before seen so many of our leaders in government, media and business fight so hard against a budget item that would cost about as much as what our government spends in ten weeks on EBT cards.

    That’s right, Trump’s request of $18 billion is equal to the amount of our tax money that our government hands out every two-and-a-half months to our welfare class in the form of debit cards. So why does it matter so damn much to the elites who are opposed to it? Why does it bother them so much? Why are they trying so hard to convince us not to do this?

    Why are they shouting so loudly that it will not significantly reduce the inflow of Latin Americans?

    They do protest too much, methinks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Border walls are facts on the ground. Are more difficult for those who come after Trump to tamper with. Such as future judges and Presidents ruling against E-Verify and other administrative measures. Border walls and fences say you are a serious nation.
    BYW Trump better start stacking as many Federal judges as possible because the Democrats game plan is to judicially nullify Trumps Executive Orders while not a single one of Obama's was touched. Not even DACA ultimately. Dems game plan is to do the same to all future Republican President too.
    , @anon

    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?
     
    Because, why waste $20 billion building a wall here, when we could send it to build Israeli settlements in Palestine?
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    The conservative answer is that $18 billion is still a lot of money (and you had better quadruple that sum since we are talking about a government project).

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude. The number one point people are ignoring - Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel, or Syrian refugees and Afghan migrants trying to get into Hungary. The Mexicans will build tunnels, they will bribe guards, they will kill guards, they will probably even demolish parts of the wall at night. We would probably be better off just invading Mexico and dismantling the cartels.

    Actually, as I write this I may have convinced myself that a wall is a reasonable first step. But it has to be combined with an attack on the cartels to actually work, which means stopping the flow of money and guns from the US southwards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Nigerian Nationalist

    "built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants."
     
    *Sigh* Steve. You have a blindspot once the word "African" is involved.

    Now unless the map in high IQ land is different, I'm pretty sure that Israel has Egypt as a buffer. Also, why doesn't Egypt have immigration problems? or do they?

    But I digress, the difference between them and your people is that folks who think like this:


    https://twitter.com/normative/status/967385524347588608
     
    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you. Y'all correlate and causate.

    Politics, politics is everything. It birthed the wall, it will tear it down.

    Then again, it's possible that you're a Populist Macchiavellian giving a forum for men threatened by Black men and repressing their unrequited attraction to Black women to come and vent.

    P.S Before the usual "why do you care?" ignorance. Simple. Your Globalist elites are extremely socially Liberal, the more they're focused inwards, the higher my odds of dying with my eyes and ears shut to the peccadilloes your country exports and that's just the least of it. Our interests align, for now.

    or maybe, I'm Russian. *Evil laugh*

    Your comments are the empty suit variety same as your East African guru, the empty suit Obama. Who is more accurately described as the black empty suit. You can read more about empty black suits over here in this right wing internet greatest hit >>

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011380.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    You'll lose your country in your lifetime. No suit emptier than that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Per Wikipedia, your claim that 95% of immigration is legal is way off base:

    Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year.

    Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I think Ron's point was that a lot of the illegals arrive legally and then overstay the visa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @J.Ross
    OT
    It was previously believed that Garrison Keillor was accused of sexual harassment and fired for accidentally touching a coworker's bare back through a hole in her dress. However, it's now come out that he was accused of harassment for exchanging romantic emails with the same woman.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/keillor-relationship-accuser-simply-romantic-writing-53333818

    They both shared wishes or fantasies of being intimate, sometimes in detail.

    It was little more than a mutual exchange of randy emails.

    The woman responded, via her attorney, that Keillor’s power over her job made her afraid to say no to him.

    Some women are such craven, pathetic creatures.

    MPR has removed archived Keillor shows from its website and no longer rebroadcasts shows he hosted. It also ended broadcasts of “The Writer’s Almanac,” his daily reading of literary events and a poem. Talks between Keillor and MPR over transitioning their business relationship have gone nowhere since early January.

    Some organizations/leadership cadres as well — they immediately and absolutely un-personed him over little more than a flimsy allegation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Yes. If we prioritize women as flawless super beings, then we must indulge all their whims. What is flattering to a woman one minute is humiliating the next. Thus former lovers can be TruthMinned into anti-social harrassers who find no cubicle in the modern workplace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Buzz Mohawk
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    We have never before seen so many of our leaders in government, media and business fight so hard against a budget item that would cost about as much as what our government spends in ten weeks on EBT cards.

    That's right, Trump's request of $18 billion is equal to the amount of our tax money that our government hands out every two-and-a-half months to our welfare class in the form of debit cards. So why does it matter so damn much to the elites who are opposed to it? Why does it bother them so much? Why are they trying so hard to convince us not to do this?

    Why are they shouting so loudly that it will not significantly reduce the inflow of Latin Americans?

    They do protest too much, methinks.

    Border walls are facts on the ground. Are more difficult for those who come after Trump to tamper with. Such as future judges and Presidents ruling against E-Verify and other administrative measures. Border walls and fences say you are a serious nation.
    BYW Trump better start stacking as many Federal judges as possible because the Democrats game plan is to judicially nullify Trumps Executive Orders while not a single one of Obama’s was touched. Not even DACA ultimately. Dems game plan is to do the same to all future Republican President too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Goatweed
    How much would it cost to use the engineering resources of the Defense Department (100 battalions) to build the fence with sensors?

    How much would it cost to use the engineering resources of the Defense Department (100 battalions) to build the fence with sensors?

    Very little marginal cost since we are paying them whether they sit on their butts or actually do some engineering work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Buzz Mohawk
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    We have never before seen so many of our leaders in government, media and business fight so hard against a budget item that would cost about as much as what our government spends in ten weeks on EBT cards.

    That's right, Trump's request of $18 billion is equal to the amount of our tax money that our government hands out every two-and-a-half months to our welfare class in the form of debit cards. So why does it matter so damn much to the elites who are opposed to it? Why does it bother them so much? Why are they trying so hard to convince us not to do this?

    Why are they shouting so loudly that it will not significantly reduce the inflow of Latin Americans?

    They do protest too much, methinks.

    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    Because, why waste $20 billion building a wall here, when we could send it to build Israeli settlements in Palestine?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Intelligent Dasein
    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out. If we do not build the wall now it will certainly be built then, but by that time it will be too late for it to serve its primary purpose of protecting American lives.

    Another great reason to build The Wall.

    in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Dave Pinsen
    Per Wikipedia, your claim that 95% of immigration is legal is way off base:

    Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year.
     
    Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

    I think Ron’s point was that a lot of the illegals arrive legally and then overstay the visa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    His point is still wrong.

    A good rule of thumb is that about half of illegals are border crossers. That's no longer as true as it once was, but it's still close to true. (Last stats I saw, about forty percent of illegals came here legally; 60 percent overstay their visas.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @istevefan

    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels...
     
    Lately people are trying to argue that since there has been a reduction in immigration from Mexico, some even say a net negative one at that, we should no longer worry about a wall because the emigration from Mexico has already taken place and it is unnecessary.

    But I think you are correct to worry about Mexico 5 years and more down the road. It seems no matter how many factories they build in Mexico, it will always be one earthquake, hurricane, or political crisis away from a massive emigration. To just look at the last few years and conclude that Mexico is no longer a threat to our southern border is willfully ignorant.

    Indeed. I think the key here is to realize that the “immigration debate” as we’ve all known it for so long is never going to be resolved within the currently accepted framework, but will rather be superceded by a paradigmatic shift in the salient facts.

    Mexico has no viable future as a political entity. Already its survival has depended for years on the largess of the United States, which has provided the market for its agricultural and mineral exports and, through its absorption of cheap Mexican labor, has acted as both a check on Mexican wage decreases and a valuable source of remittances.

    Is it any wonder that the Mexican government agitates so fiercely for open borders with the United States? What sort of government would actually want its labor—its very people, the ultimate source of its wealth and strength—migrating out of the country to live and work someplace else? Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else’s problem. Mexico does both.

    In no wise is any of this beneficial to the American people. It only serves as a short term benefit to the class interests of the oligarchs who, through their unquestioned control of both the bureaucracy and the press, have managed to make it the de facto law of the land and to promote it as the public good. The Mexican emigres themselves are mere objects in a scheme of financial repression that they neither perceive nor comprehend. The American upper class has achieved a practical agreement with the Mexican upper class for an arrangement that aligns the elites of both countries against the interests of the peoples of each.

    That the emigres in the United States often make a show of being, and indeed feel themselves to be, “patriotic Mexicans” is nothing but an effect of elite propaganda, which must at all costs keep the colonists from going native lest the source of remittances dry up and their value as an exploitable underclass be negated. They have been conditioned to feel a nationalistic pride for a nation that has no use for them. To this end, the artificially contrived notion of an Hispanic “race,” which exists in conscious opposition to the America “white” race, has been an invaluable tool. In reality, and to echo Marx, the interests of the White working class and of the Mexican working class are the same; but, not to echo Marx, that interest is served not by international communism but by a sincerely practiced nationalism in the respective countries. Mexican nationalism as practiced in America is artificial, but a Mexican nationalism practiced in Mexico would be genuine and respectable. An interesting question to ask one familiar with Mexico is, “Does there exist in Mexico a Far-Right/Traditionalist movement that is opposed to Mexican emigration on these grounds? If so, I should like to know more about them.

    But to return to the original point, the failure of the Mexican state is both inevitable and, for the citizens of America, extremely dangerous unless we can take some measure to prevent the poverty and chaos from surging across our southern border. This can only be accomplished by a wall, and not just any wall but an imposing and defensible military barrier. The idea that we must use E-Verify and interior enforcement to remove the economic incentives for illegal immigration is certainly true, but it is a debate for yesterday, a train that has already left the station. The true task of tomorrow is to fortify the border against determined incursions by armed and violent militias and the endless hordes of refugees in their wake. This is no longer a matter of factory jobs disappearing from the Midwest, but of territorial invasion, loss of sovereignty, and loss of life.

    It is no longer advisable to cloak these concerns in the cryptic terminology of wage depression or even solicitude for a disappearing American “culture.” Events are bringing the concrete facts of possession and existence to the fore. That is what the border wall is really about. Sovereignty is ultimately the ability to assert control over territory. It can be more, but it certainly cannot be less. In response to the complaint that God did not make borders, we must assert that God made borders as soon as he made free-moving life. Every animal from the roving tiger down to the paramecium knows the difference between “mine” and “yours,” which is identical with its very living activity, and none can tolerate a rival in its own domain. The choice before us is not between a border wall and no border wall, but between a wall that can act as a protective shield or one hastily thrown up as defensive scar. The future aspect of the nation will forever depend on the timeliness of our decision. Beauty preserved or disfigurement endured, the burden or the blessing will be ours to bear.

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else’s problem. Mexico does both.
     
    These questions ought to be asked publicly, not only of Mexico but of all nations who are sending millions of immigrants to the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Anonym
    I think Ron's point was that a lot of the illegals arrive legally and then overstay the visa.

    His point is still wrong.

    A good rule of thumb is that about half of illegals are border crossers. That’s no longer as true as it once was, but it’s still close to true. (Last stats I saw, about forty percent of illegals came here legally; 60 percent overstay their visas.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Another point that your comment brought to my mind was, that the flow will always head toward the areas of least resistance. Tighten down on the visa overstayers, including millions of Chinese, turn the H-1B spigot off, there'll be more headed in via the southern route. That's WHY the wall or barrier MUST be built, prontomundo.

    1 DAY'S FERAL GOV'T SPENDING PEOPLE!

    (That's after a major OVER-ESTIMATE on the cost.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @International Jew

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively low-powered rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    They're low-powered relative to what hunters use on deer, yes, but these two you mentioned deliver about three times the energy of what is considered high-powered ammo for semi-auto pistols:
    http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bullet-kinetic-energy.php

    If you don't mind my saying so, it's surprising to meet a pathological antisemite who apparently isn't into guns.

    The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.

    Svigor is correct. In fact the only rifle caliber round listed of less energy on the page you linked to, the 17 Remington, is only suitable for varmints.

    The 5.56mm round (v. Similar to .223) as used in the AR-15 was designed specifically to be basically the lightest round that would still be lethal enough out to a certain range, used in an assault rifle. A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.

    It is kind of immaterial though in the class room, not many kids come to school wearing level IV armor. It’s a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.
     
    I guess someone should be clued in when he walks into homeroom like that in the morning, I dunno. Unless, he's a minority; then we may need to see some bad behavior and not assume anything - gotta keep the stats "balanced".

    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka "resource officer" could ... oh, that's right, they are supposed to wait outside.
    , @International Jew
    They left out a lot. There are a half-dozen different popular 22 rimfire cartridges out there, all lower-energy than what comes out of an AR-15.

    By the way, as a matter of basic physics the energy of a bullet is 99.999% a matter of the amount of propellant ("gunpowder") in the cartridge. The math is pretty easy.

    Let
    m = mass of bullet
    M = mass of shooter + gun
    v = velocity of bullet
    V = velocity (ie recoil) of shooter + gun.

    Your two conditions are conservation of momentum:
    MV = -mv
    and conservation of energy:
    MV^2 + mv^2 = 2k (chemical energy stored in the propellant).

    Now work out the fraction of total energy that goes into the bullet, e/(e+E). After a few manipulations (which I'm too lazy to type out here, but they're just 8th grade algebra), you arrive at

    e/(e+E) = M/(M+m)

    Which, as I said, is just a hair less than 1. (And that's if the shooter doesn't brace himself on something heavier, like the planet Earth! In real life the ratio will be 1 for all practical purposes.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Wilkey
    "E-verify all over would remove a huge incentive."

    And fining employers, as well. Leftists complain that Republicans don't want workplace enforcement, but then they never propose it as a solution, either.

    They want the illegals, and they don't want any program that would actually get rid of them or stop them from coming.

    GOPe has never wanted workplace enforcement for the predictable reasons. They sabotaged the workplace enforcement provisions of Simpson-Mazzoli. But Trump still has to work with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Clyde
    Your comments are the empty suit variety same as your East African guru, the empty suit Obama. Who is more accurately described as the black empty suit. You can read more about empty black suits over here in this right wing internet greatest hit >>
    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011380.html

    You’ll lose your country in your lifetime. No suit emptier than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    You don't have to lose Nigeria. It's been a lost chaotic dump for eons despite its oil wealth. You don't live there anyhow. You bugged out of your homeland to live in lands that white people constructed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Buzz Mohawk
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    We have never before seen so many of our leaders in government, media and business fight so hard against a budget item that would cost about as much as what our government spends in ten weeks on EBT cards.

    That's right, Trump's request of $18 billion is equal to the amount of our tax money that our government hands out every two-and-a-half months to our welfare class in the form of debit cards. So why does it matter so damn much to the elites who are opposed to it? Why does it bother them so much? Why are they trying so hard to convince us not to do this?

    Why are they shouting so loudly that it will not significantly reduce the inflow of Latin Americans?

    They do protest too much, methinks.

    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    The conservative answer is that $18 billion is still a lot of money (and you had better quadruple that sum since we are talking about a government project).

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude. The number one point people are ignoring – Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel, or Syrian refugees and Afghan migrants trying to get into Hungary. The Mexicans will build tunnels, they will bribe guards, they will kill guards, they will probably even demolish parts of the wall at night. We would probably be better off just invading Mexico and dismantling the cartels.

    Actually, as I write this I may have convinced myself that a wall is a reasonable first step. But it has to be combined with an attack on the cartels to actually work, which means stopping the flow of money and guns from the US southwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.
    , @Dmitry

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude.
     
    This is not true. The African migrants were smuggled into Israel by Bedouin gangs, who are armed, including with anti-tank missiles (which they have fired at Israeli soldiers on the fence), https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/press-releases/two-idf-soldiers-wounded-in-attack-on-the-egyptian-border/


    And who are regularly attacking the Egyptian army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

    , @Autochthon
    Mexico should have been militarily invaded and occupied long ago, just as was done in the nineteenth century, and it's government and people not let be until the border was completely militarised and secure, and the government and criminals (but I repeat myself) so thoroughly defanged as to not be bothersome to us again for another hundred years.

    Dishonoring the terms of the treaty resulting from our last invasion of Mexico, they started the most recent invasions of what used to be the U.S.A., thus, we should have finished this round of invasion for them.

    It's all arguing about who gets custody of the ashes at this point, though....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Classical Liberal
    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel's border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn't a history of migration there aren't people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy.

    Close enough. If a wall cuts crossing by 1/10; or 1/3; or 4/5; we will be ahead.

    When you are drowning, any little breath helps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Anonym
    Ron Unz coming in hot with the troll post and open contempt for his site’s readers double combo.

    My preference is to speak truth to (much more deserving powers) who would never in a million years create or allow a free speech platform like this one.

    “Free speech platform” lol yah okay.

    Veer outside of the parameters of boomer posting or ironic shitposting and see what gets through.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Veer outside of the parameters of boomer posting or ironic shitposting and see what gets through.

    I have been over it enough to have a reasonable idea of the limits. What are you really wanting to say that gets blocked, in general terms?

    Name a better, less constrained place to discuss these sort of issues with relatively intelligent people. It's very cushy here, and a lot of thought has evidently gone into how it's set out. The embedded videos and stills, embedded twitter links, the way you can check who has replied to what, the way you can follow what has been said. It is very, very well done. That's why I call it a platform. When I get frustrated that Sailer has no content, I look at what Derb or Pat have to offer, and failing that I will try out some of the other stuff on the sidebar.

    I look at the sort of Semitically-critical content that is posted, and wonder when our luck is going to run out. I am not sure why Ron does what he does (and think it would be unwise to look the gift horse in the mouth) but I take it as an olive branch and wish to reciprocate. Sometimes it is emotionally difficult with examples of Every Single Time to not get frustrated and angry but one must try. That's one of the reasons Sailer is so good, he's so level headed and matter of fact, he keeps the animal brain out of the discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Classical Liberal
    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel's border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn't a history of migration there aren't people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.

    Ha ha. I’m waiting for the paper that tells us that we are leaving quadrillion dollar bills on the sidewalk because we are not exterminating humans and replacing them with machines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Yan Shen
    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I've been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn't from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It's like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can't make him think...

    Now I'm not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at many of the comments here...

    Once again Yan Shen makes his favorite point: East Asian math skills will render them the rulers of the future.

    But by pointing out the achievements of China and Japan, you highlight that there is scant relation between immigration and economic accomplishment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Prof. Woland
    One reason opponents of the wall don't want it built is that they have staked so much rhetorical capital telling everyone it won't work that if it does, it will diminish the other specious arguments they have offered. It will either work or it won't. They could build a test section but I think we all know what will happen; it will work and the illegals will cross somewhere else.

    While I am at it, most of the illegals that end up on the news for killing or harming innocent Americans usually have been deported and then reentered many times. NONE of them flew here or took a boat and then over stayed a visa which is part of the selection process. They are youngish physically fit single men who just went far enough out into the desert where everybody knows you can cross unhindered. A continuous wall will keep out the worst of the illegals and we will save many lives and the expense of all the collateral damage they cause.

    There is a wall in California/Yuma that drastically cut down illegal entries that has worked amazingly well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    AMNESTY is what makes “legal” illegal aliens. Amnesty becomes “necessary” when enough illegals have gotten in and now are oppressed by living in the shadows.

    Crime and drugs are highest among illegal aliens.

    The sense of lawlessness that not enforcing our borders engenders leads to more immigration. Currently our own immigration bureaucrats advise immigrants on how best to game the system for themselves and the chain of tribal villagers they wish to haul behind them. Our bureaucrats sense that no one will prosecute them because no one is serious about stopping illegal immigration, illegal in all the senses that includes passing amnesties that are to have a balance that never happens and bureaucrats that advise immigrants on how to game the immigration authority. The fact is most “legal Immigration” is really illegal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Peter Akuleyev
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    The conservative answer is that $18 billion is still a lot of money (and you had better quadruple that sum since we are talking about a government project).

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude. The number one point people are ignoring - Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel, or Syrian refugees and Afghan migrants trying to get into Hungary. The Mexicans will build tunnels, they will bribe guards, they will kill guards, they will probably even demolish parts of the wall at night. We would probably be better off just invading Mexico and dismantling the cartels.

    Actually, as I write this I may have convinced myself that a wall is a reasonable first step. But it has to be combined with an attack on the cartels to actually work, which means stopping the flow of money and guns from the US southwards.

    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.
     
    If you didn't know that before Ron came along with his error-laden post, then you are woefully uninformed about immigration.

    Every restrictionist who knows his stuff knows that 1) there must be an employment verification process in place, 2) there must be more border control, and 3) there must be more restrictions on our lax legal immigration and refugee admissions.

    All three need to be addressed if we are serious about our borders and who we let into the country.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @bartok
    Mr. Unz, think of it this way: Even if a wall didn't work, it injures our ideological enemies enormously (cutting through skin, fat and muscle and nicking the bone). It's an ugly scar across the face of Aztlan. It's law-and-order reified, as in olde English times when a traitor's head was mounted on the Bridge of London to rot in public view.

    It would be great be if Netanyahu volunteered to chip in $2 billion, as a way to share Israel's know-how and to say to the USA 'thank you for your support." Admitting guilt on the USS Liberty would be too much, so I won't suggest that to Mr. Netanyahu.

    As a token of appreciation, the US Government should donate that Ellis Island plaque to the Herzl Museum, as it is a relic of Zionism. It belongs in a museum!


    Or would you have a GOP president break his signature campaign promise like "wobbly" George H.W. Bush?

    Actually, I think it’s possible a wall will hurt us. If the wall is only partially-finished, or is built incompetently, or is unmanned/unsupported after being built, or any number of other things, it won’t work as advertised. Will people then say, “hey, Israel’s wall worked, so let’s look at ours and see how to fix it”? No. They’ll say, “hey, we tried your stupid wall, and all we got was $25 billion down the drain. Lots of immigrants are still coming in.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    No. They’ll say, “hey, we tried your stupid wall, and all we got was $25 billion down the drain. Lots of immigrants are still coming in.”
     
    Actually they have already tried that. Back in 2007 they touted the "Virtual Fence" which turned out to be a complete failure. For the amount they blew on that project, they could have already constructed an Israeli-type wall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Intelligent Dasein
    We need to build the wall now because, in about 5 years, Mexico is going to be a completely failed narco-petro-state with Venezuela-like levels of social dysfunction and tens of millions of desperately poor people looking for any way out. If we do not build the wall now it will certainly be built then, but by that time it will be too late for it to serve its primary purpose of protecting American lives.

    I stood upon the bank of the river:
    And, behold, there came up out of the river seven cattle, fat-fleshed and well favored;
    and they fed in a meadow:
    And, behold, seven other cattle came up after them, poor and very ill favored and lean-fleshed
    And the lean and the ill favored cattle did eat up the first seven fat cattle:
    And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still ill favored, as at the beginning.
    So I awoke.

    The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Yan Shen
    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I've been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn't from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It's like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can't make him think...

    Now I'm not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at many of the comments here...

    This comment doesn’t make much sense. But don’t worry, Comrade Shen, it’s because you’re relative High M/Low V, I’m sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Comrade Shen is full of uhs and wells. He had a faulty teacher instructing him that this is how Americans talk? Is pedantic Shen a Chicom lite paid poster?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Anonym

    The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    Svigor is correct. In fact the only rifle caliber round listed of less energy on the page you linked to, the 17 Remington, is only suitable for varmints.

    The 5.56mm round (v. Similar to .223) as used in the AR-15 was designed specifically to be basically the lightest round that would still be lethal enough out to a certain range, used in an assault rifle. A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.

    It is kind of immaterial though in the class room, not many kids come to school wearing level IV armor. It's a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.

    It’s a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.

    I guess someone should be clued in when he walks into homeroom like that in the morning, I dunno. Unless, he’s a minority; then we may need to see some bad behavior and not assume anything – gotta keep the stats “balanced”.

    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka “resource officer” could … oh, that’s right, they are supposed to wait outside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka “resource officer” could … oh, that’s right, they are supposed to wait outside.

    Provided the shooter has the good sense to keep his head stationary, yeah, I agree. I would be just around the corner of a branch in the corridor or some other thick cover if I was going to try it because the chances of failure would be significant. I imagine a flash-bang might help.

    The other thing to do is to shoot at the legs rather than COM. If you get lucky you might sever an artery, if you at least hit flesh you might reduce his movement significantly, his ability to concentrate and will to keep finding and killing people. Some other countries actually have LEOs who practice shooting to incapacitate rather than kill, believe it or not.

    It might be worth keeping some AR-15s, M4s or similar and armor in a few key locations around the school, in heavy duty safes, keyed biometrically to all the trained teachers/staff. The CCW teachers close by either kill or divert attention from the shooter, and those further away stop at the safe and provide backup as necessary.

    , @Anonym
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/25/eye-witness-school-teacher-states-nikolas-cruz-wearing-helmet-and-body-armor/

    Actually the shooter was apparently wearing body armor, a helmet and a mask according to at least one source.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Ali Choudhury
    Israel's wall gets mentioned a lot here. Something similar in the US may well protect it from hordes of future drains on the public purse. Their similarly sensible laws on gun control not so much. It would be nice to have a post on whether anything practical could be done to shut down school shootings without taking away constitutional rights and guns from the law-abiding who want to protect their cultural traditions, families and homes.

    You wouldn't know the biggest story in recent days is seventeen kids being killed by some violent loser from reading this site, a sad and inherently predictable outrage. Trump's proposed solution to this is not realistic, most teachers simply would not function well as armed protectors particularly the AA hires and nice white ladies.

    https://nypost.com/2018/02/15/israels-gun-control-laws-can-make-the-us-safer-too/

    > You wouldn’t know the biggest story in recent days is seventeen kids being killed by some violent loser from reading this site, a sad and inherently predictable outrage.

    I look to unz.com for commentary, so the coverage of the Parkland school shooting didn’t escape me.

    > Trump’s proposed solution to this is not realistic, most teachers simply would not function well as armed protectors particularly the AA hires and nice white ladies.

    Yeah, it’s a crummy idea from a policy point of view (to the extent that anybody cares about that perspective, any more). School shootings are tragic, and also very, very rare on a per-school per-year basis. Encouraging lots of teachers to carry will, predictably, lead to orders of magnitude more incidents, from Dropped Pistol With Safety Off Discharges, to Unbalanced Teacher Snaps.

    As a thought experiment, consider a program that districts could opt into. Teachers vetted by the district agree to have a gun safe placed in their homeroom. The safe can be unlocked by the teacher’s key, but only after a Wifi signal is received from the school office. For that matter, Siri or Alexa could be contracted to monitor the PA system for the words “shooter on campus, this is no drill” in the principal’s or vice-principal’s voice.

    Such a program would have most of the upsides and few of the downsides of “arm the teachers.” It’s feasible with today’s technology, and wouldn’t be ruinously expensive.

    It’s also a complete non-starter. It would be entirely unacceptable to the elites, because it doesn’t support their “only gun control can save lives” narrative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Statistically you have about as high a chance dying from a lightning strike than from one of these mass shootings. And no I'm not joking when I say this....more Americans die every year from drowning and from car wrecks than these mass shootings...
    They are not that big a threat and any steps that can be taken to prevent them are already in place.... developed after emotional sensationalist reactions to previous shootings that frankly went nowhere.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Pincher Martin
    His point is still wrong.

    A good rule of thumb is that about half of illegals are border crossers. That's no longer as true as it once was, but it's still close to true. (Last stats I saw, about forty percent of illegals came here legally; 60 percent overstay their visas.)

    Another point that your comment brought to my mind was, that the flow will always head toward the areas of least resistance. Tighten down on the visa overstayers, including millions of Chinese, turn the H-1B spigot off, there’ll be more headed in via the southern route. That’s WHY the wall or barrier MUST be built, prontomundo.

    1 DAY’S FERAL GOV’T SPENDING PEOPLE!

    (That’s after a major OVER-ESTIMATE on the cost.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Hieronymus of Canada
    Reminds me of this piece on the Israeli wall with the West Bank written some years ago (when Slate wasn't completely insane):

    Here's one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don't always make good neighbors. It didn't happen in the West Bank, and it probably won't happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.

    As America debates the question of erecting a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, two precedents are mentioned by proponents and opponents: the Berlin wall and the Israeli barrier. The former is usually the negative example, the latter the more practical illustration. Most calculations of the projected cost of a U.S. fence cite the Israeli model: "[B]ased on the price of the Israeli security barrier," the National Journal estimated that 2,000 miles of fence will cost the United States $6.4 billion.

    But a real calculation is much more complicated than just multiplying the Israeli cost per mile by the number of miles on the American border. It is trickier for technical reasons like terrain and climate and the number and cost of high-tech devices involved. But first and foremost, the cost depends on what kind of fence the United States would want on its border. What kind of investment would Washington make to keep the fence efficient? How high should it be? What are its planners' expectations? How many guards will be on hand to keep it up and running?

    The Israeli West Bank barrier, when finished, will run for more than 400 miles and will consist of trenches, security roads, electronic fences, and concrete walls. Its main goal is to stop terrorists from detonating themselves in restaurants and cafes and buses in the cities and towns of central Israel. So, planners set the bar very high: It is intended to prevent every single attempt to cross it. The rules of engagement were written accordingly. If someone trying to cross the fence in the middle of the night is presumed to be a terrorist, there's no need to hesitate before shooting. To kill.

    As such, the Israeli fence is very efficient. The number of fatalities from terror attacks within Israel dropped from more than 130 in 2003 to fewer than 25 in 2005. The number of bombings fell from dozens to fewer than 10. The cost for Israel is in money and personnel; the cost for Palestinians is in unemployment, health, frustration, and blood. The demographic benefit—keeping out the Palestinians—is just another positive side effect for the Israelis.

    No wonder the fence is considered a good deal by those living on its western side. But applying this model to the U.S.-Mexico border will not be easy. U.S. citizens will find it hard to justify such tough measures when their only goal is to stop people coming in for work—rather than preventing them from trying to commit murder. And the cost will be more important. It's much easier to open your wallet when someone is threatening to blow up your local cafe.

    Still, some of the lessons from the Israeli experience apply. The first is one opponents don't like to hear: A wisely planned fence is capable of preventing almost every attempt to enter a country illegally.

    When Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano declares, "You show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border," the answer is fairly straightforward: You show me a 51-foot ladder, and I'll show you a guardsman standing on the other side of the wall waiting to arrest the person using it. The fence is not the only thing keeping people from entering. The fence has just two objectives: slowing the intruders and making them visible to members of the border patrol. The rest of the work is done by human beings.

    And generally speaking, this is the biggest lesson. It's not the fence, stupid—it is the decisions that the planners make. How tough are you willing to be with illegals? How much money do you want to spend? How important is it to maintain good relations with the towns on the Mexican side of the border? How sympathetic are you to would-be border crossers' needs and desires?

    The more you answer these questions the Israeli way, the more unbeatable your fence will be. But don't forget: Years of terror attacks hardened Israelis' hearts toward their neighbors (just as years of occupation hardened Palestinians' hearts toward Israelis). This brought them to a point where they were ready to do whatever it took to make the bloodshed stop. So, here's an easy way to figure out if an American fence will work: Measure the anger and despair. Has it grown big enough to make that same commitment?

     

    A problem with using West Bank wall as a talking point is its (probable) illegality. Mind you, it's irrelevant to the argument (the barrier could follow the Green line perfectly and its effectiveness would still be same for Israelis within the pre-1967 borders), but these are often far leftist open border fanatics, so it would trigger them and they would through it back in your face.

    Some people might actually like that.

    This is about the Sinai fence. The (incomplete and only semi-successful) West Bank fence is a different issue, built with a different rationale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Rayciss hymie crackaazz!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. @Peter Akuleyev
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    The conservative answer is that $18 billion is still a lot of money (and you had better quadruple that sum since we are talking about a government project).

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude. The number one point people are ignoring - Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel, or Syrian refugees and Afghan migrants trying to get into Hungary. The Mexicans will build tunnels, they will bribe guards, they will kill guards, they will probably even demolish parts of the wall at night. We would probably be better off just invading Mexico and dismantling the cartels.

    Actually, as I write this I may have convinced myself that a wall is a reasonable first step. But it has to be combined with an attack on the cartels to actually work, which means stopping the flow of money and guns from the US southwards.

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude.

    This is not true. The African migrants were smuggled into Israel by Bedouin gangs, who are armed, including with anti-tank missiles (which they have fired at Israeli soldiers on the fence), https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/press-releases/two-idf-soldiers-wounded-in-attack-on-the-egyptian-border/

    And who are regularly attacking the Egyptian army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Oops I was responding to this claim in your post.

    he number one point people are ignoring - Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel,
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Dmitry

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude.
     
    This is not true. The African migrants were smuggled into Israel by Bedouin gangs, who are armed, including with anti-tank missiles (which they have fired at Israeli soldiers on the fence), https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/press-releases/two-idf-soldiers-wounded-in-attack-on-the-egyptian-border/


    And who are regularly attacking the Egyptian army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

    Oops I was responding to this claim in your post.

    he number one point people are ignoring – Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Classical Liberal
    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel's border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn't a history of migration there aren't people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    You tell ‘em: never give up on your noble dream to sell more diapers and toilet-paper, son.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Yan Shen
    Why all this silly talk about walls and such, as if this were uh Westeros facing the impending invasion of the Night's King and his army of white walkers?

    America's real problem is that whites, unlike East Asians, are highly prone to the negative influences of blacks and Hispanics. Wherever a large population of blacks, Hispanics, whites, and East Asians all live together, you invariably see things like the infamous Asian guy in the library, whereby a quantitatively adept person of East Asian descent, who's been taught his entire life to focus on what actually matters, can only shake his head at the masses of blacks, Hispanics, and their supposedly "progressive" white allies all bleating post-modern PC non-sense as if it were the Gospel. And the bad behavior of these far left fanatics inevitably provokes equally bad behavior from whites on the far right.

    In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class as an exemplar of good behavior, such as Canada or Australia, whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy based on cognitive skills.

    Of course none of this is uh news to anyone who's been paying attention to anything I've been saying over the past few years. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video surely must be worth at least a million...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    “In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class … whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy … ”

    Good point, but Hispanics, along with Whites and your uh favored Asians, can be included in a good mix for a healthy diverse society. The society becomes ill when you add Blacks to the mixture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    Wouldn’t some proportion of immigration that is legal switch to being illegal if that is the only way? Even if the wall functions as simply an architectural statement or monument, it will be clearly saying something that the voters thought needed to be said. Some will be amused.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @Peter Akuleyev
    If a wall would not have a significant effect of some kind, why are so many people arguing so hard against building one?

    The conservative answer is that $18 billion is still a lot of money (and you had better quadruple that sum since we are talking about a government project).

    The Israeli wall is built on fairly easy terrain, and African immigrants are also pretty easy to identify in the Israeli population. The US-Mexican border is a different order of magnitude. The number one point people are ignoring - Mexican organized crime gangs are far more sophisticated about smuggling people across than black Africans trying to get to Israel, or Syrian refugees and Afghan migrants trying to get into Hungary. The Mexicans will build tunnels, they will bribe guards, they will kill guards, they will probably even demolish parts of the wall at night. We would probably be better off just invading Mexico and dismantling the cartels.

    Actually, as I write this I may have convinced myself that a wall is a reasonable first step. But it has to be combined with an attack on the cartels to actually work, which means stopping the flow of money and guns from the US southwards.

    Mexico should have been militarily invaded and occupied long ago, just as was done in the nineteenth century, and it’s government and people not let be until the border was completely militarised and secure, and the government and criminals (but I repeat myself) so thoroughly defanged as to not be bothersome to us again for another hundred years.

    Dishonoring the terms of the treaty resulting from our last invasion of Mexico, they started the most recent invasions of what used to be the U.S.A., thus, we should have finished this round of invasion for them.

    It’s all arguing about who gets custody of the ashes at this point, though….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Nigerian Nationalist

    "built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants."
     
    *Sigh* Steve. You have a blindspot once the word "African" is involved.

    Now unless the map in high IQ land is different, I'm pretty sure that Israel has Egypt as a buffer. Also, why doesn't Egypt have immigration problems? or do they?

    But I digress, the difference between them and your people is that folks who think like this:


    https://twitter.com/normative/status/967385524347588608
     
    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you. Y'all correlate and causate.

    Politics, politics is everything. It birthed the wall, it will tear it down.

    Then again, it's possible that you're a Populist Macchiavellian giving a forum for men threatened by Black men and repressing their unrequited attraction to Black women to come and vent.

    P.S Before the usual "why do you care?" ignorance. Simple. Your Globalist elites are extremely socially Liberal, the more they're focused inwards, the higher my odds of dying with my eyes and ears shut to the peccadilloes your country exports and that's just the least of it. Our interests align, for now.

    or maybe, I'm Russian. *Evil laugh*

    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you.

    It’s a modest barrier. Without it, the flow would be higher; our problems greater.

    Politics, politics is everything.

    Tell us, then, what political change will keep the wonderful African people in Africa so they can enjoy their own company, and Europeans in Europe so they can suffer their own kind?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Not my problem. Your hedonism is like sugar to sand flies. Folks like me are only interested in getting you lot to shut your doors so the ensuing backlash can stem the increasing push of your social values on us or at least Nigeria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Southern California seems, except for the wealthiest suburbs, utterly dominated by dark-skinned, mestizo-type Mexicans and South Americans. In 25 years they haven’t changed a bit: They never age, they never get any better at learning English, and they still aren’t founding billion-dollar, high-tech companies. Where do they keep coming from and how do they get here? They’re over-staying visas? Of course, it’s too late to do anything to save California. The die is cast. But maybe the other states. And yes, by all means, slash legal immigration except for in exceptional cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. “YT, our countries not being swarmed with aliens, and yours being swarmed with all kinds (mine in particular) is just the way the universe works. It’s physics, like gravity. Now look at the squirrel.”

    That’s pretty much the open borders argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW

    Ron Unz is an essentialist. He gets right to it. What is the essential nature of the problem or dilemma, get right to it.

    Legal immigration is where the future demography will come from, but the GOP ruling class, even after losing California due to mass legal immigration, will not push an immigration moratorium. Slow motion demographic transformation is the result. Now, even the morons can see the demographic transformation accelerating.

    Trumpy is placating the GOP Cheap Labor Faction by promising more guest workers and visa workers while he doles out the “Boob Bait For Bubba” by talking about a wall that has yet to be built and other immigration restrictionist measures.

    Legal immigration must be halted and tens of millions of legal immigrants will have to be denaturalized and deported. If they are permanent legal residents, that can be revoked as well. This is serious radical business, but it must be done. This is why Civil War II is not too far-fetched.

    Monetary policy and immigration policy are driving politics in the world today.

    I say raise the interest rates and deport the foreigners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. U.S. citizens will find it hard to justify such tough measures when their only goal is to stop people coming in for work—rather than preventing them from trying to commit murder.

    Maybe we should steal the Mexicans’ land, drive them out of their homes, and make them second class citizens. That might provoke them, the way the Jews provoked the Palestinians.

    There have also been multiple sightings of the idea that a pistol would be useless against a rifle because apparently the guns know each others’ sizes and are very self-conscious.

    Haha the PA guy’s female leftist opponent trotted that one out. She was right in the way she put it (pistol-carrying teachers would be way out-classed by AR-toting psychos in terms of firepower) but wrong in the point she was trying to make. 1) Deterrent, shooters seem to love gun-free zones, and just knowing a couple coaches are armed might be enough to make one pick a different target 2) pistol-carriers are a lot less out-classed than fist-wielders 3) getting shot at is distracting. Shooters will have a dramatically less easy go of slaughtering unarmed people with lead flying at them. 4) 9mm is outclassed by 5.56, but 5.56 won’t stop a 9mm to the face from being the big hurt.

    If you don’t mind my saying so, it’s surprising to meet a pathological antisemite who apparently isn’t into guns.

    Do you know what pathological means? Or is it just your go-to fancy pejorative?

    It’s fun meeting a Jew who isn’t into logic: your point is orthogonal (point is the kid was completely wrong about rifle calibers).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. Tweet from 2015:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. The leftist lady also cited NYPD accuracy (low, even lower during 2-way shootouts), as if kids would be falling like wheat before the scythe as panicked teachers mowed them down in a vain effort to stop the shooter. Of course, we all know that isn’t happening to bystanders in NYC, but logic isn’t the left’s strong suit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Also NYPD accuracy is very negatively influenced by requirement for 12 pound triggers(yes 12 lb.). No doubt NYPD officers wouldn't be Jerry Miculek under ideal circumstances either, but it sure doesn't help.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Everything and anything must be tried or attempted in an effort to stop legal immigration and illegal immigration. Walls, fences, an immigration moratorium, interior immigration law enforcement and a whole host of other things need to be done.

    Walls work is wonderful to say, and I have said it and written it a lot, but walls and fences must be accompanied by the political will to demographically survive and prosper as a nation. The GOP Cheap Labor Faction does not want to talk about an immigration moratorium at all, and I hope to hell that President Trump hasn’t been completely captured by them.

    President Trump must not be allowed to increase the supply of guest workers or visa workers while he rattles on about his yet-to-be-built wall. President Trump should talk more about immigration in terms of lowered wages and lost sovereignty.

    The H-2B visa and all the other GOP Cheap Labor Faction guest worker schemes that floods the United States with foreigners needs to be mucked the hell out of the stall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. If we have a wall in place by the time President Kamala Harris begins her term, she’ll find a way to help Future Americans® breech the wall. One idea would be tunnels to assist wildlife migration. I’ve seen such tunnels in Wyoming, under I-80. A diktat from the Environmental Protection Agency would be all it takes. And that’s assuming the next Dem President will bother with legal niceties at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. @ic1000
    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.

    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.

    If you didn’t know that before Ron came along with his error-laden post, then you are woefully uninformed about immigration.

    Every restrictionist who knows his stuff knows that 1) there must be an employment verification process in place, 2) there must be more border control, and 3) there must be more restrictions on our lax legal immigration and refugee admissions.

    All three need to be addressed if we are serious about our borders and who we let into the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > If you didn’t know that before Ron came along with his error-laden post, then you are woefully uninformed about immigration.

    I should have added this emoticon: :-J
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Some years ago, a friend of mine bought a farm that had fallen into disrepair. There were hundreds of pigeons roosting in the barn, and try as he might, he couldn’t get rid of them. Couldn’t, until one day he shot a few of them and left the corpses out where the others could see them. Within days there were no more pigeons in his barn.
    #TacoCurtain

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    The gibbets and spikes on ancient city walls were there for a reason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @anon
    Nothing made we wince so much as when Trump would immediately follow his bombastic condemnation of illegal immigration with comments like: "But we *love* legal immigrants! We wanna have a BIG, beautiful gate on that wall to bring in lots of legal immigrants. I love them! Illegal bad. Legal good. Am I right folks?" Then the audience would stupidly cheer.

    @35 anon: “Nothing made we wince so much as when Trump would immediately follow his bombastic condemnation of illegal immigration with comments like: “But we *love* legal immigrants! We wanna have a BIG, beautiful gate on that wall to bring in lots of legal immigrants. I love them! Illegal bad. Legal good. Am I right folks?” Then the audience would stupidly cheer.”

    As a survivor of my own 18 months of visa hell as an FSO, I will repeat what I’ve written elsewhere numerous times to no avail: The only difference between legal and illegal is three damned letters. Fake fiancees, adjusting status, overstaying and getting some cucked churchian or employer to file for you, etc. ad nauseam – in my experience and those of my peers I later discussed this with, anywhere from 75 to 95% of “legal” immigrants began as illegals. Add in clueless administrations constantly removing earlier visa restrictions for various diseases or crimes plus increasingly “diverse” FSOs to supplement and then supplant the White or (((White))) SJWs, and you have today’s America 3.0 or 4.0 – a multicultural sh?thole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Pincher Martin

    Ron Unz’ comment has convinced me that a barrier along the southern border is only a partial solution to the immigration/sovereignty problem.
     
    If you didn't know that before Ron came along with his error-laden post, then you are woefully uninformed about immigration.

    Every restrictionist who knows his stuff knows that 1) there must be an employment verification process in place, 2) there must be more border control, and 3) there must be more restrictions on our lax legal immigration and refugee admissions.

    All three need to be addressed if we are serious about our borders and who we let into the country.

    > If you didn’t know that before Ron came along with his error-laden post, then you are woefully uninformed about immigration.

    I should have added this emoticon: :-J

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Luke Lea
    Better yet a biometric Social Security card for every American citizen, with biometric visas for those who are visiting legally. Would have to presented at various points -- when you cash a check, use a credit card, vote, get a job, buy groceries with cash, etc. -- enough to make it impossible to live if you are here illegally.

    Yeah, because the US Government would never use such a system to punish its critics.
    Do you think that a President Harris would hesitate to “make it impossible to live if you are” a conservative?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    See my reply to Achmed E. Newman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Anonym

    The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    Svigor is correct. In fact the only rifle caliber round listed of less energy on the page you linked to, the 17 Remington, is only suitable for varmints.

    The 5.56mm round (v. Similar to .223) as used in the AR-15 was designed specifically to be basically the lightest round that would still be lethal enough out to a certain range, used in an assault rifle. A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.

    It is kind of immaterial though in the class room, not many kids come to school wearing level IV armor. It's a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.

    They left out a lot. There are a half-dozen different popular 22 rimfire cartridges out there, all lower-energy than what comes out of an AR-15.

    By the way, as a matter of basic physics the energy of a bullet is 99.999% a matter of the amount of propellant (“gunpowder”) in the cartridge. The math is pretty easy.

    Let
    m = mass of bullet
    M = mass of shooter + gun
    v = velocity of bullet
    V = velocity (ie recoil) of shooter + gun.

    Your two conditions are conservation of momentum:
    MV = -mv
    and conservation of energy:
    MV^2 + mv^2 = 2k (chemical energy stored in the propellant).

    Now work out the fraction of total energy that goes into the bullet, e/(e+E). After a few manipulations (which I’m too lazy to type out here, but they’re just 8th grade algebra), you arrive at

    e/(e+E) = M/(M+m)

    Which, as I said, is just a hair less than 1. (And that’s if the shooter doesn’t brace himself on something heavier, like the planet Earth! In real life the ratio will be 1 for all practical purposes.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Sorry, in case it wasn't obvious, 2E=MV^2 and 2e=mv^2.
    , @Anonym
    I am an engineer; I can do the physics. You are correct about the energy being proportional to propellant mass provided equivalent propellant chemistry. It couldn't really be anything other when you think about it. However it seems as if this breaks down transferring this to muzzle energy with pistols as the barrel length gives less distance to push.

    The trade-off between velocity and bullet mass/diameter to find cartridge optimized for combat out to 400m was done pretty well by the US. The Russian and Chinese copies came out on either side of it. 5.45mm and 5.8mm.

    While there are some cartridges such as 22LR they are for plinking and varmint shooting. Find me a rifle cartridge designed for killing a man from a rifle that is significantly less energy than 5.56mm.

    https://thegunzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Common-Bullet-Sizes-1024x685.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @ic1000
    > You wouldn’t know the biggest story in recent days is seventeen kids being killed by some violent loser from reading this site, a sad and inherently predictable outrage.

    I look to unz.com for commentary, so the coverage of the Parkland school shooting didn't escape me.

    > Trump’s proposed solution to this is not realistic, most teachers simply would not function well as armed protectors particularly the AA hires and nice white ladies.

    Yeah, it's a crummy idea from a policy point of view (to the extent that anybody cares about that perspective, any more). School shootings are tragic, and also very, very rare on a per-school per-year basis. Encouraging lots of teachers to carry will, predictably, lead to orders of magnitude more incidents, from Dropped Pistol With Safety Off Discharges, to Unbalanced Teacher Snaps.

    As a thought experiment, consider a program that districts could opt into. Teachers vetted by the district agree to have a gun safe placed in their homeroom. The safe can be unlocked by the teacher's key, but only after a Wifi signal is received from the school office. For that matter, Siri or Alexa could be contracted to monitor the PA system for the words "shooter on campus, this is no drill" in the principal's or vice-principal's voice.

    Such a program would have most of the upsides and few of the downsides of "arm the teachers." It's feasible with today's technology, and wouldn't be ruinously expensive.

    It's also a complete non-starter. It would be entirely unacceptable to the elites, because it doesn't support their "only gun control can save lives" narrative.

    Statistically you have about as high a chance dying from a lightning strike than from one of these mass shootings. And no I’m not joking when I say this….more Americans die every year from drowning and from car wrecks than these mass shootings…
    They are not that big a threat and any steps that can be taken to prevent them are already in place…. developed after emotional sensationalist reactions to previous shootings that frankly went nowhere…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    Agreed. I would go further and say that an occasional mass shooting, combined with somewhat more hardened infrastructure, is the price of freedom. I am willing to accept that trade-off in exchange for the Second Amendment. At some point, this is the bottom line.

    (Not that it's a direct trade-off of course, but if someone would offer me the gun culture and legal framework of Canada or Australia, in which pretty much no one is allowed to possess an AR-15 or semi-automatic handgun, and mass shootings are virtually non-existent, I would say, no thanks.)

    Sure, arm teachers. Though the simple phrase "arm teachers" doesn't really capture what I believe would be the best policy, at least at first. All that we're talking about is end the concept of "gun-free zones" at schools, so that the small percentage of school employees who are already inclined and qualified to carry a concealed handgun can extend the practice to when they are on school grounds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. If we have a wall in place by the time President Kamala Harris begins her term, she’ll find a way to help Future Americans® breech the wall. One idea would be tunnels to assist wildlife migration. I’ve seen such tunnels in Wyoming, under I-80. A diktat from the Environmental Protection Agency would be all it takes. And that’s assuming the next Dem President will bother with legal niceties at all.

    Still an improvement. Busting a hole in a wall is inherently more conspicuous than telling your cops to stand down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. @Nigerian Nationalist

    "built on its Egyptian border to keep out black African economic migrants."
     
    *Sigh* Steve. You have a blindspot once the word "African" is involved.

    Now unless the map in high IQ land is different, I'm pretty sure that Israel has Egypt as a buffer. Also, why doesn't Egypt have immigration problems? or do they?

    But I digress, the difference between them and your people is that folks who think like this:


    https://twitter.com/normative/status/967385524347588608
     
    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you. Y'all correlate and causate.

    Politics, politics is everything. It birthed the wall, it will tear it down.

    Then again, it's possible that you're a Populist Macchiavellian giving a forum for men threatened by Black men and repressing their unrequited attraction to Black women to come and vent.

    P.S Before the usual "why do you care?" ignorance. Simple. Your Globalist elites are extremely socially Liberal, the more they're focused inwards, the higher my odds of dying with my eyes and ears shut to the peccadilloes your country exports and that's just the least of it. Our interests align, for now.

    or maybe, I'm Russian. *Evil laugh*

    The Rio Grand is a pretty rinky-dink river. It makes a very poor defensive barrier, if the people I know who have seen it firsthand can be believed. They probably siphon a lot of water off it too for agriculture. Ends up being little more than a mud puddle.

    I know a lot of blacks are moving into the Maghreb and, quite surprisingly, even into Yemen. Israel does seem to have a problem with blacks, but I’ll be darned if I know how they get there. I always assumed planes. Up the Nile would be a pretty tough trek, but some have made hard treks. You’ve got to be pretty motivated, if you are willing to move into Yemen.

    I’ve said it before, but I fear we are past normal politics. Back in Eisenhower’s day, there wasn’t a lot of people yelling “racist!”. You could round up large numbers of people and deport them with political ease. There’s a snowball effect though. The more who settle, the greater the sympathy and the greater the political resistance. The normal condition of politicians is spinelessness. Most cannot do anything but parrot the narrative that diversity = good. Many ethnic groups are just special interest groups, and they make sure the line is parroted. It works out for them, as long as it allows them to grow their group. That’s why globalism is a thing, it is not bilateral movement of the same numbers. If it were, it would never exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @International Jew
    They left out a lot. There are a half-dozen different popular 22 rimfire cartridges out there, all lower-energy than what comes out of an AR-15.

    By the way, as a matter of basic physics the energy of a bullet is 99.999% a matter of the amount of propellant ("gunpowder") in the cartridge. The math is pretty easy.

    Let
    m = mass of bullet
    M = mass of shooter + gun
    v = velocity of bullet
    V = velocity (ie recoil) of shooter + gun.

    Your two conditions are conservation of momentum:
    MV = -mv
    and conservation of energy:
    MV^2 + mv^2 = 2k (chemical energy stored in the propellant).

    Now work out the fraction of total energy that goes into the bullet, e/(e+E). After a few manipulations (which I'm too lazy to type out here, but they're just 8th grade algebra), you arrive at

    e/(e+E) = M/(M+m)

    Which, as I said, is just a hair less than 1. (And that's if the shooter doesn't brace himself on something heavier, like the planet Earth! In real life the ratio will be 1 for all practical purposes.)

    Sorry, in case it wasn’t obvious, 2E=MV^2 and 2e=mv^2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    This link features a chart comparing the kinetic energy of various rifles, handguns and sports projectiles, such as a 100 mph baseball pitch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Tall person of partially Kraut ancestry needles another tall person of partially Kraut ancestry.

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW

    Fuchs tells President Trump to phuck off. Trump should call for a complete and total halt to all legal immigration and he should deport all illegal alien invaders as a response to Fuchs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. @International Jew
    Sorry, in case it wasn't obvious, 2E=MV^2 and 2e=mv^2.

    This link features a chart comparing the kinetic energy of various rifles, handguns and sports projectiles, such as a 100 mph baseball pitch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Thanks. Interesting to see the energy of a baseball compared to the energy carried by various bullets.

    The author's reasoning, however, is screwed up in all sorts of ways.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Intelligent Dasein
    Indeed. I think the key here is to realize that the "immigration debate" as we've all known it for so long is never going to be resolved within the currently accepted framework, but will rather be superceded by a paradigmatic shift in the salient facts.

    Mexico has no viable future as a political entity. Already its survival has depended for years on the largess of the United States, which has provided the market for its agricultural and mineral exports and, through its absorption of cheap Mexican labor, has acted as both a check on Mexican wage decreases and a valuable source of remittances.

    Is it any wonder that the Mexican government agitates so fiercely for open borders with the United States? What sort of government would actually want its labor---its very people, the ultimate source of its wealth and strength---migrating out of the country to live and work someplace else? Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else's problem. Mexico does both.

    In no wise is any of this beneficial to the American people. It only serves as a short term benefit to the class interests of the oligarchs who, through their unquestioned control of both the bureaucracy and the press, have managed to make it the de facto law of the land and to promote it as the public good. The Mexican emigres themselves are mere objects in a scheme of financial repression that they neither perceive nor comprehend. The American upper class has achieved a practical agreement with the Mexican upper class for an arrangement that aligns the elites of both countries against the interests of the peoples of each.

    That the emigres in the United States often make a show of being, and indeed feel themselves to be, "patriotic Mexicans" is nothing but an effect of elite propaganda, which must at all costs keep the colonists from going native lest the source of remittances dry up and their value as an exploitable underclass be negated. They have been conditioned to feel a nationalistic pride for a nation that has no use for them. To this end, the artificially contrived notion of an Hispanic "race," which exists in conscious opposition to the America "white" race, has been an invaluable tool. In reality, and to echo Marx, the interests of the White working class and of the Mexican working class are the same; but, not to echo Marx, that interest is served not by international communism but by a sincerely practiced nationalism in the respective countries. Mexican nationalism as practiced in America is artificial, but a Mexican nationalism practiced in Mexico would be genuine and respectable. An interesting question to ask one familiar with Mexico is, "Does there exist in Mexico a Far-Right/Traditionalist movement that is opposed to Mexican emigration on these grounds? If so, I should like to know more about them.

    But to return to the original point, the failure of the Mexican state is both inevitable and, for the citizens of America, extremely dangerous unless we can take some measure to prevent the poverty and chaos from surging across our southern border. This can only be accomplished by a wall, and not just any wall but an imposing and defensible military barrier. The idea that we must use E-Verify and interior enforcement to remove the economic incentives for illegal immigration is certainly true, but it is a debate for yesterday, a train that has already left the station. The true task of tomorrow is to fortify the border against determined incursions by armed and violent militias and the endless hordes of refugees in their wake. This is no longer a matter of factory jobs disappearing from the Midwest, but of territorial invasion, loss of sovereignty, and loss of life.

    It is no longer advisable to cloak these concerns in the cryptic terminology of wage depression or even solicitude for a disappearing American "culture." Events are bringing the concrete facts of possession and existence to the fore. That is what the border wall is really about. Sovereignty is ultimately the ability to assert control over territory. It can be more, but it certainly cannot be less. In response to the complaint that God did not make borders, we must assert that God made borders as soon as he made free-moving life. Every animal from the roving tiger down to the paramecium knows the difference between "mine" and "yours," which is identical with its very living activity, and none can tolerate a rival in its own domain. The choice before us is not between a border wall and no border wall, but between a wall that can act as a protective shield or one hastily thrown up as defensive scar. The future aspect of the nation will forever depend on the timeliness of our decision. Beauty preserved or disfigurement endured, the burden or the blessing will be ours to bear.

    Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else’s problem. Mexico does both.

    These questions ought to be asked publicly, not only of Mexico but of all nations who are sending millions of immigrants to the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Most of them aren't sending an underclass-- China and India as cases in point. In these cases (often Russia too) the governing class sees the US as a sort of escape valve for its own members among other things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @istevefan
    This link features a chart comparing the kinetic energy of various rifles, handguns and sports projectiles, such as a 100 mph baseball pitch.

    Thanks. Interesting to see the energy of a baseball compared to the energy carried by various bullets.

    The author’s reasoning, however, is screwed up in all sorts of ways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @International Jew

    Assault rifles are universally chambered for relatively low-powered rounds. The two most popular calibers for semi-auto rifles are 5.56×45 and 7.62x39mm, both of which are at the low-powered end of the rifle caliber spectrum.
     
    They're low-powered relative to what hunters use on deer, yes, but these two you mentioned deliver about three times the energy of what is considered high-powered ammo for semi-auto pistols:
    http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bullet-kinetic-energy.php

    If you don't mind my saying so, it's surprising to meet a pathological antisemite who apparently isn't into guns.

    Also:

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.

    Svigor is revealing new aspects of his personality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.
     
    Proves nothing. Ron Unz is an antisemite's Jew inasmuch as he gives a platform to the most insane frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites (start with Philip Giraldi and work your way from there), and even peddles his own theory of Jewish self-dealing in the Ivy League (and persists in peddling it after it was shredded by Andrew Gelman —
    http://andrewgelman.com/2013/02/12/that-claim-that-harvard-admissions-discriminate-in-favor-of-jews-after-checking-the-statistics-maybe-not/ — a shredding to which Unz responded with ad hominem attacks.)

    I come here to read Sailer and Derbyshire. Everything else here is either boring or deranged.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @istevefan

    Only two possibilities exist. 1) The government is intending to colonize and/or piratize its neighbors for the purpose of extracting wealth wherewith to support the mother-country; or, 2) The government views its underclasses as a pollutant to be flushed away and made someone else’s problem. Mexico does both.
     
    These questions ought to be asked publicly, not only of Mexico but of all nations who are sending millions of immigrants to the USA.

    Most of them aren’t sending an underclass– China and India as cases in point. In these cases (often Russia too) the governing class sees the US as a sort of escape valve for its own members among other things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Most of them aren’t sending an underclass– China and India as cases in point.
     
    But is that actually better? Taking in millions of the underclass definitely strains the social safety net and hurts our poor. Not to mention the voting power they will eventually have.

    But sending in the more capable will eventually result in these nations wielding increasing influence at the highest levels of our society. Additionally they are coming in numbers, so it will affect the electorate too.

    I still think those nations need to be questioned about their motives for seemingly wanting their best talent to leave. It doesn't make sense when they have so much need for it at home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Classical Liberal
    USA is to Mexico as Israel is to Egypt is not a valid analogy. Israel's border is basically an uninhabited desert whereas there are many large urban centers along the Mexican American border. Also, because there isn't a history of migration there aren't people smugglers in Egypt the same way there are in Mexico. A million people cross the U.S. Mexico border legally every day, how many people do the same for the Israel-Egypt border?

    Patriotic Correctness is causing us to leave trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk.
    https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

    CL, My wife and I traveled across the Sinai from Tel Aviv to Cairo by bus, on the first bus to do that after the Six Day War. There is nothing but burning dessert between the two cities. It took us a full day and the only notable sights along the way were burned out wreckage from the war. Not too many illegals sneaking from the US to Canada or vice versa at this end of the country. Well secured bridge crossings or mile of open lakes, Erie and Ontario.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Yan Shen
    Why all this silly talk about walls and such, as if this were uh Westeros facing the impending invasion of the Night's King and his army of white walkers?

    America's real problem is that whites, unlike East Asians, are highly prone to the negative influences of blacks and Hispanics. Wherever a large population of blacks, Hispanics, whites, and East Asians all live together, you invariably see things like the infamous Asian guy in the library, whereby a quantitatively adept person of East Asian descent, who's been taught his entire life to focus on what actually matters, can only shake his head at the masses of blacks, Hispanics, and their supposedly "progressive" white allies all bleating post-modern PC non-sense as if it were the Gospel. And the bad behavior of these far left fanatics inevitably provokes equally bad behavior from whites on the far right.

    In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class as an exemplar of good behavior, such as Canada or Australia, whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy based on cognitive skills.

    Of course none of this is uh news to anyone who's been paying attention to anything I've been saying over the past few years. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video surely must be worth at least a million...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Yan, are there two Trolls named Yan Shen or just one who likes himself so much that he clicks the “Agree” button on his own posts? Isn’t that kinda like masturbating, where you are the best partner you can find?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. @Wilkey
    The essence of every conversation I've ever had with an open borders nutjob:

    "We need a border wall"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to ban them from having driver's licenses"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to deny them from in-state tuition at public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "We need to bar their children from public schools"
    "That won't work"

    "Clearly you don't believe in securing our borders against illegal immigration"
    "No, I totally do. But those things won't work"

    "Alright, tell we what policies you would implement to secure our borders"
    {Crickets}

    “Okay, at least make their drivers’ licenses look different from citizens’ licenses so they can’t be used to apply for citizen-only benefits.”
    “That won’t work.”
    “Really? You’re from Massachusetts. Where licenses are printed with a portrait layout if you’re under 21 and landscape layout if you’re over 21.”
    {Crickets}

    What really blows my mind is when the person on the other side of the conversation, when discussing any other topic, believes the government has the requisite superpowers to make anything happen in opposition to all known laws of economics (and sometimes the laws of physics too).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    What really blows my mind is when the person on the other side of the conversation, when discussing any other topic, believes the government has the requisite superpowers to make anything happen in opposition to all known laws of economics.

    Pretty much.

    Healthcare for all? Easy peasy.

    Equalize outcomes between the races? No problem.

    Equalize outcome between the genders? Fixed by tomorrow.

    Build a solid wall across our southern border? Do you think we're gods or something?

    US military manpower reached its peak in 1945, at 12 million men in uniform. Our population at the time was barely 140 million - or less than half of what it is today. We were able to recruit/draft, train, clothe, feed, equip, and deploy 12 million men to far reaches of the globe all in the space of a few years. But deporting 12 million illegals - many of whom would go on their own with just a wee bit of prodding - is impossible. The US passenger airline industry handled over 800 million passengers just in 2016...but we don't have the capacity to deport a population just 1.5% that size.

    Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Nigerian Nationalist
    You'll lose your country in your lifetime. No suit emptier than that.

    You don’t have to lose Nigeria. It’s been a lost chaotic dump for eons despite its oil wealth. You don’t live there anyhow. You bugged out of your homeland to live in lands that white people constructed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Tell me the meaning of Nationalist wasn't skipped in High IQ school??

    Here's the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago--check the major stats-- can you say the same of the US of A, empty suit?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Chrisnonymous
    This comment doesn't make much sense. But don't worry, Comrade Shen, it's because you're relative High M/Low V, I'm sure.

    Comrade Shen is full of uhs and wells. He had a faulty teacher instructing him that this is how Americans talk? Is pedantic Shen a Chicom lite paid poster?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Macumazahn
    Some years ago, a friend of mine bought a farm that had fallen into disrepair. There were hundreds of pigeons roosting in the barn, and try as he might, he couldn't get rid of them. Couldn't, until one day he shot a few of them and left the corpses out where the others could see them. Within days there were no more pigeons in his barn.
    #TacoCurtain

    The gibbets and spikes on ancient city walls were there for a reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Chrisnonymous
    Actually, I think it's possible a wall will hurt us. If the wall is only partially-finished, or is built incompetently, or is unmanned/unsupported after being built, or any number of other things, it won't work as advertised. Will people then say, "hey, Israel's wall worked, so let's look at ours and see how to fix it"? No. They'll say, "hey, we tried your stupid wall, and all we got was $25 billion down the drain. Lots of immigrants are still coming in."

    No. They’ll say, “hey, we tried your stupid wall, and all we got was $25 billion down the drain. Lots of immigrants are still coming in.”

    Actually they have already tried that. Back in 2007 they touted the “Virtual Fence” which turned out to be a complete failure. For the amount they blew on that project, they could have already constructed an Israeli-type wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Anon
    Most of them aren't sending an underclass-- China and India as cases in point. In these cases (often Russia too) the governing class sees the US as a sort of escape valve for its own members among other things.

    Most of them aren’t sending an underclass– China and India as cases in point.

    But is that actually better? Taking in millions of the underclass definitely strains the social safety net and hurts our poor. Not to mention the voting power they will eventually have.

    But sending in the more capable will eventually result in these nations wielding increasing influence at the highest levels of our society. Additionally they are coming in numbers, so it will affect the electorate too.

    I still think those nations need to be questioned about their motives for seemingly wanting their best talent to leave. It doesn’t make sense when they have so much need for it at home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @International Jew
    They left out a lot. There are a half-dozen different popular 22 rimfire cartridges out there, all lower-energy than what comes out of an AR-15.

    By the way, as a matter of basic physics the energy of a bullet is 99.999% a matter of the amount of propellant ("gunpowder") in the cartridge. The math is pretty easy.

    Let
    m = mass of bullet
    M = mass of shooter + gun
    v = velocity of bullet
    V = velocity (ie recoil) of shooter + gun.

    Your two conditions are conservation of momentum:
    MV = -mv
    and conservation of energy:
    MV^2 + mv^2 = 2k (chemical energy stored in the propellant).

    Now work out the fraction of total energy that goes into the bullet, e/(e+E). After a few manipulations (which I'm too lazy to type out here, but they're just 8th grade algebra), you arrive at

    e/(e+E) = M/(M+m)

    Which, as I said, is just a hair less than 1. (And that's if the shooter doesn't brace himself on something heavier, like the planet Earth! In real life the ratio will be 1 for all practical purposes.)

    I am an engineer; I can do the physics. You are correct about the energy being proportional to propellant mass provided equivalent propellant chemistry. It couldn’t really be anything other when you think about it. However it seems as if this breaks down transferring this to muzzle energy with pistols as the barrel length gives less distance to push.

    The trade-off between velocity and bullet mass/diameter to find cartridge optimized for combat out to 400m was done pretty well by the US. The Russian and Chinese copies came out on either side of it. 5.45mm and 5.8mm.

    While there are some cartridges such as 22LR they are for plinking and varmint shooting. Find me a rifle cartridge designed for killing a man from a rifle that is significantly less energy than 5.56mm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Yes, I should have added the qualification, "holding barrel length constant". Also, I should have emphasized that the point wasn't what determines the bullet's energy — the amount of propellant — but rather what doesn't — the bullet's mass. This is far from obvious so I thought it needed pointing out.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn't going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Old Jew
    Also:

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.

    Svigor is revealing new aspects of his personality.

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.

    Proves nothing. Ron Unz is an antisemite’s Jew inasmuch as he gives a platform to the most insane frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites (start with Philip Giraldi and work your way from there), and even peddles his own theory of Jewish self-dealing in the Ivy League (and persists in peddling it after it was shredded by Andrew Gelman —
    http://andrewgelman.com/2013/02/12/that-claim-that-harvard-admissions-discriminate-in-favor-of-jews-after-checking-the-statistics-maybe-not/ — a shredding to which Unz responded with ad hominem attacks.)

    I come here to read Sailer and Derbyshire. Everything else here is either boring or deranged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @148 International Jew: "Proves nothing. Ron Unz is an antisemite’s Jew inasmuch as he gives a platform to the most insane frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites (start with Philip Giraldi and work your way from there) . . . "

    Binary thinking: the last refuge of the midwit. It's either slobbering philosemitism or "Jew-hatred" for you, never anything more balanced or nuanced. But don't let me disrupt your pity party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @WowJustWow
    "Okay, at least make their drivers' licenses look different from citizens' licenses so they can't be used to apply for citizen-only benefits."
    "That won't work."
    "Really? You're from Massachusetts. Where licenses are printed with a portrait layout if you're under 21 and landscape layout if you're over 21."
    {Crickets}

    What really blows my mind is when the person on the other side of the conversation, when discussing any other topic, believes the government has the requisite superpowers to make anything happen in opposition to all known laws of economics (and sometimes the laws of physics too).

    What really blows my mind is when the person on the other side of the conversation, when discussing any other topic, believes the government has the requisite superpowers to make anything happen in opposition to all known laws of economics.

    Pretty much.

    Healthcare for all? Easy peasy.

    Equalize outcomes between the races? No problem.

    Equalize outcome between the genders? Fixed by tomorrow.

    Build a solid wall across our southern border? Do you think we’re gods or something?

    US military manpower reached its peak in 1945, at 12 million men in uniform. Our population at the time was barely 140 million – or less than half of what it is today. We were able to recruit/draft, train, clothe, feed, equip, and deploy 12 million men to far reaches of the globe all in the space of a few years. But deporting 12 million illegals – many of whom would go on their own with just a wee bit of prodding – is impossible. The US passenger airline industry handled over 800 million passengers just in 2016…but we don’t have the capacity to deport a population just 1.5% that size.

    Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @International Jew

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.
     
    Proves nothing. Ron Unz is an antisemite's Jew inasmuch as he gives a platform to the most insane frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites (start with Philip Giraldi and work your way from there), and even peddles his own theory of Jewish self-dealing in the Ivy League (and persists in peddling it after it was shredded by Andrew Gelman —
    http://andrewgelman.com/2013/02/12/that-claim-that-harvard-admissions-discriminate-in-favor-of-jews-after-checking-the-statistics-maybe-not/ — a shredding to which Unz responded with ad hominem attacks.)

    I come here to read Sailer and Derbyshire. Everything else here is either boring or deranged.

    @148 International Jew: “Proves nothing. Ron Unz is an antisemite’s Jew inasmuch as he gives a platform to the most insane frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites (start with Philip Giraldi and work your way from there) . . . ”

    Binary thinking: the last refuge of the midwit. It’s either slobbering philosemitism or “Jew-hatred” for you, never anything more balanced or nuanced. But don’t let me disrupt your pity party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Yan Shen
    Well to take it a step beyond the obvious fact that total inflow of legal immigrants vastly outnumbered total inflow of illegal immigrants over the past decade or so, I've been pointing out that even complaining about legal immigration misses the point that globalization has rendered competition between nations inevitable.

    So for instance, despite the fact that very few Japanese live in the United States or really anywhere outside of Japan, the Japanese were still able to put a major dent in many industries where America formerly enjoyed preeminence. Similarly all of the fuss today over the relatively small numbers of Chinese Americans also misses the fact that the real threat posed to Americans isn't from the 5 million or so Chinese here in the US, but rather from the 1380 million Chinese living on the mainland.

    It's like that uh old saying, you can lead a racial nationalist to the facts, but you can't make him think...

    Now I'm not against a wall as a matter of principle, but I suspect that the utility per dollar gained from such a project is probably fairly low compared to other ways we could spend that money making this country better. Of course, unlike say the Chinese or the Japanese, Americans are stereotyped as being somewhat innumerate, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at many of the comments here...

    Most western ethno-nationalists are against free trade. However, trade policy isn’t a very emotive issue so it doesn’t attract much discussion on the Internet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Clyde
    You don't have to lose Nigeria. It's been a lost chaotic dump for eons despite its oil wealth. You don't live there anyhow. You bugged out of your homeland to live in lands that white people constructed.

    Tell me the meaning of Nationalist wasn’t skipped in High IQ school??

    Here’s the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago–check the major stats– can you say the same of the US of A, empty suit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Here’s the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago–check the major stats–
     
    Then go home and live there instead of sponging off The West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @bomag

    Similarly, the Rio Grande has not proven effective for you.
     
    It's a modest barrier. Without it, the flow would be higher; our problems greater.

    Politics, politics is everything.
     
    Tell us, then, what political change will keep the wonderful African people in Africa so they can enjoy their own company, and Europeans in Europe so they can suffer their own kind?

    Not my problem. Your hedonism is like sugar to sand flies. Folks like me are only interested in getting you lot to shut your doors so the ensuing backlash can stem the increasing push of your social values on us or at least Nigeria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    interested in getting your lot to shut your doors so the ensuing backlash can stem the increasing push of your social values on us or at least Nigeria
     
    I'll see what I can do; but from where I sit, social values from Nigeria are making inroads; while the social values of middle class US are going extinct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @eah
    They both shared wishes or fantasies of being intimate, sometimes in detail.

    It was little more than a mutual exchange of randy emails.

    The woman responded, via her attorney, that Keillor's power over her job made her afraid to say no to him.

    Some women are such craven, pathetic creatures.

    MPR has removed archived Keillor shows from its website and no longer rebroadcasts shows he hosted. It also ended broadcasts of "The Writer's Almanac," his daily reading of literary events and a poem. Talks between Keillor and MPR over transitioning their business relationship have gone nowhere since early January.

    Some organizations/leadership cadres as well -- they immediately and absolutely un-personed him over little more than a flimsy allegation.

    Yes. If we prioritize women as flawless super beings, then we must indulge all their whims. What is flattering to a woman one minute is humiliating the next. Thus former lovers can be TruthMinned into anti-social harrassers who find no cubicle in the modern workplace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.
     
    I guess someone should be clued in when he walks into homeroom like that in the morning, I dunno. Unless, he's a minority; then we may need to see some bad behavior and not assume anything - gotta keep the stats "balanced".

    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka "resource officer" could ... oh, that's right, they are supposed to wait outside.

    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka “resource officer” could … oh, that’s right, they are supposed to wait outside.

    Provided the shooter has the good sense to keep his head stationary, yeah, I agree. I would be just around the corner of a branch in the corridor or some other thick cover if I was going to try it because the chances of failure would be significant. I imagine a flash-bang might help.

    The other thing to do is to shoot at the legs rather than COM. If you get lucky you might sever an artery, if you at least hit flesh you might reduce his movement significantly, his ability to concentrate and will to keep finding and killing people. Some other countries actually have LEOs who practice shooting to incapacitate rather than kill, believe it or not.

    It might be worth keeping some AR-15s, M4s or similar and armor in a few key locations around the school, in heavy duty safes, keyed biometrically to all the trained teachers/staff. The CCW teachers close by either kill or divert attention from the shooter, and those further away stop at the safe and provide backup as necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. The barrier fence will end catch and release of OTMs and minors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. @Jack Hanson
    "Free speech platform" lol yah okay.

    Veer outside of the parameters of boomer posting or ironic shitposting and see what gets through.

    Veer outside of the parameters of boomer posting or ironic shitposting and see what gets through.

    I have been over it enough to have a reasonable idea of the limits. What are you really wanting to say that gets blocked, in general terms?

    Name a better, less constrained place to discuss these sort of issues with relatively intelligent people. It’s very cushy here, and a lot of thought has evidently gone into how it’s set out. The embedded videos and stills, embedded twitter links, the way you can check who has replied to what, the way you can follow what has been said. It is very, very well done. That’s why I call it a platform. When I get frustrated that Sailer has no content, I look at what Derb or Pat have to offer, and failing that I will try out some of the other stuff on the sidebar.

    I look at the sort of Semitically-critical content that is posted, and wonder when our luck is going to run out. I am not sure why Ron does what he does (and think it would be unwise to look the gift horse in the mouth) but I take it as an olive branch and wish to reciprocate. Sometimes it is emotionally difficult with examples of Every Single Time to not get frustrated and angry but one must try. That’s one of the reasons Sailer is so good, he’s so level headed and matter of fact, he keeps the animal brain out of the discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Svigor
    The leftist lady also cited NYPD accuracy (low, even lower during 2-way shootouts), as if kids would be falling like wheat before the scythe as panicked teachers mowed them down in a vain effort to stop the shooter. Of course, we all know that isn't happening to bystanders in NYC, but logic isn't the left's strong suit.

    Also NYPD accuracy is very negatively influenced by requirement for 12 pound triggers(yes 12 lb.). No doubt NYPD officers wouldn’t be Jerry Miculek under ideal circumstances either, but it sure doesn’t help.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Achmed E. Newman
    Maybe I should just get a chip implanted or old-fashioned bar-code on my forehead to go full "Mark-o-the-Beast", eh? We've been through this before with you Luke, yet you've learned exactly squat.

    Most of us would not care to defend our country anymore once it gets just to the level of police state that you seem to unwittingly support.

    "1984" was a novel, man - please don't mistake it for an instruction manual.

    It is quite a leap from everyone being able to easily prove they have a legal right to work and to be in theiscountry and living in a police state.

    Which is not to say that real legal safeguards would not have to be built into such a system of information. But that is something we are going to have to do anyway, and are beginning to do already, in this new age of Google and the NSA . Just because the potential for tyranny exist using modern information technology does not mean we have to become like China.

    Anyway, as a first step the whole issue needs to be explored very carefully, and very publically, rather than being reacted to in a fit of paranoiac horror.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Macumazahn
    Yeah, because the US Government would never use such a system to punish its critics.
    Do you think that a President Harris would hesitate to "make it impossible to live if you are" a conservative?

    See my reply to Achmed E. Newman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Buzz Mohawk
    While it's nice to see that you agree that we need to drastically reduce legal immigration, the fact still remains that known, attempted illegal crossings have totaled rather high numbers, especially in some years:

    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/12/FT_14.12.26_BorderApprehensions.png

    (Graph copied from Pew Research article: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/30/u-s-border-apprehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/)

    1.5 Million Mexicans, as in the years 1986 and 2000, is not a small number. Neither is half a million combined Mexicans and non-Mexicans illegally crossing in 2014, the year of the lowest total shown.

    Admittedly those are apprehensions, not successful crossings, but the question remains: How many got through? Wouldn't it be nice to just have something that would block everybody?

    A border wall is "Boob Bait for Bubbas" that would have stopped millions of people.

    Besides, we need a little boob bait to make the point to our own selves and future political leaders, as well as to our neighbors, that trespassing is illegal. Symbols and boob bait are part of mass communication. That is something a so-called "buffoon" like Donald Trump understands better than other types of geniuses.

    The “other than Mexicans” get catch and release treatment. They are served an order to appear and are sent on their way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s a good question what happens when a school shooter comes wearing armor.
     
    I guess someone should be clued in when he walks into homeroom like that in the morning, I dunno. Unless, he's a minority; then we may need to see some bad behavior and not assume anything - gotta keep the stats "balanced".

    Either way, at that kind of close range, a shot to the head by a handgun is feasible by anyone who is a decent shot. Maybe a school cop, aka "resource officer" could ... oh, that's right, they are supposed to wait outside.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/25/eye-witness-school-teacher-states-nikolas-cruz-wearing-helmet-and-body-armor/

    Actually the shooter was apparently wearing body armor, a helmet and a mask according to at least one source.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. well the fact that *gasp* 220 ppl manged to infiltrate the Jewish State clearly demonstrates that WALLS DONT WERK….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. @Anonym
    I am an engineer; I can do the physics. You are correct about the energy being proportional to propellant mass provided equivalent propellant chemistry. It couldn't really be anything other when you think about it. However it seems as if this breaks down transferring this to muzzle energy with pistols as the barrel length gives less distance to push.

    The trade-off between velocity and bullet mass/diameter to find cartridge optimized for combat out to 400m was done pretty well by the US. The Russian and Chinese copies came out on either side of it. 5.45mm and 5.8mm.

    While there are some cartridges such as 22LR they are for plinking and varmint shooting. Find me a rifle cartridge designed for killing a man from a rifle that is significantly less energy than 5.56mm.

    https://thegunzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Common-Bullet-Sizes-1024x685.jpg

    Yes, I should have added the qualification, “holding barrel length constant”. Also, I should have emphasized that the point wasn’t what determines the bullet’s energy — the amount of propellant — but rather what doesn’t — the bullet’s mass. This is far from obvious so I thought it needed pointing out.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn’t going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn’t going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    Maybe the McNamara-esque bean counters prefer bullets that wound (this is not the first time I have heard that), though I bet the rank and file soldiers much prefer bullets that kill because wounded enemy combatants can still kill (or wound) you and your comrades.

    In fact, the US military appears to have also evolved away from the spergy wounding considerations to evolve 5.56mm ammo that has much increased lethality. I think it was Svigor who showed me this in a comment maybe a year ago or so, I think it was.

    , @Anonymous
    As an individual soldier, I'd prefer to carry a rifle chambered .308 or 7.62x39 over a .223, on the simple grounds the bigger round is much better at stopping a charging hominid enemy. The .223 is not particularly great as a stopping round even though it may be equally effective at killing. This is the same issue that causes pistol shooters who are serious to disdain 9mm, .38 Special, et al: the .45 is a proven stopper, as the case of the Philipine Insurrection proved, and why the US Army carried .45 pistols through two world wars and two nasty regional conflicts.

    On the other hand, 9mm is a far better SMG round. And .223 was ideal for its design customer: flightline guards for nuclear armed alert aircraft.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I do not study ballistics, I.J., but I do want to clarify something physics or engineering-wise:

    The bullet's kinetic energy out of the muzzle, as you rightly discuss, is a function of propellant energy and barrel length (there are some smaller factors too). However, the shape of the bullet, hence it's drag coefficient, and it's mass determine the reduction in it's kinetic energy at the point of impact. This means that the range at which the gun/cartridge will be used must be kept in mind when making comparisons of kinetic energy.

    A bullet from cartridge A may have more K.E. upon leaving the barrel than one from cartridge B, but bullet A may have more K.E. left at a closer range, yet bullet B could have more K.E. left at a longer range.

    I may easily be missing something, but I like this stuff, and will continue reading this somewhat-old thread.

    Thanks for your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. They left out a lot. There are a half-dozen different popular 22 rimfire cartridges out there, all lower-energy than what comes out of an AR-15.

    I don’t know much about .22 rimfire rounds; I do know the most popular isn’t really a rifle round, despite its name. Many pistols are chambered to fire .22 lr, and for the noobs, no, they’re not some freak of nature Frankenstein thing like a 5.56 “pistol.” They’re just pistols (e.g., Ruger Mark III & IV).

    Mr. Svigor called Ron Unz a Mensch, earlier in this thread.

    Svigor is revealing new aspects of his personality.

    JIDF never asks me for my righteous Jews list. (I admit beforehand I’d be compiling it from memory and some searches to jog said memory, which ain’t what it used to be)

    In their defense, nobody else does, either. Love me some Stephen Miller.

    While there are some cartridges such as 22LR they are for plinking and varmint shooting. Find me a rifle cartridge designed for killing a man from a rifle that is significantly less energy than 5.56mm.

    Not to be pedantic, but are we even sure 5.56 are meant to kill a man? Large varmints like coyotes seem to be their sweet spot, from what I read. And I think I remember reading somewhere that 5.56 is meant to incapacitate a man, more than kill him. Meaning, the US military is good with putting a man down and forcing the enemy to dedicate resources to caring for him; they might even prefer that to killing him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.

    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you’re good. There’s no better TEOTWAWKI “if I had to choose one caliber” round.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @170 Svigor: "The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you’re good."

    Not quibbling, but it seems whenever I read a self-defense story with a bad ending (i.e. the dindu survived) it involves women shooting smaller caliber ammo. Recently read about 2 women shooting a robber multiple times (caliber not specified, but he lived) at the Daily Caller and I always remember this infamous story from Georgia (shot 5 or 6 times with .38, including in the face, and lived).

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Along with all that, during TEOTWAWKI, the .22 round may be good as currency. They are ubiquitous, very cheap in ones and dozens, people will really need them then. and they are very generic (a "commodity"), which makes good money.

    I'm rich, bitchez!
    , @Anonym
    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    I know you know all this... but oh well.

    The military are generally pretty good for engineering things, and eventually they get around to optimizing things. A beautiful design is a beautiful design, and when they get it right it is a joy to behold. (Kind of like the A-10). What soldiers can carry has always been a limitation, and in a firefight no one wants to run out of ammo. So the US put out a tender for a gun designed around the right type of bullet basically, from what I remember. And it suits the kind of military the US has - they try to fight with quality, well trained people but not necessarily overwhelming numbers of them, so they need the sort of good gear that a high GDP/capita can buy.

    The AK-47 is a beautiful design in its own right, made as it was to be mass produced very cheaply and fielded by a quantity of people who have a quality all of their own. As such it also suited denizens of the third world. But it wasn't designed to be optimized for ammo carrying capacity, the AK-74 came later.

    It's kind of insane to me that you can buy the AR-15 at nearly the same price as the AK. No wonder that they are so popular. It seems hard to improve on the concept. Playing multiplayer games, I've certainly appreciated the burst fire setting as you can just go tap, kill, tap, kill in realistic games, cutting through the armor. I was never the best at anything requiring tapping a button quickly, so prefer the burst setting that does it for me (not the semi-auto tap tap tap required). But the downside of the M16 with the 3 round burst is that the burst design is too slow - shots 2 and 3 are inaccurate at range. So, do the same but with the firing rate sped up, problem solved.

    The following is a very interesting article on cartridges. That problem in Afghanistan where the enemy would choose to engage somewhat beyond the typical 400m range of the AR platform (from memory) could be solved by making the bullet a shape with less drag, so as to be able to kill out to 800m or so. And then there is also the mass per cartridge consideration, apparently there are some innovations to get that down some more.

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/03/05/caliber-configuration-where-it-came-from-where-it-is-and-where-its-headed/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    The overriding concern is “which can I get my hands on?” Soviets weren’t offering anything in 5.56.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. @Yan Shen
    Why all this silly talk about walls and such, as if this were uh Westeros facing the impending invasion of the Night's King and his army of white walkers?

    America's real problem is that whites, unlike East Asians, are highly prone to the negative influences of blacks and Hispanics. Wherever a large population of blacks, Hispanics, whites, and East Asians all live together, you invariably see things like the infamous Asian guy in the library, whereby a quantitatively adept person of East Asian descent, who's been taught his entire life to focus on what actually matters, can only shake his head at the masses of blacks, Hispanics, and their supposedly "progressive" white allies all bleating post-modern PC non-sense as if it were the Gospel. And the bad behavior of these far left fanatics inevitably provokes equally bad behavior from whites on the far right.

    In other Anglo countries largely devoid of a black and Hispanic underclass and with an East Asian over-class as an exemplar of good behavior, such as Canada or Australia, whites usually behave much better and the nation itself typically endorses a sane immigration policy based on cognitive skills.

    Of course none of this is uh news to anyone who's been paying attention to anything I've been saying over the past few years. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video surely must be worth at least a million...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Confucius taught Family Think,
    So there’s much to admire in the Chink.
    Read him over again,
    Greatly Honored Yan Shen:
    Pride that’s over the mark starts to stink.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    uh uh uh well well He's a Chicom bot
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @International Jew
    Yes, I should have added the qualification, "holding barrel length constant". Also, I should have emphasized that the point wasn't what determines the bullet's energy — the amount of propellant — but rather what doesn't — the bullet's mass. This is far from obvious so I thought it needed pointing out.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn't going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn’t going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    Maybe the McNamara-esque bean counters prefer bullets that wound (this is not the first time I have heard that), though I bet the rank and file soldiers much prefer bullets that kill because wounded enemy combatants can still kill (or wound) you and your comrades.

    In fact, the US military appears to have also evolved away from the spergy wounding considerations to evolve 5.56mm ammo that has much increased lethality. I think it was Svigor who showed me this in a comment maybe a year ago or so, I think it was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. In fact, the US military appears to have also evolved away from the spergy wounding considerations to evolve 5.56mm ammo that has much increased lethality. I think it was Svigor who showed me this in a comment maybe a year ago or so, I think it was.

    Yeah there’s a lot of variation in 5.56 rounds, especially if you count .223 into the bargain. 5.56 will definitely put your ass down, I don’t want to give the impression that it won’t. But if you want to put big holes in people, or shoot through cover, you’re going to want one of those nice, cute, bolt-action fudd rifles that the millennials seem to think are so friendly, not 5.56 or 7.62.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Yeah there’s a lot of variation in 5.56 rounds, especially if you count .223 into the bargain. 5.56 will definitely put your ass down, I don’t want to give the impression that it won’t. But if you want to put big holes in people, or shoot through cover, you’re going to want one of those nice, cute, bolt-action fudd rifles that the millennials seem to think are so friendly, not 5.56 or 7.62.

    I didn't know you replied. I like your posts, but manually checking the old threads just on the off-chance that Svigor has replied, is not something I do. Maybe some day you can reply like others do.

    Anyway, I know this is the sort of thing you and I think of as high powered (i.e. not 5.56).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

    It's made to

    https://youtu.be/_jTZiBdhpo8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Svigor

    A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.
     
    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you're good. There's no better TEOTWAWKI "if I had to choose one caliber" round.

    @170 Svigor: “The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you’re good.”

    Not quibbling, but it seems whenever I read a self-defense story with a bad ending (i.e. the dindu survived) it involves women shooting smaller caliber ammo. Recently read about 2 women shooting a robber multiple times (caliber not specified, but he lived) at the Daily Caller and I always remember this infamous story from Georgia (shot 5 or 6 times with .38, including in the face, and lived).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    .22 LR has killed a lot of people, it was the hitman's favorite in the Mafia killings nationwide for decades, but killing depends on shot placement. .22 WMR is a better round for this by a fair margin but is quite a bit louder. And poachers similarly are fond of it for similar reasons.

    The worst possible commonly available cartridge is the .25 ACP, which has been known to fail to penetrate the sternums of large attackers. Even the .22 Short is a better round.

    If you are going to carry, carry at the very least a .380 (9mmK) and preferably a .357 magnum, .357 SIG, 10mm, or .45 ACP if possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Nigerian Nationalist
    Not my problem. Your hedonism is like sugar to sand flies. Folks like me are only interested in getting you lot to shut your doors so the ensuing backlash can stem the increasing push of your social values on us or at least Nigeria.

    interested in getting your lot to shut your doors so the ensuing backlash can stem the increasing push of your social values on us or at least Nigeria

    I’ll see what I can do; but from where I sit, social values from Nigeria are making inroads; while the social values of middle class US are going extinct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Nigerian Nationalist
    Tell me the meaning of Nationalist wasn't skipped in High IQ school??

    Here's the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago--check the major stats-- can you say the same of the US of A, empty suit?

    Here’s the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago–check the major stats–

    Then go home and live there instead of sponging off The West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Gosh, you're slow.

    I. Live. In. Nigeria.

    Comprende? Kapish? e.t.c.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Confucius taught Family Think,
    So there's much to admire in the Chink.
    Read him over again,
    Greatly Honored Yan Shen:
    Pride that's over the mark starts to stink.

    uh uh uh well well He’s a Chicom bot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Ron Unz
    Frankly, the whole "Build a Wall!" nonsense really just seems like what Bill Clinton used to call "Boob Bait for Bubbas." Here's a highly relevant comment I left a few weeks ago:

    Well, I hate to interject a discordant note in this long and heated comment-thread, but I will anyway.

    It looks like almost every commenter is arguing about the best way to build Trump’s Wall. I ask “Why?”

    Almost everyone who pays any attention to immigration issues knows perfectly well that there’s really no huge difference between *legal* immigrants and *illegal* immigrants, at least if you exclude something like the most elite 10% of the former category. Most of the more prominent anti-immigration analysts or politicians are too chicken or PC to point this out, but it’s true nonetheless.

    Now over the last decade or so, something like 95% of all net immigration to America has been legal, and just a sliver has been of the illegal variety. Furthermore, a substantial fraction of even that group originally enters legally on visas, and then just overstays.

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    So why, again, is everyone arguing so vociferously about this silly “Wall”?.

    The comment-threads of my website are endless sources of mild amusement to me when I happen to take a break from my difficult software work…
     

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-wall-the-sound-and-the-fury-and-not-much-else/#comment-2148445

    Maybe I’m just dense, but it seems to me that even a wall on the Mexican border that was 700 feet tall and protected by land-mines and automatically-firing machine guns wouldn’t be very effective at blocking *legal* immigration. And that probably constitutes well over 95% of the “immigration problem”…

    Spot on.

    Australia has something much better than a wall. We’re surrounded by ocean. It hasn’t stopped, or even slowed down, the relentless pace of population replacement.

    The illegal immigration issue is being used in the US the same way it has been used in Australia – as a distraction so that people don’t notice that legal immigration is the real problem. And fools and cucks fall for it every time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Clyde

    Here’s the thing, Nigeria today is better than Nigeria 50 years ago–check the major stats–
     
    Then go home and live there instead of sponging off The West.

    Gosh, you’re slow.

    I. Live. In. Nigeria.

    Comprende? Kapish? e.t.c.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    No Nigerian will live in Nigeria if he can help it. And you look like someone who has helped it. You have someone found a way to live in The West. Whether it is Europe, America, Canada, Australia... Nigerians should really try Japan these days. Seems they have been letting some in on asylum claims. Two Young Turks who got in last year are now on trial for raping a tipsy Japanese woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    Yes, I should have added the qualification, "holding barrel length constant". Also, I should have emphasized that the point wasn't what determines the bullet's energy — the amount of propellant — but rather what doesn't — the bullet's mass. This is far from obvious so I thought it needed pointing out.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn't going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    As an individual soldier, I’d prefer to carry a rifle chambered .308 or 7.62×39 over a .223, on the simple grounds the bigger round is much better at stopping a charging hominid enemy. The .223 is not particularly great as a stopping round even though it may be equally effective at killing. This is the same issue that causes pistol shooters who are serious to disdain 9mm, .38 Special, et al: the .45 is a proven stopper, as the case of the Philipine Insurrection proved, and why the US Army carried .45 pistols through two world wars and two nasty regional conflicts.

    On the other hand, 9mm is a far better SMG round. And .223 was ideal for its design customer: flightline guards for nuclear armed alert aircraft.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    A consideration in favor of lighter rifle rounds in wartime is that the individual soldier can physically carry more of them. Don't know how much of an issue that is anymore, this isn't really my topic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me
    @170 Svigor: "The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you’re good."

    Not quibbling, but it seems whenever I read a self-defense story with a bad ending (i.e. the dindu survived) it involves women shooting smaller caliber ammo. Recently read about 2 women shooting a robber multiple times (caliber not specified, but he lived) at the Daily Caller and I always remember this infamous story from Georgia (shot 5 or 6 times with .38, including in the face, and lived).

    .22 LR has killed a lot of people, it was the hitman’s favorite in the Mafia killings nationwide for decades, but killing depends on shot placement. .22 WMR is a better round for this by a fair margin but is quite a bit louder. And poachers similarly are fond of it for similar reasons.

    The worst possible commonly available cartridge is the .25 ACP, which has been known to fail to penetrate the sternums of large attackers. Even the .22 Short is a better round.

    If you are going to carry, carry at the very least a .380 (9mmK) and preferably a .357 magnum, .357 SIG, 10mm, or .45 ACP if possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Anonymous
    As an individual soldier, I'd prefer to carry a rifle chambered .308 or 7.62x39 over a .223, on the simple grounds the bigger round is much better at stopping a charging hominid enemy. The .223 is not particularly great as a stopping round even though it may be equally effective at killing. This is the same issue that causes pistol shooters who are serious to disdain 9mm, .38 Special, et al: the .45 is a proven stopper, as the case of the Philipine Insurrection proved, and why the US Army carried .45 pistols through two world wars and two nasty regional conflicts.

    On the other hand, 9mm is a far better SMG round. And .223 was ideal for its design customer: flightline guards for nuclear armed alert aircraft.

    A consideration in favor of lighter rifle rounds in wartime is that the individual soldier can physically carry more of them. Don’t know how much of an issue that is anymore, this isn’t really my topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Not quibbling, but it seems whenever I read a self-defense story with a bad ending (i.e. the dindu survived) it involves women shooting smaller caliber ammo. Recently read about 2 women shooting a robber multiple times (caliber not specified, but he lived) at the Daily Caller and I always remember this infamous story from Georgia (shot 5 or 6 times with .38, including in the face, and lived).

    I never recommend anything less powerful than 9mm for typical concealed carry or the like (though the compactness of a lot of .380s is tempting). Certainly not .22lr. My point is just that .22lr stretches to fulfill roles outside its design in a “Pick ONE caliber for TEOTWAWKI” contest than almost any other round that people like to offer stretches to fulfill the roles of such a round. It’s kind of a thought experiment to get people thinking outside the box. E.g., consider two guys carrying their lives on their backs. One guy has 1 lb of 5.56, the other guy has 1 lb of .22lr. They get into a duck-and-cover gunfight. Sure, if the 5.56 guy gets a hit, he’s way more likely to put the .22 guy down. But if they do what a lot of people do in a gunfight and stick their gun out of cover and shoot and pray they hit something (and keep the other guy pinned because few walk out into even random gunfire), the .22lr guy has a really good chance of winding up being the only one with ammo left. And the only guy with ammo left is the winner.

    That said, dindu surviving isn’t necessarily a self-defense failure. The best self-defense successes, from most people’s POV, is simply brandishing a gun and running the threat off.

    .22 LR has killed a lot of people, it was the hitman’s favorite in the Mafia killings nationwide for decades, but killing depends on shot placement. .22 WMR is a better round for this by a fair margin but is quite a bit louder. And poachers similarly are fond of it for similar reasons.

    You can actually “silence” a .22lr, too, as long as you have a barrel shorter than 4.5 or 5 inches or so. That’s what I read, anyway.

    If you are going to carry, carry at the very least a .380 (9mmK) and preferably a .357 magnum, .357 SIG, 10mm, or .45 ACP if possible.

    I recommend 9mm luger. It’s ubiquitous, and it’s big enough to be a proper SD pistol round, but small enough for max capacity. .45, something seems to be wrong with that round, given how rare double-stack magazines are (unless that has changed in the last few years). People love to talk round vs. round, but they almost always miss the forest for the trees and forget CAPACITY (especially when talking up the .45). You can argue that round for round, .45 is a bit better than 9mm, but that edge disappears entirely once capacity comes into the picture, because 9mm almost always has at least one more round in the mag than a .45 (usually many more). At the capacity pistols have, I would always rather have N+1 9mm, than N .45, 10mm, .357, etc.

    As an individual soldier, I’d prefer to carry a rifle chambered .308 or 7.62×39 over a .223, on the simple grounds the bigger round is much better at stopping a charging hominid enemy. The .223 is not particularly great as a stopping round even though it may be equally effective at killing. This is the same issue that causes pistol shooters who are serious to disdain 9mm, .38 Special, et al: the .45 is a proven stopper, as the case of the Philipine Insurrection proved, and why the US Army carried .45 pistols through two world wars and two nasty regional conflicts.

    I would love to see this proof. AFAIK there isn’t any. The US military dropped .45 for 9mm (though I hear maybe the Marines want to at least offer .45 again?), which seems more germane than what they did previously. AFAIC .45 is an antiquated round. Not bad, but it’s been left behind. I think a lot of the love for the .45 is just nostalgia type thinking, American nationalism, etc. And for the 1911, which is a good-looking gun. Couldn’t pay me to use one as anything but a collector’s piece, though.

    As for what soldiers carry, again weight weight weight. If you’ve got a great logistics chain that never fails to hand you a fresh mag when you need it, great, go for the heavier round. If not, weight needs to be in the conversation, not ignored. (I haven’t seen the proof on “stopping power” (a controversial term), of 7.62 over 5.56, either, btw)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. Plus look at the stuff that fires 7.62: AKs. Urg, no thanks. But now I am curious as to what the best options are for a semi-auto in 7.62, I honestly don’t know.

    My point is just that .22lr stretches to fulfill roles outside its design in a “Pick ONE caliber for TEOTWAWKI” contest than almost any other round that people like to offer stretches to fulfill the roles of such a round.

    Perhaps not the most practical contest, but it does have at least one real-world application; pilots downed behind enemy lines. In fact, that’s where I got turned on to .22 lr as the ultimate survival round, a web page made by a military survival school instructor who talked it up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  185. @184 Svigor: “My point is just that .22lr stretches to fulfill roles outside its design in a “Pick ONE caliber for TEOTWAWKI” contest than almost any other round that people like to offer stretches to fulfill the roles of such a round. It’s kind of a thought experiment to get people thinking outside the box. E.g., consider two guys carrying their lives on their backs.”

    Yes, from my reading of lots of KU TEOTWAKI books (a mixture of good, bad, and awful) I understand the utility of .22 in various situations, plus the debate on stopping power versus number of rounds.

    “I recommend 9mm luger. It’s ubiquitous, and it’s big enough to be a proper SD pistol round, but small enough for max capacity.”

    When it comes to family gun purchases my son pretty much holds sway, even over my husband, not merely because of shooting experience but also his near encyclopedic knowledge of various rounds, firearms, manufacturers, history, etc. I have an HK VP9 (with which I have not practiced nearly enough) but it’s just too large for me to use as a concealed weapon (certainly not with my daily clothing nor even in my purse). We initially ordered a Sig Sauer in .45 but switched due to the long back order time. Once the Sig finally arrived it went to my husband, although I can still shoot with it (average sized-hands but rather short fingers which impacts reaching the trigger properly on various weapons – can’t shoot my son’s FN for love or money).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. @JollyOldSoul
    Apparently the Mexican El Presidente is pretty peeved about Trump's wall - so much so that he's refusing to visit the White House.

    Sarah Palin was mocked for saying you could see Russia from some parts of Alaska, but the Left is totally understanding when a president of Mexico gets his panties in a wad over a wall he'll never be able to see from Mexico City.

    Sarah Palin was mocked for saying you could see Russia from some parts of Alaska…

    Palin did not say that. Tina Fey said it playing Palin on SNL.

    But your recollection is now the received Truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @International Jew
    Yes, I should have added the qualification, "holding barrel length constant". Also, I should have emphasized that the point wasn't what determines the bullet's energy — the amount of propellant — but rather what doesn't — the bullet's mass. This is far from obvious so I thought it needed pointing out.

    As a separate matter, the optimal bullet for warfare isn't going to be the same for every army. A conventional army hoping to win a conventional battle prefers bullets that wound, over bullets that kill; they want to distract soldiers with tending to their wounded buddies. But a guerrilla army fighting the conventional army of a faraway superpower prefers to kill, as that is what will persuade the superpower to pack up and go home.

    I do not study ballistics, I.J., but I do want to clarify something physics or engineering-wise:

    The bullet’s kinetic energy out of the muzzle, as you rightly discuss, is a function of propellant energy and barrel length (there are some smaller factors too). However, the shape of the bullet, hence it’s drag coefficient, and it’s mass determine the reduction in it’s kinetic energy at the point of impact. This means that the range at which the gun/cartridge will be used must be kept in mind when making comparisons of kinetic energy.

    A bullet from cartridge A may have more K.E. upon leaving the barrel than one from cartridge B, but bullet A may have more K.E. left at a closer range, yet bullet B could have more K.E. left at a longer range.

    I may easily be missing something, but I like this stuff, and will continue reading this somewhat-old thread.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Svigor

    A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.
     
    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you're good. There's no better TEOTWAWKI "if I had to choose one caliber" round.

    Along with all that, during TEOTWAWKI, the .22 round may be good as currency. They are ubiquitous, very cheap in ones and dozens, people will really need them then. and they are very generic (a “commodity”), which makes good money.

    I’m rich, bitchez!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    You know that the classic mafia hit was with a few .22 bullets. Less bleeding and less noise made. The hit man just has to be accurate.
    , @Clyde
    Agree that .22 would be a currency of sorts. A great thing to horde pre-shithittingfan and spend after the big event(s). As far a SHTF, word is out that the incoming Fed Chairman will raise interest rates four times in a year.
    _______________
    Powell hints that the Fed will raise interest rates 4 times in 2018
    Yahoo Finance · 22h
    Federal Reserve chair ... interest rates from the Fed could be warranted this year. “At the December meeting, the median [FOMC] participant called for three rate increases in 2018,” Powell said. …
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Nigerian Nationalist
    Gosh, you're slow.

    I. Live. In. Nigeria.

    Comprende? Kapish? e.t.c.

    No Nigerian will live in Nigeria if he can help it. And you look like someone who has helped it. You have someone found a way to live in The West. Whether it is Europe, America, Canada, Australia… Nigerians should really try Japan these days. Seems they have been letting some in on asylum claims. Two Young Turks who got in last year are now on trial for raping a tipsy Japanese woman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    HA HA HA!

    More Americans live abroad than Nigerians. 9 million to circa 1.5m.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Achmed E. Newman
    Along with all that, during TEOTWAWKI, the .22 round may be good as currency. They are ubiquitous, very cheap in ones and dozens, people will really need them then. and they are very generic (a "commodity"), which makes good money.

    I'm rich, bitchez!

    You know that the classic mafia hit was with a few .22 bullets. Less bleeding and less noise made. The hit man just has to be accurate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Anything that can be hidden in the toilet bowl tank should be part of the arsenal from what I know of the mafia (yes, ALL 3 PARTS OF THE GODFATHER PLUS THE SOPRANOS!).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Achmed E. Newman
    Along with all that, during TEOTWAWKI, the .22 round may be good as currency. They are ubiquitous, very cheap in ones and dozens, people will really need them then. and they are very generic (a "commodity"), which makes good money.

    I'm rich, bitchez!

    Agree that .22 would be a currency of sorts. A great thing to horde pre-shithittingfan and spend after the big event(s). As far a SHTF, word is out that the incoming Fed Chairman will raise interest rates four times in a year.
    _______________
    Powell hints that the Fed will raise interest rates 4 times in 2018
    Yahoo Finance · 22h
    Federal Reserve chair … interest rates from the Fed could be warranted this year. “At the December meeting, the median [FOMC] participant called for three rate increases in 2018,” Powell said. …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural "price-of-money" rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank. SHTF time, probably.

    Yes, keep a few dozen bricks, at least. At least the price of those is back to inflation-adjusted normal - say $25 or $30 - at least last month it was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Clyde
    No Nigerian will live in Nigeria if he can help it. And you look like someone who has helped it. You have someone found a way to live in The West. Whether it is Europe, America, Canada, Australia... Nigerians should really try Japan these days. Seems they have been letting some in on asylum claims. Two Young Turks who got in last year are now on trial for raping a tipsy Japanese woman.

    HA HA HA!

    More Americans live abroad than Nigerians. 9 million to circa 1.5m.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. When it comes to family gun purchases my son pretty much holds sway, even over my husband, not merely because of shooting experience but also his near encyclopedic knowledge of various rounds, firearms, manufacturers, history, etc. I have an HK VP9 (with which I have not practiced nearly enough) but it’s just too large for me to use as a concealed weapon (certainly not with my daily clothing nor even in my purse). We initially ordered a Sig Sauer in .45 but switched due to the long back order time. Once the Sig finally arrived it went to my husband, although I can still shoot with it (average sized-hands but rather short fingers which impacts reaching the trigger properly on various weapons – can’t shoot my son’s FN for love or money).

    Take a look at Kel-Tec’s smallest offerings. If you’re a Sig house your men will probably turn up their noses at Kel-Tec, but they make the smallest 9mm, last I heard (I want to say it’s the P9 but don’t quote me), and they’re very affordable so you’re not out big money if you don’t like it. I have a P11 and it’s a modern striker-fired pistol, so it’s dead easy to disassemble and reassemble, if that matters (I can literally do it with my eyes closed), and I assume the P9 (or whatever it is) is the same. Beyond that, I guess you should try .380.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    What do you think of those small Jimenez carry-pistols, made in Henderson, NV, Svigor? They sure are inexpensive, but I don't know anything about the quality.

    BTW, I'll have to make an effort to look for any reply from you*. Have they still not gotten Java down in the low country?

    * You can write on another thread - I don't care.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Clyde
    You know that the classic mafia hit was with a few .22 bullets. Less bleeding and less noise made. The hit man just has to be accurate.

    Anything that can be hidden in the toilet bowl tank should be part of the arsenal from what I know of the mafia (yes, ALL 3 PARTS OF THE GODFATHER PLUS THE SOPRANOS!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    I have seen every Sopranos episode. The show varied from good to excellent but I always liked and appreciated its black humor. I saw minimal Godfather movies. Just did not like the way it rolled.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Clyde
    Agree that .22 would be a currency of sorts. A great thing to horde pre-shithittingfan and spend after the big event(s). As far a SHTF, word is out that the incoming Fed Chairman will raise interest rates four times in a year.
    _______________
    Powell hints that the Fed will raise interest rates 4 times in 2018
    Yahoo Finance · 22h
    Federal Reserve chair ... interest rates from the Fed could be warranted this year. “At the December meeting, the median [FOMC] participant called for three rate increases in 2018,” Powell said. …

    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural “price-of-money” rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank. SHTF time, probably.

    Yes, keep a few dozen bricks, at least. At least the price of those is back to inflation-adjusted normal – say $25 or $30 – at least last month it was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural “price-of-money” rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank.
     
    And this is one of the main reasons The Federal Reserve Bank has kept interest rates super low, done its best to keep them low. So that The Federal Government can borrow huge sums without incurring (any meaningful) interest rate charges. So that this is (virtually) free money though the principal must be paid back. In theory anyway, eventually, somewhere over the rainbow.

    Remember when The FeGuv ran high deficits and interest rates were normal to high? The complaining was endless. How 25% of the Federal Budget was going to pay interest on the deficit. You have not heard these complaints for many years due to Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy aka ZIRP, same as the Japanese have done for many years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Svigor

    When it comes to family gun purchases my son pretty much holds sway, even over my husband, not merely because of shooting experience but also his near encyclopedic knowledge of various rounds, firearms, manufacturers, history, etc. I have an HK VP9 (with which I have not practiced nearly enough) but it’s just too large for me to use as a concealed weapon (certainly not with my daily clothing nor even in my purse). We initially ordered a Sig Sauer in .45 but switched due to the long back order time. Once the Sig finally arrived it went to my husband, although I can still shoot with it (average sized-hands but rather short fingers which impacts reaching the trigger properly on various weapons – can’t shoot my son’s FN for love or money).
     
    Take a look at Kel-Tec's smallest offerings. If you're a Sig house your men will probably turn up their noses at Kel-Tec, but they make the smallest 9mm, last I heard (I want to say it's the P9 but don't quote me), and they're very affordable so you're not out big money if you don't like it. I have a P11 and it's a modern striker-fired pistol, so it's dead easy to disassemble and reassemble, if that matters (I can literally do it with my eyes closed), and I assume the P9 (or whatever it is) is the same. Beyond that, I guess you should try .380.

    What do you think of those small Jimenez carry-pistols, made in Henderson, NV, Svigor? They sure are inexpensive, but I don’t know anything about the quality.

    BTW, I’ll have to make an effort to look for any reply from you*. Have they still not gotten Java down in the low country?

    * You can write on another thread – I don’t care.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural "price-of-money" rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank. SHTF time, probably.

    Yes, keep a few dozen bricks, at least. At least the price of those is back to inflation-adjusted normal - say $25 or $30 - at least last month it was.

    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural “price-of-money” rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank.

    And this is one of the main reasons The Federal Reserve Bank has kept interest rates super low, done its best to keep them low. So that The Federal Government can borrow huge sums without incurring (any meaningful) interest rate charges. So that this is (virtually) free money though the principal must be paid back. In theory anyway, eventually, somewhere over the rainbow.

    Remember when The FeGuv ran high deficits and interest rates were normal to high? The complaining was endless. How 25% of the Federal Budget was going to pay interest on the deficit. You have not heard these complaints for many years due to Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy aka ZIRP, same as the Japanese have done for many years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, you're preaching to the choir, Clyde. I say this as a Zerohedge reader since 2012 or so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Achmed E. Newman
    Anything that can be hidden in the toilet bowl tank should be part of the arsenal from what I know of the mafia (yes, ALL 3 PARTS OF THE GODFATHER PLUS THE SOPRANOS!).

    I have seen every Sopranos episode. The show varied from good to excellent but I always liked and appreciated its black humor. I saw minimal Godfather movies. Just did not like the way it rolled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Clyde

    Yeah, they can only go up so far, as if rates were to get up toward natural “price-of-money” rates, the Fed budget would be totally unbelievable (probably 1/4 of it would be interest payments), and the market would be in the tank.
     
    And this is one of the main reasons The Federal Reserve Bank has kept interest rates super low, done its best to keep them low. So that The Federal Government can borrow huge sums without incurring (any meaningful) interest rate charges. So that this is (virtually) free money though the principal must be paid back. In theory anyway, eventually, somewhere over the rainbow.

    Remember when The FeGuv ran high deficits and interest rates were normal to high? The complaining was endless. How 25% of the Federal Budget was going to pay interest on the deficit. You have not heard these complaints for many years due to Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy aka ZIRP, same as the Japanese have done for many years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_interest-rate_policy

    Hey, you’re preaching to the choir, Clyde. I say this as a Zerohedge reader since 2012 or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Svigor

    In fact, the US military appears to have also evolved away from the spergy wounding considerations to evolve 5.56mm ammo that has much increased lethality. I think it was Svigor who showed me this in a comment maybe a year ago or so, I think it was.
     
    Yeah there's a lot of variation in 5.56 rounds, especially if you count .223 into the bargain. 5.56 will definitely put your ass down, I don't want to give the impression that it won't. But if you want to put big holes in people, or shoot through cover, you're going to want one of those nice, cute, bolt-action fudd rifles that the millennials seem to think are so friendly, not 5.56 or 7.62.

    Yeah there’s a lot of variation in 5.56 rounds, especially if you count .223 into the bargain. 5.56 will definitely put your ass down, I don’t want to give the impression that it won’t. But if you want to put big holes in people, or shoot through cover, you’re going to want one of those nice, cute, bolt-action fudd rifles that the millennials seem to think are so friendly, not 5.56 or 7.62.

    I didn’t know you replied. I like your posts, but manually checking the old threads just on the off-chance that Svigor has replied, is not something I do. Maybe some day you can reply like others do.

    Anyway, I know this is the sort of thing you and I think of as high powered (i.e. not 5.56).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

    It’s made to

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Svigor

    A small diameter high velocity round makes the recoil minimal and the mass of the ammunition also minimal for those specifications.
     
    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    The same is true of .22 lr. People scoff but a thousand rounds of .22 lr weigh like 7 lbs. That and its ubiquity make it the ultimate survival round. The scoffing comes in at the self-defense end, but nobody wants to take a .22 to the face. You can take down small and medium game with it easily, and big game in a pinch if you're good. There's no better TEOTWAWKI "if I had to choose one caliber" round.

    This is important. I almost never see people discuss the bennies of weight savings in these discussions. A man can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62 for the same weight.

    I know you know all this… but oh well.

    The military are generally pretty good for engineering things, and eventually they get around to optimizing things. A beautiful design is a beautiful design, and when they get it right it is a joy to behold. (Kind of like the A-10). What soldiers can carry has always been a limitation, and in a firefight no one wants to run out of ammo. So the US put out a tender for a gun designed around the right type of bullet basically, from what I remember. And it suits the kind of military the US has – they try to fight with quality, well trained people but not necessarily overwhelming numbers of them, so they need the sort of good gear that a high GDP/capita can buy.

    The AK-47 is a beautiful design in its own right, made as it was to be mass produced very cheaply and fielded by a quantity of people who have a quality all of their own. As such it also suited denizens of the third world. But it wasn’t designed to be optimized for ammo carrying capacity, the AK-74 came later.

    It’s kind of insane to me that you can buy the AR-15 at nearly the same price as the AK. No wonder that they are so popular. It seems hard to improve on the concept. Playing multiplayer games, I’ve certainly appreciated the burst fire setting as you can just go tap, kill, tap, kill in realistic games, cutting through the armor. I was never the best at anything requiring tapping a button quickly, so prefer the burst setting that does it for me (not the semi-auto tap tap tap required). But the downside of the M16 with the 3 round burst is that the burst design is too slow – shots 2 and 3 are inaccurate at range. So, do the same but with the firing rate sped up, problem solved.

    The following is a very interesting article on cartridges. That problem in Afghanistan where the enemy would choose to engage somewhat beyond the typical 400m range of the AR platform (from memory) could be solved by making the bullet a shape with less drag, so as to be able to kill out to 800m or so. And then there is also the mass per cartridge consideration, apparently there are some innovations to get that down some more.

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/03/05/caliber-configuration-where-it-came-from-where-it-is-and-where-its-headed/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Neoconned
    Statistically you have about as high a chance dying from a lightning strike than from one of these mass shootings. And no I'm not joking when I say this....more Americans die every year from drowning and from car wrecks than these mass shootings...
    They are not that big a threat and any steps that can be taken to prevent them are already in place.... developed after emotional sensationalist reactions to previous shootings that frankly went nowhere.....

    Agreed. I would go further and say that an occasional mass shooting, combined with somewhat more hardened infrastructure, is the price of freedom. I am willing to accept that trade-off in exchange for the Second Amendment. At some point, this is the bottom line.

    (Not that it’s a direct trade-off of course, but if someone would offer me the gun culture and legal framework of Canada or Australia, in which pretty much no one is allowed to possess an AR-15 or semi-automatic handgun, and mass shootings are virtually non-existent, I would say, no thanks.)

    Sure, arm teachers. Though the simple phrase “arm teachers” doesn’t really capture what I believe would be the best policy, at least at first. All that we’re talking about is end the concept of “gun-free zones” at schools, so that the small percentage of school employees who are already inclined and qualified to carry a concealed handgun can extend the practice to when they are on school grounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored