Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump has asked me to price out Private Security solution for The Border.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • President Trump has asked me to price out Private Security solution for The Border.

    OK, I wasn't actually asked by anyone, much less the POTUS, but this seems an obvious question no one is asking. Because I'm pretty sure it would be about 2x as effective at 1/5 the cost of anything the Fed Govt could come up with. I've worked at ports checking foreign sailors on and off foreign ships (and some weren't allowed to leave ship), as the one and only "authority" between them and US territory, so it seems legally doable.

    But what does the brain trust come up with as far as costs for Complete Security Solution for say a 10 mile section on mixed terrain at fairly remote location. 10yr Contract, with extension/buy out of any installed Infrastructure/Staff Housing. Figure your bid could be for as many 10mile sections as you could handle, so maybe give "development costs" as "per unit". One year to complete first section. All permits cleared.

    Infrastructure AND staffing. Dogs and Drones allowed. Figure you'd have a 100ft swath of dirt to work with as far as Infrastructure, and 1 mile of "wilderness" clear to pursue for apprehension (after which would be BP's job to chase them). Looking for 99.99% Detection rate, and 90% Apprehension rate of unarmed groups of up to 10 able bodied adults.

    Including everything except installation of wells and septic, since who the hell knows what that would cost, unless you do know.

    I'm thinking 3 layers of fence creating two zones. 1st Fence would be trigger and 1st zone would also be impossible to cross without detection. 2nd Fence would be fairly hard to breach, and 2nd zone would be patrolled by vicious dogs. 3rd fence would be mostly to keep the dogs in the 2nd zone. Main purpose of 1st zone would be to protect dogs from being easily poisoned.

    I'm also thinking decommissioned CON-Ex boxes could play a role. Maybe as 3rd fence and housing and storage for staff. Make the roofs a "road" (with about 6ft high 'veil' of corrugated steel on south side) for E-bikes, golf carts and dogs. I've always felt the only thing better than "visual deterrent" is when a would be intruder knows you MIGHT be looking right at them but they can't tell.

    I'm thinking of "Pitbulls and Parolees: The Final Frontier" https://www.animalplanet.com/tv-show...-and-parolees/

    That would ensure an ample supply of both vicious dogs and low wage K-9 handlers. It would also provide much needed supervised gainful employment for parolees a nice safe distance away from pre-schools, dive bars and other temptations. I guess you'd have to watch for any parolees working with "Coyotes".

    That Overwatch would be provided by (non-lethal, but pepperspray AND UV marking dye a possibility) Drone operators, who, like their counterparts in War on Terror, could do the actual operation remotely, without having to leave their mom's basement in Wisconsin, that in turn would provide much needed supervised (by mom, lol) gainful employment for NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training). Only a few drone mechanics would be needed for servicing. NEETS could also monitor hi-res stationary tower CCTV. It would be like Uber, but diff. You sign up, then log on when a camera becomes "free" and start earning. That would require a web-cam on your end to make sure you are more or less actually using the camera. That would be the entry level before you get a Drone. Earnings would flex depending on demand. Small bonus for finding and logging any movement, including wild life, tumbleweeds, dust-devils and major bonus for intruders.

    I love it when a plan comes together. Note that in Ps & Ps and Drones & NEETs I'm not looking for perfection and expecting a few losses, but mostly just of Drones, which themselves would be largely repairable/recyclable, and hence "immortal".

    Hell, I wish I could get paid for hanging out in some remote outback, just me and some dogs. Target practice, mtn bike exploring, camping.


    But don't rely on my ideas.

    How would costs break down? How much staff? What levels of pay/qualifications?
    Last edited by Squid; 01-28-2019, 05:59 PM.

  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Condo Guard View Post
    https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...-border-fence/

    It took YEARS at the condos I worked at to even put up a fence to do they exact same thing - keep the crooks (in their case, car prowlers) out. The realtors and NIMBYs whined about it, and we didn't even have any barb wire in the proposal...
    These people are so delusional it makes me want to cry. I bet some of them own various business that have massive razor wire fencing. My buddy owns an auto repair biz with big yard protected by razor-wire in a not so good area. But when the gate is closed you can leave all your stuff out in open and even leave shop wide open if you go on test drive etc. Whole place has a nice comfy safe feeling due to razor-wire.

    Christine Courtland, a resident who frequently walks by the fence, said the additional wiring will potentially scare away visitors, the economic backbone of the city.

    “I have never seen anything to make a border crossing look more like a war zone than this,” she said. “I’m absolutely insulted.”

    Before city officials passed the resolution demanding removal of the wire, Nogales residents filed into the small government building on the west side of North Grand Avenue to express their displeasure.

    “That razor wire against the wall, it made me want to cry. It truly did,” said Sherrie Nixon, who has lived in Nogales for 33 years.


    Reminds me of IIRC Oakland didn't allow shops to put up steel roll-down doors because it was "insulting to Oakland residents" and show-nuf all those businesses got looted shortly afterward. The business even wanted to let The City or whoever paint whatever on all the rolling doors, totally giving up their valuable ad space when shops were closed, to make something "interesting looking" but City Hall didn't go for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Condo Guard
    replied
    https://arizonadailyindependent.com/...-border-fence/

    It took YEARS at the condos I worked at to even put up a fence to do they exact same thing - keep the crooks (in their case, car prowlers) out. The realtors and NIMBYs whined about it, and we didn't even have any barb wire in the proposal...

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    Squid, Lone Wolf, Lunch meat

    Would you three PLEASE stay in your lane. PayPal and Uber are both highly regulated. Maybe they weren't initially but now they are.

    And I guarantee you that the concern over a school club giving paid rides had more to do with LIABILITY of the school sponsoring the club than the taxi commissioner. And besides who would want to be given a ride from a student who had their license for what, three years at most. Use your brain
    yeah, largely recent immigrant Taxi drivers pay over $200K for no reason. adults are talking, think before posting to avoiding being "Soper-ed" in the future.


    The total value of all medallions and assets related to them had a value of $2.5 billion in Chicago in 2013. In 2012, medallion prices ranged from $87,000 to $385,000. In 2015, Chicago's average medallion price was under $230,000, down 30% from 2014. In 2018, they had dropped to a range of $30,000 to $100,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • v859
    replied
    Squid, Lone Wolf, Lunch meat

    Would you three PLEASE stay in your lane. PayPal and Uber are both highly regulated. Maybe they weren't initially but now they are.

    And I guarantee you that the concern over a school club giving paid rides had more to do with LIABILITY of the school sponsoring the club than the taxi commissioner. And besides who would want to be given a ride from a student who had their license for what, three years at most. Use your brain

    Leave a comment:


  • Lone Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Squid View Post

    the real power of Govt (especially Law Enforcement) is not what they can do with their legal powers, its what they can decide NOT to do with some excuse.

    Both Paypay (Elon Musk) and Uber/Lyft fortunes were maybe when otherwise overbearing Govt agencies STRANGELY decided to "take the day off" for about 5-10yrs for CERTAIN scoff law operators.

    I was in college just before Paypal and several bright kids floated same idea, but were told in no uncertain terms any such activity would bring down entire Fed Banking, FBI, RICO, Secret Service (counterfeiting) etc on them, and you'd go to prison for even PLANNING such a venture.

    Similarly, every HS or college Club has had the idea "we'll give people rides in our own cars through a dispatch to raise money" and their Club Advisor had to tell them about how the Taxi Commissioner's iron fist, and how they can levy YUGE fines without any Courts, trial etc.
    Talk about corruption at it’s finest. Looks 1984 is here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Condo Guard View Post
    Where I work there is at least one restaurant that admitted privately that they know they have employees working under fake names and social security numbers. They don''t care. I suspect that is because Seattle is a sanctuary city, so all parties know the chances of being caught are slim to none. You can also get a driver's license in WA without proof of citizenship (or even resident alien status), so they all flock here to get ID.
    the real power of Govt (especially Law Enforcement) is not what they can do with their legal powers, its what they can decide NOT to do with some excuse.

    Both Paypay (Elon Musk) and Uber/Lyft fortunes were maybe when otherwise overbearing Govt agencies STRANGELY decided to "take the day off" for about 5-10yrs for CERTAIN scoff law operators.

    I was in college just before Paypal and several bright kids floated same idea, but were told in no uncertain terms any such activity would bring down entire Fed Banking, FBI, RICO, Secret Service (counterfeiting) etc on them, and you'd go to prison for even PLANNING such a venture.

    Similarly, every HS or college Club has had the idea "we'll give people rides in our own cars through a dispatch to raise money" and their Club Advisor had to tell them about how the Taxi Commissioner's iron fist, and how they can levy YUGE fines without any Courts, trial etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Condo Guard
    replied
    Where I work there is at least one restaurant that admitted privately that they know they have employees working under fake names and social security numbers. They don''t care. I suspect that is because Seattle is a sanctuary city, so all parties know the chances of being caught are slim to none. You can also get a driver's license in WA without proof of citizenship (or even resident alien status), so they all flock here to get ID.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by Squid View Post

    IMO "privacy of employment" should be a right. No Employment taxes allowed. If Govt did its job, wouldn't be enough non-Citizens in USA to matter. If some tourist from Japan wants to work in real McDonalds for a week let him. Wages are not "income", they are an EVEN EXCHANGE of Valuable Time for Money. Only way Wages are Income is if Govt owns me as a slave.

    One of the main reasons people employee Illegals "off the books" is The Books are a major drag. Also, no one can or will tell you definitively who can legally work, but if you refuse to employ someone who IS legal, you can be sued. When I was in college I'd here about foreign students with employers that "weren't sure" and were "checking" etc. Every large employer is guilty of both wrongful employment and wrongful refusal.https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/ac...n-requirements

    This 100pg PDF isn't the actual rules. Its just an overview of various sections of actual laws. All this is just to "Determine Employment Eligibility". https://www.uscis.gov/book/export/html/59502/en

    About 1/2 way into the handbook.....

    11.4 Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting, Hiring, and the Form I-9 Process

    In practice, you should treat individuals equally when recruiting and hiring, and when verifying employment authorization and identity during the Form I-9 process.
    You should not:
    • Have different rules or requirements for individuals because of their national origin, citizenship, or immigration status. For example, you cannot demand that non-U.S. citizens present DHS issued documents. Each individual must be allowed to choose the documents that they will present from the lists of acceptable Form I-9 documents. For example, both citizens and other employment authorized individuals may present a driver’s license (List B) and an unrestricted Social Security card (List C) to establish identity and employment authorization. However, you must reject documents that do not reasonably appear to be genuine or to relate to the individual presenting them.
    • Request to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of Form I-9 because an individual looks or sounds “foreign,” or because the individual states that they are not a U.S. citizen.
    • Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document has a future expiration date.
    • Request specific documents from individuals to run an E-Verify case or based on an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation.
    • Request that an individual run a Self Check case and/or present documents showing the individual cleared Self Check.
    • Request that an employee who presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card present a new document when the Permanent Resident Card expires.
    • Request specific documents for reverification. For Example, an employee who presented an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766) during initial verification should be requested to present any document of their choosing from either from List A or from List C during reverification.
    • Limit jobs to U.S. citizens unless U.S. citizenship is required for the specific position by law; regulation; executive order; or federal, state, or local government contract.

    11.5 Employers Prohibited From Retaliating Against Employees

    You cannot take retaliatory action against a person who has filed a charge of discrimination with IER or the EEOC, participates in the investigation or prosecution of a discrimination complaint, such as by serving as a witness, or otherwise asserts rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision and/or Title VII. Such retaliatory action may constitute a violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, Title VII, and other federal anti-discrimination law.

    11.6 Procedures for Filing Charges of Employment Discrimination

    IER

    Discrimination charges may be filed by an individual, a person acting on behalf of such an individual, or a DHS officer who has reason to believe that discrimination has occurred. Discrimination charges must be filed with IER within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.
    Upon receipt of a complete discrimination charge, IER will notify you within 10 days that a charge has been filed against you and start its investigation. If you refuse to cooperate with IER’s investigation, IER can obtain a subpoena to compel you to produce the information and documents requested or to appear for an investigative interview.
    If IER has not filed a complaint with an administrative law judge within 120 days of receiving a charge of discrimination, it will notify the charging party (other than a DHS officer) of their right to file a complaint with an administrative law judge within 90 days after receiving the notice.
    Additionally, IER may also file a complaint. If a complaint is filed, the administrative law judge will conduct a hearing and issue a decision. IER may also attempt to settle a charge, or the parties may enter into a settlement agreement resolving the charge.



    THERE IS NO GOVT OFFICE THAT WILL TELL YOU IF SOMEONE IS OK TO EMPLOY, OR NOT.

    Well yes and no.

    Leaving everything else aside, maintaining control of who crosses our borders is and absolutely should be within the purview of the federal government. That's one of the things the government was instituted to do.

    Remember I live in a border state these employers know when they're hiring illegals. When you have an entire crew of drywallers none of whom speak English and all of whom are making 12 bucks an hour. Don't tell me the general contractor doesn't know that they're illegals.

    there are a bunch of little Mexican fast food joints down here like Albert tacos or Taco Star what are the franchise is owned by Mexican and the entire Crews illegals and they all make 7 Bucks an hour and they all work 50 and 60 hours a week and none of them get overtime and most of them were lucky to see their whole paycheck. Again, don't tell me the employer doesn't know he hired a bunch of illegals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post

    Start prosecuting employers who hire illegals no exceptions
    IMO "privacy of employment" should be a right. No Employment taxes allowed. If Govt did its job, wouldn't be enough non-Citizens in USA to matter. If some tourist from Japan wants to work in real McDonalds for a week let him. Wages are not "income", they are an EVEN EXCHANGE of Valuable Time for Money. Only way Wages are Income is if Govt owns me as a slave.

    One of the main reasons people employee Illegals "off the books" is The Books are a major drag. Also, no one can or will tell you definitively who can legally work, but if you refuse to employ someone who IS legal, you can be sued. When I was in college I'd here about foreign students with employers that "weren't sure" and were "checking" etc. Every large employer is guilty of both wrongful employment and wrongful refusal.https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/ac...n-requirements

    This 100pg PDF isn't the actual rules. Its just an overview of various sections of actual laws. All this is just to "Determine Employment Eligibility". https://www.uscis.gov/book/export/html/59502/en

    About 1/2 way into the handbook.....

    11.4 Avoiding Discrimination in Recruiting, Hiring, and the Form I-9 Process

    In practice, you should treat individuals equally when recruiting and hiring, and when verifying employment authorization and identity during the Form I-9 process.
    You should not:
    • Have different rules or requirements for individuals because of their national origin, citizenship, or immigration status. For example, you cannot demand that non-U.S. citizens present DHS issued documents. Each individual must be allowed to choose the documents that they will present from the lists of acceptable Form I-9 documents. For example, both citizens and other employment authorized individuals may present a driver’s license (List B) and an unrestricted Social Security card (List C) to establish identity and employment authorization. However, you must reject documents that do not reasonably appear to be genuine or to relate to the individual presenting them.
    • Request to see employment eligibility verification documents before hire and completion of Form I-9 because an individual looks or sounds “foreign,” or because the individual states that they are not a U.S. citizen.
    • Refuse to accept a document, or refuse to hire an individual, because a document has a future expiration date.
    • Request specific documents from individuals to run an E-Verify case or based on an E-Verify tentative nonconfirmation.
    • Request that an individual run a Self Check case and/or present documents showing the individual cleared Self Check.
    • Request that an employee who presented an unexpired Permanent Resident Card present a new document when the Permanent Resident Card expires.
    • Request specific documents for reverification. For Example, an employee who presented an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766) during initial verification should be requested to present any document of their choosing from either from List A or from List C during reverification.
    • Limit jobs to U.S. citizens unless U.S. citizenship is required for the specific position by law; regulation; executive order; or federal, state, or local government contract.

    11.5 Employers Prohibited From Retaliating Against Employees

    You cannot take retaliatory action against a person who has filed a charge of discrimination with IER or the EEOC, participates in the investigation or prosecution of a discrimination complaint, such as by serving as a witness, or otherwise asserts rights under the INA’s anti-discrimination provision and/or Title VII. Such retaliatory action may constitute a violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision, Title VII, and other federal anti-discrimination law.

    11.6 Procedures for Filing Charges of Employment Discrimination

    IER

    Discrimination charges may be filed by an individual, a person acting on behalf of such an individual, or a DHS officer who has reason to believe that discrimination has occurred. Discrimination charges must be filed with IER within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.
    Upon receipt of a complete discrimination charge, IER will notify you within 10 days that a charge has been filed against you and start its investigation. If you refuse to cooperate with IER’s investigation, IER can obtain a subpoena to compel you to produce the information and documents requested or to appear for an investigative interview.
    If IER has not filed a complaint with an administrative law judge within 120 days of receiving a charge of discrimination, it will notify the charging party (other than a DHS officer) of their right to file a complaint with an administrative law judge within 90 days after receiving the notice.
    Additionally, IER may also file a complaint. If a complaint is filed, the administrative law judge will conduct a hearing and issue a decision. IER may also attempt to settle a charge, or the parties may enter into a settlement agreement resolving the charge.



    THERE IS NO GOVT OFFICE THAT WILL TELL YOU IF SOMEONE IS OK TO EMPLOY, OR NOT.
    Last edited by Squid; 02-03-2019, 09:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    Squid, Lunch Meat, as two guys well versed in our border problems and, probably, movers and shakers in the business, what do you think are the best options for border security? Wall? Claymore mines? Snipers? Man hunters?
    Start prosecuting employers who hire illegals no exceptions

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Lone Wolf View Post
    Squid, Lunch Meat, as two guys well versed in our border problems and, probably, movers and shakers in the business, what do you think are the best options for border security? Wall? Claymore mines? Snipers? Man hunters?
    As I've laid out, a layered 100ft Razor Wire "defense in depth" with 16ft Con-Ex based wall as final barrier, backed by PitBulls, who are in turn backed by Paroles, who would be overseen by NEET operated CCTV towers and Drones, who's work would be cross checked by other NEETS. Finally, a 1 mile wide Restricted Zone that could be used for ranching, farming, etc but off limits to unauthorized personal where intruders that got past the 100ft would further be pursued by dogs, drones and armed BP agents and armed civilians.

    IMO, this would be cost effective enough to "pay for itself" purely through massive increase in property values (and property taxes) along the border.

    Another good option would be knock about 300 miles into sparsely populated (edit, North Mexico as in from Pacific to Gulf, not New Mexico)N Mexico, ship everyone south, and declare a "Security Zone/World Wildlife Preserve".
    Last edited by Squid; 02-03-2019, 08:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lone Wolf
    replied
    Squid, Lunch Meat, as two guys well versed in our border problems and, probably, movers and shakers in the business, what do you think are the best options for border security? Wall? Claymore mines? Snipers? Man hunters?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    I live in a border state if not actually on the border and I know quite a few people who actually do live within a mile of Mexico.

    The rules down there pretty simple; you don't leave your house without a gun. You don't leave your animals out at night. You pull the batteries out of your vehicles at night. you make damn sure you lock every door and window on your property at night. not that it does much good but if your property is gated you lock the gate and you take a look around before you leave your house.

    I think everybody who doesn't think need a wall should live in Sierra Vista for a month.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Meanwhile, it looks like some people are successfully keeping unwanted people from crossing the Border. Check out the smirk on the guy at extreme right side of photo. https://www.latimes.com/nation/immig...202-story.html

    Air tight Border Security against even highly trained spies is actually pretty easy. http://www.dailycal.org/2011/08/20/u...ars-in-prison/
    MY spies have informed me THAT terrain is more remote and rugged than anything on US/Mex Border AND that there is nothing of interest (besides sneaking into Iran) to possibly justify "hiking" in such an odd location. They were caught by a little boy and his shepard dog. Tactically, remote locations are pretty easy to catch intruders in, since they will need to travel in open for miles.

    Leave a comment:

300x250

Collapse

Mid 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Super Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X