All errors should be reported to

Friday, May 20, 2016

NYT doubles down on stupid about Trump's Wall

The engineering experts at the New York Times -- undaunted by that newspaper's backfire on Sunday in which it misquoted the star witness in its expose -- is now telling its readers that the Trump's Wall cannot be built. I guess the various Trump Towers also cannot be built.

Also, the Times does not believe we can deport people.

From the New York Times:
Former senior immigration and border officials are skeptical, to put it mildly. Deportations have peaked recently at about 400,000 a year, so the increase in scale to reach Mr. Trump’s goal would be exponential. And many legal procedures and constitutional constraints on the police did not exist in the Eisenhower era.
“I can’t even begin to picture how we would deport 11 million people in a few years where we don’t have a police state, where the police can’t break down your door at will and take you away without a warrant,” said Michael Chertoff, who led a significant increase in immigration enforcement as the secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.
Finding those immigrants would be difficult, experts said. Police officers across the country would need to ask people for proof of residency or citizenship during traffic stops and street encounters. The Border Patrol would need highway checkpoints across the Southwest and near the Canadian border. To avoid racial profiling, any American could expect to be stopped and asked for papers.
Who says you have to avoid racial profiling? Who made that determination?

And then there is this:
To achieve millions of deportations, the Obama administration’s focus on deporting serious criminals would have to be scrapped, said Julie Myers Wood, a director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, under Mr. Bush. “You would not care if the person had a criminal record,” she said.
Why would we have to scrap that?

But it is Trump's Wall that bothers the Times the most.
Mr. Trump has shared few details. He has said that the wall would be built from precast concrete and steel and that it could be 50 feet tall, if not higher. After calling for it to extend across the entire 2,000-mile southern border, he more recently said half that length could be sufficient because of natural barriers. He has pegged the cost at $4 billion to $12 billion, most recently settling on around $10 billion.
Some see that as low. “There’s a lot of logistics involved in this, and I don’t know how thoroughly they’ve thought it out,” said Todd Sternfeld, chief executive of Superior Concrete, a Texas-based builder of walls. “The resources alone would be astronomical.”
Mr. Sternfeld, who has led major wall projects across the country and approached the Trump family last summer, suggested that Mr. Trump was overly optimistic about the cost and was underestimating the complexity of the undertaking.
Running the numbers, Mr. Sternfeld said a 40-foot-tall concrete wall using a “post and panel” system that went 10 feet below the ground — to minimize tunneling — would cost at least $26 billion. The logistics would be nightmarish, including multiple concrete casting sites and temporary housing for a crew of 1,000 workers if the job were to be completed within Mr. Trump’s first four-year term.
OK, it will cost $26 billion.

So what?

Hillary Clinton called for a $30 billion program to retrain miners.

Where's the money for that?

Experts. They are the ones who told me Trump would not be nominated.

It can't be done in four years.

So give him eight.

Mickey Kaus called it a bad-faith article.
Please, New York Times, keep publishing this nonsense. It is very entertaining watching the media beclown itself.


  1. I rather think that if it was possible to keep the Red Army out of Western Europe, it will be possible to keep illegal immigrants out of the continental United States, given a President with something on his mind other than toilets.

    Of course, if they want to do an end-run via Nome, hey, knock yourselves out, guys. And dress warm.

  2. Typical journalism. I had that second word in scare quotes but deleted them because it would seem to belie the typicality. But this is what they do: they have prejudices and a political agenda just like anyone else, and go about confirming their biases by interviewing like minds. If they want to look really objective they interview one or two dissenting persons with the intent to set their opinions up as irrelevant or as straw men to be knocked down. Anyone purchasing their news and information on current events is wasting their money. All they are getting is a veneer of facts laced with tons of opinion and subliminal influence. There is a lot of criticism these days of people being superficial readers who skim articles or even skip to the comments after reading a headline or a sentence or two. I don't think of this as being superficial in most cases. Most new stories have only one piece of pertinent information that you need to see. Sometimes it is buried in the story with the intention of forcing you to wade through it and be exposed to the author's prejudices. Reading the headline and skipping to the comments often saves ten minutes of reading time and exposure to insidious lunacy. The only things I read closely are the opinions of those whose thoughts matter to me and economic articles. I do not include books in this. We are talking about journalism (for your trolls, Don, both of them). No. I don't think the folks who cruise the interwebs are ignorant, I think they are much more sophisticated readers than the people who absorbed all the mainstream pap during the 60's through the 2000's. The polls even show the lack of trust they put in journalists. Most of us know what liars they are. The lampposts are waiting.

  3. NY Times on expensive liberal causes with no economic return: price is not mentioned, gov't has all kinds of $, just raise taxes.
    NY Times on sensible America-first infrastructure projects that will provide economic returns: It can't be done, it is too expensive!!!!!!

  4. by way of an addendum, let's end all federal handouts to illegals, and use a fraction of that $$ to build the wall. We'll let the NYT pass the hat among the staff to raise some $$ for the illegals and they can show us their awesome humanitarianism.

  5. Exponential. Lessee, math... OK. 400,000 squared (that's exponential) is 400000 times 400000 and that's 160,000,000,000. Hmmmmmmm.
    That's more people than there are in the whole world.

    NYT can't do math, layers and layers of factcheckers...

  6. "Ihre papiere, bitte!"

    There, that wasn't difficult. It was even polite. But if you want to get serious about deporting illegal aliens you need to go after everyone who hires them, everyone who rents to them, hospitals who treat them, and especially "social workers" who give them taxpayers' money. When these folks start pulling jail time you'll see a big difference.

    As for "The Wall," please see "China, Great Wall of." The hardest part of building such a wall? Getting started.

    The New York Times? The National Review of the Left? They have reached the point of irrelevance.

    - Elric

    1. Yes. Get rid of the magnets. Who are also maggots, imho.

  7. Go to the Superior Concrete web site and see what types of "fences" they sell. They do have one or two pictures of their precast panel walls as high as maybe 10 ft. So no wonder they can't figure the logistics of a 50 ft high wall. As to tunneling, sheet piling would handle that and be cheaper and easier that below ground concrete panels.

    BTW the liberals love the idea of the over budget and behind schedule California high speed rail line but they claim a simple wall can't be built?

  8. The Lefties are getting scared he's gonna win and ruin their diverse, multi-culti oligarchy and bring back the USA.

  9. Go talk to the east Germans and ask them if it is possible to build a wall. Stupid biased nyt.

  10. Get large numbers of adults to self-deport by requiring proof of citizenship or permanent residency to collect government benefits, including health care of any kind or to work. Fine employers who knowingly hire illegals. The main difficulty will be the legal status of the anchor babies. For that, it will be difficult on everyone, but the policy of blanket, indiscriminate family unification must end and be replaced by a policy of case by case review in which the family members must be living and applying ONLY from outside the US. A major change will be needed in the immigration review process which open borders activists and immigration lawyers have gamed in order to delay deportations. To fix a broken system will take years, but every long journey starts with the first step.

    1. PS: $30B is chump change, just 1%, of a $3T federal budget. It's represents 2/3rds of the annual budget of the DHS, now around $40B. I can't think of a better way to spend the money Congress gives Homeland Security each year than building a wall.

    2. PPS: The state of Hawaii is spending $8B to build a 20 mile rail transit system that goes from nowhere to nowhere, with federal support. If a tiny state with a population of just 1M people can spend that much money on a public transit boondoggle, the feds in a country of more than 300M people can surely find $30B to spend over 4, 8, or 10 years to help ensure the country's security. Whether The Wall would actually work or end up being a boondoggle like Hawaii's public transit is a separate issue, one that deserves serious discussion apart from the cost issue.

  11. Illegal immigration is a huge part of the socialist agenda, and they don't let votes by real citizens get in the way of it. They have activist judges elected by low-information voters at the ready:

    --Montana state officials are not allowed to report the immigration status of people seeking state services, the state’s high court ruled on Tuesday.

    In a unanimous decision, the court struck down the last piece of a voter-approved law meant to deter undocumented immigrants from living and working in the “Treasure State.” It upholds a 2014 ruling stating that the law denying unemployment benefits, university enrollment and other services to people who are in the country illegally was unconstitutional.

    The Montana Supreme went further, rejecting the one remaining position that required state workers to report to federal immigration officials the names of applicants who are in the U.S. undocumented.--