Talk:Secure Fence Act of 2006

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hang gliders[edit]

What do these guys do if they see somebody fly over in a hang glider...? Wnt (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

get air support -AMAPO (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have air support out in the middle of nowhere? And it seems like it's hard enough for people to spot a downed plane let alone a hidden camouflaged hang glider. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Edits[edit]

I am beginning to work on this act as part of a school project. I am intending to include more information on support for and against this act as well as any relevant information as to what it has accomplished (or not) for U.S. Immigration, in general its effectiveness and what it might mean for future legislation.Gbraham522 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error[edit]

"On September 29, 2006 - the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it."

Unless there were fewer than 38 Democrats in the Senate, it is mathematically incorrect to state that "most Democrats voted against it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.221.43 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

The claim was an outright falsehood, and wasn't even supported in the link given. 26 Democrats voted for the Act, so it's hard to see how 19 constitue "most." Deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration law[edit]

George Bush said that the bill was an "important step toward immigration reform". But is it actually anything to do with immigration reform? Surely a wall enforces (hopefully) security and the enforcement of current restrictions. It does not change in any way immigration rules.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Wall[edit]

Should I add a section about Trump possibly using this law as a bypass to Congress approving a wall?

AA Quantum (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As an encyclopedia, this article should only reflect actions of the Trump (or any other future) administration if they actually do use it to bypass the US Congress. Having said that, there is still no new funding available, so congress would have to be involved in order to fund it. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 12:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSR report[edit]

Citing WSJ: 'Apprehensions, a rough proxy for measuring illegal crossings, were down 18% at the southern border last year and Border Patrol attributes some of that to the fence. But a report in May by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal crossers had simply found new routes.'

Secure Fence Act was passed in September 2006 and the article was last edited in February 2009. So such report could be made in the years 2007 and 2008. After looking for such report in https://crsreports.congress.gov and https://fas.org/sgp/crs/ nothing related was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rexkrilla (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ is a WP:RS. The fact that you could not find something is not an indication that the WSJ is wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ may or may not be a WP:RS but that doesn't change the facts that the report doesn't exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rexkrilla (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try doing a modicum of diligence before removing sourced material? Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border, Congressional Research Service, March 16, 2009: "there is also strong indication that the fencing, combined with added enforcement, has re-routed illegal immigrants to other less fortified areas of the border." Neutrality^talk 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ is using as source the report mentioned above, in the same report it is clearly stated "In the limited urban areas where border fencing has been constructed, it has typically reduced apprehensions." proving the effectiveness of it (where deployed). Now stop with edit-warring to promote specific narrative/propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rexkrilla (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd to add language that the fence has been proven effective when the source clearly says that there are strong indications that migrants are being re-routed. Your feeling that the fence has been proven effective doesn't belong here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no feeling just straight facts from the CSR report. Let me cite you the whole paragraph

"A possible issue for Congress concerns the overall effectiveness of border fencing, especially if it is not constructed across the entire border in question. In the limited urban areas where border fencing has been constructed, it has typically reduced apprehensions. However, there is also strong indication that the fencing, combined with added enforcement, has re-routed illegal immigrants to other less fortified areas of the border." Thus proving that the fence (where erected) is effective

Thankfully, WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia, and we don't have to rely on the poor deductive reasoning seen above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the poor deductive reasoning above? WSJ is used as source, but it is clearly that they have taken out of context part of the proto-source, Changing the source to the original CSR report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7rexkrilla (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: Trump's proposed wall—which he said would consist of 2,000 miles "of hardened concrete, and ... rebar, and steel" across the entire southern border[22]

To: Trump said he would need to erect about 1,000 miles of border wall along the 2,000-mile long border because of natural barriers along certain parts.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-cost-8-billion/ William Frantz (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]