Obama Border Patrol Chief Begs Donald Trump To ‘Stay The Course’ On Border Wall

Jun 26, 2018
623
441
200
42
Milwaukee, WI
#1
President Donald Trump gained an unlikely ally in his push for a wall along the southern border of the United States, the man who served as border patrol chief under former President Barack Obama.

Mark Morgan served for six months under Obama before being asked to step down by Trump when he took office. While he’s largely kept his opinions to himself, on Tuesday, before Trump addressed the nation, Morgan vocalized his support for the president’s plans. He told Law & Crime that “the wall works” and explained that Trump is “correct in what he’s doing.”

He called himself a “patriot” and said he wasn’t encouraged by the White House to go public with his favorable opinions of the president. Following Trump’s speech from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Morgan reiterated his support for the president’s plans during an interview with The Washington Post.

“I can stand up and say they are right because it’s the right thing to do for this country,” Morgan said. “I’m begging the president to stay the course.”


https://www.newsweek.com/obama-border-patrol-chief-begs-trump-stay-course-border-wall-1285825

Thank you, Mr. Morgan. You sir are a patriot.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
#6
Thats fine, he can be a reference for the pro-wall side when it gets debated outside the context of holding federal workers' paychecks hostage.

In the meantime lets go ahead and open that government back up.
Nah, the whole reason the Dems are refusing is because they make money off this circular issue, build the wall, then put the government back in, and they no longer can abuse the immigration cycle, more lives are better, boom.
 
May 19, 2010
1,835
81
565
#7
Good lord, all caps. Ease up, buddy.

Good for him though?


Nah, the whole reason the Dems are refusing is because they make money off this circular issue, build the wall, then put the government back in, and they no longer can abuse the immigration cycle, more lives are better, boom.
Considering Mitch McConnell just blocked a bill that passed unanimously in the senate a few months ago, I'm not sure this is the fault of democrats anymore.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2018
285
463
210
#8
Thats fine, he can be a reference for the pro-wall side when it gets debated outside the context of holding federal workers' paychecks hostage.

In the meantime lets go ahead and open that government back up.
We must collectively stand up to rape, sexual assault, human trafficking, and violence. Enough is enough.
 
Apr 9, 2009
26,993
1,409
815
#9
Pubs had two years with a majority in both chambers. That time is over and they know longer have the same leverage.

The republicans know this.

We must collectively stand up to rape, sexual assault, human trafficking, and violence. Enough is enough.
100% agreed. You'll find that democrats support border security (which we acknowledge will be payed for by taxpayers and not Mexico) and that deportations were fairly high under the Obama administration. Don't fall for the open borders meme.
 
Likes: JareBear
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
#10
Pubs had two years with a majority in both chambers. That time is over and they know longer have the same leverage.

The republicans know this.
And yet the democrats will fold, the wall will be made, the dems will make less money off this circular issue abandoning it, and immigration is no longer a real issue in this country for a generation.

Also yes Obama did deport a lot of immigrants, and also brought a ton in, which for some reason people like to pretend didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
2,160
582
605
#11
We've really opened up pandora's box for justifying a government shutdown in the future over moral outrage.

I'm expecting a lot of legislation to curb the ability to just simply stop the government or it will be fair game for Democrats once they're in power to start messing with people's lives over what they see as a crisis; queue a government shutdown for medicare for all, gun control, opioid crisis, etc.

That McConnell and now Democrats in the house can simply refuse to move bills forward until the other side caves is a clear sign that our government is broken.

Here's my hot take that presides over all the wall threads - If Republicans had the house, we wouldn't have any funding for the wall in our budget and we wouldn't have a government shutdown.
 
Aug 30, 2018
285
463
210
#13
Pubs had two years with a majority in both chambers. That time is over and they know longer have the same leverage.

The republicans know this.



100% agreed. You'll find that democrats support border security (which we acknowledge will be payed for by taxpayers and not Mexico) and that deportations were fairly high under the Obama administration. Don't fall for the open borders meme.
You agree, but the side you're defending definitely doesn't. Their actions make it clear they want to continue giving the incentives to crossing the border illegally, which means they are OK supporting rape, sexual assault, human trafficking, and violence as long as it makes Trump look bad.
 
Apr 18, 2018
6,111
9,114
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#14
Seems like he would have no political motivation to say this and therefore we should take his expertise seriously.

I mean, he oversaw the program. If he's recommending that the president stay the course, that sounds like something that should be considered. This game where anything Trump wants to do is automatically "bad" has become comical. Some of his ideas are good. Sorry that you have to admit he isn't Hitler. Get over the salt.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
#15
Fixed that....

And hopefully. Would be a shame if we find out down the road that the wall ended up having little impact. But of course hindsight is 20/20
Right now walking through is quick and easy, and advocate groups/orgs have helped with that. With a wall and increased border security it's going to severely cut things down. The mob ain't going the cartels aren't going to shoot their way through and start a war with the Guard, and the average migrant won't have someone helping them through.
 
Aug 30, 2018
285
463
210
#20
The wall is not needed. Obama himself could come out in favor of the wall and I would still think of it as a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.
How could you be so heartless?

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
 
May 22, 2018
3,069
2,174
240
#22
How could you be so heartless?

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
Spare me your fake outrage. You don't give a damn about their plight. You just want the wall.


Also explain to me how a billion dollar boondoggle along the border would help them?
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2018
285
463
210
#29
Spare me your fake outrage. You don't give a damn about their plight. You just want the wall.


Also explain to me how a billion dollar boondoggle along the border would help them?
Actions speak louder than words, right? I want to protect these women with the wall and so does the President that represents me. You don't support it, so you want business to continue on as usual, which means a ton of rape.

That wall is going to reduce the number of women that try take the journey to illegally immigrate, thus reducing the number of rapes that occur. Simple stuff, dude.
 
Likes: zelo-ca
Nov 12, 2016
641
677
250
#35
Seems like he would have no political motivation to say this and therefore we should take his expertise seriously.

I mean, he oversaw the program. If he's recommending that the president stay the course, that sounds like something that should be considered. This game where anything Trump wants to do is automatically "bad" has become comical. Some of his ideas are good. Sorry that you have to admit he isn't Hitler. Get over the salt.
How would this guy know? He was only in charge of the border. "Question his sanity for usual Liberal ad hominem attack"

I much rather trust some Liberal writing an article from Huffpost.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,499
1,581
240
#36
Since walls provably work as seen by countless examples in the past and by examples right now.. it means the wall would work against illegal immigration and trafficking thats just a fact any democrat against the wall therefore cannot claim to want border control, stop trafficking or to be against illegal immigration its that simple.
They should at least be honest and come out and say it would hurt their votes in a decade or two when all illegals get naturalized again, there is no need for the dumb charade everyone knows the real reason and half the democrats cant go a week without proclaiming on twitter "hurr soon we control everything we just need more import lolol" like some shitty third rate cartoon villain so there is no mystery around the intent meaning anyone still playing this "yeah but democrats actually want border control too.. *just not a effective one *"game must think at this point everyone else is blind and stupid.
 
Last edited:
Jun 16, 2005
402
23
1,120
#37
Actions speak louder than words, right? I want to protect these women with the wall and so does the President that represents me. You don't support it, so you want business to continue on as usual, which means a ton of rape.

That wall is going to reduce the number of women that try take the journey to illegally immigrate, thus reducing the number of rapes that occur. Simple stuff, dude.
I noticed the article doesn't mention if the women are illegally or legally trying to enter the country. Legally or illegally most of the women escaping their country still have to make the journey from their country of origin to get to the United States. Anything can happen in between.
 
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#38
If you support completely open borders (unfettered immigration), I think you’re stupid.

If you support completely closed borders (no immigration), I think you’re also stupid.

If you support race-based immigration, I think you’re evil.

If you support culture-based immigration prioritised on an ease-of-integration basis, I think you’re practical and likely have your head screwed on right.

How do you ensure that cultural integration happens when people immigrate to your country? First, you have the necessary administrative procedures / integration programs in place. Second, you ensure that they're enforced. How do you enforce them? You stop illegal immigration and control the flow of legal immigration. How do you stop illegal immigration? A wall is one option. Will it work? I don't know, but the empirical data from other countries like Israel seem to indicate that it might. Besides, Trump campaigned on it and won, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that it has public support. Forget your polls - the election is the most accurate poll of all. The onus is therefore on those opposed to the wall to prove why it won't work rather than the other way around. Whether you or I like the idea of it is beside the point - it's not about us, it's about what the people voted for. Poor optics is not a valid argument. Racism is not a valid argument. Orange Man Bad is not a valid argument.

If you are vehemently opposed to the wall, please give me one alternative that you think will stem the flow of illegal immigration.
 
Jul 22, 2018
634
286
330
#41
My favorite story of the day was Jim Acosta's attempt to belittle the plan for Trump's steel slats across the border, unintentionally making a strong case for the wall.

It’s nice and quiet because they’re digging and traveling them underground tunnels Trump was shown by border patrol today.
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
May 17, 2012
5,069
832
455
Canada
#42
People saying 5 billion dollars is some outrageous amount of money after Iran was given 180 billion, foreign aid is 50 Billion a year. If you can afford to throw 10-36x that at corrupt foreign governments you can afford the wall.
From my understanding you don't really need walls everywhere. Only at locations where they can slip into populated areas and disappear before they are able to be apprehended. There are many areas where sensors and technology work because the border is miles away from populated areas/roads allowing for apprehensions by border agents posted nearby. I don't think the plan intended to put a full great wall of China type wall. They should have been more transparent about the plans rather than allowing the opposition to control the narrative. It is really just an extension of what they already have with better coverage and less defeatable barriers. Everywhere they have put barriers has seen around a 95% drop in attempts to cross.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
#43
I've said before I am fine with strengthening the border through various means. It's the useless as fuck wall that I am against.
I don't know why fools keep saying the wall is useless.

They wall immediately causes issues, for one with increased border security along with the wall:

1. It's no longer possible to just walk on through.

2. A shoot out will be met with doom.

3. The common myth of a ladeer won't work with increased border security along with the wall, and even if it does out of thousands of illegals only a few will be able to use that to get through unnoticed, if that.

4. Cartels won't have quick and easy access.

5. Pro-immigrant activists can't sneak people through using border towns as cover.

6. This issue actually gets resolved gradually because the democrats won't be able to make more money on this circular issue lying about fixing the border only to not fix it and then make money off the opponent wanting to fix it. Despite the horrible conditions and death.

There's really been NO reason NOT to have a wall. Not one logical point against it has come up. It's shot-mid-and long-term more beneficial than it not being there. And it will force illegals to wait in line and legally get in, and guess what, just like the guys you cut in front of before, you may not ever get in during your life-time even legally, blame the democrats for that.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,770
1,353
835
#45
People saying 5 billion dollars is some outrageous amount of money after Iran was given 180 billion, foreign aid is 50 Billion a year. If you can afford to throw 10-36x that at corrupt foreign governments you can afford the wall.
From my understanding you don't really need walls everywhere. Only at locations where they can slip into populated areas and disappear before they are able to be apprehended. There are many areas where sensors and technology work because the border is miles away from populated areas/roads allowing for apprehensions by border agents posted nearby. I don't think the plan intended to put a full great wall of China type wall. They should have been more transparent about the plans rather than allowing the opposition to control the narrative. It is really just an extension of what they already have with better coverage and less defeatable barriers. Everywhere they have put barriers has seen around a 95% drop in attempts to cross.
The opposition did not plant a narrative, that was Trump. He initially called for a great big beautiful border wall spanning the entire border. He also invoked its importance by using fear, which works only on his audiences. So you see it wasn't about practicality.

Another point is that walls take maintenance to upkeep, especially if made out of metal, and we have fences in California that are not being maintained, and are looking bad right now.

So do we need the fenced areas that we don't maintain? Maybe not and so we let them not. Could fencing be used in other places? Maybe. Historically fences had been put up and backed by increased border patrol at that point, not less (strategic). It's not like we put fencing up and leave it be. We back it by increased security. So we may actually be good on needing more fenced areas, or only need a few more. The Texas border has a lack of them.

But that type of strategic placement had been fully supported since forever.

And let's be honest, the border has desert, wetlands, grasslands, rivers, mountains and forests. We don't need to mess with all of that.
 
Last edited:
Oct 1, 2014
581
64
315
#46
I prefer focusing on the issues that are motivating people to leave Mexico.

The wall itself may have merit in some locations, but to me it's more of a facade for a politically dangerous slippery slope. If Trump keeps at it his opposition will tire out, tipping stuff he wants to do next in his favor.

Critics can call it fear mongering. I'm concerned like-minded people are losing representation in the federal government.
 
Likes: PkunkFury
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#47
Truly, Trump's greatest mistake was listening to whomever told him to go back on his DACA deal with Schumer and Pelosi last time this happened. There is nothing anyone can say that'll make the hypothetical wall worth a penny.
You're spreading a bit of historical revisionism on that one I think, mate. Trump's DACA deal didn't go through because the Democrats were unwilling to compromise on the wall. That was his initial bargaining chip, which I think the Democrats should've taken given how the situation has evolved (devolved?).
 
Apr 25, 2009
6,250
6,227
805
Australia
#48
The opposition did not plant a narrative, that was Trump. He initially called for a great big beautiful border wall spanning the entire border. He also invoked its importance by using fear, which works only on his audiences. So you see it wasn't about practicality.

Another point is that walls take maintenance to upkeep, especially if made out of metal, and we have fences in California that are not being maintained, and are looking bad right now.

So do we need the fenced areas that we don't maintain? Maybe not and so we let them not. Could fencing be used in other places? Maybe. Historically fences had been put up and backed by increased border patrol at that point, not less (strategic). It's not like we put fencing up and leave it be. We back it by increased security. So we may actually be good on needing more fenced areas, or only need a few more. The Texas border has a lack of them.

But that type of strategic placement had been fully supported since forever.

And let's be honest, the border has desert, wetlands, grasslands, rivers, mountains and forests. We don't need to mess with all of that.
The wall would be maintained by the federal government, wouldn't it? Not sure how state-owned fences in California are relevant.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,770
1,353
835
#49
The wall would be maintained by the federal government, wouldn't it? Not sure how state-owned fences in California are relevant.
Congress will have to approve new budgets, and the DHS will have to give a reason why they are spending more money (salaries, maintenence, etc). Just like with what happens now they'll get selective about what to repair leaving the less useful parts to wither. But since the wall will take forever to build, and it won't start building before the next election, I just don't ever see it happening.
 
Last edited: