Wall or No Wall?

Wall or No Wall?

  • Wall

    Votes: 93 50.5%
  • No Wall

    Votes: 91 49.5%

  • Total voters
    184

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#2
Doesn’t phase me.

However, I think it’s wrong for Trump to shut down the government when he said time and time again Mexico would pay for the wall.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#3
He campaigned on it and won, therefore he should do his best to fulfill it. I don’t give a shit about polls — they’re easily manipulated and should not be used by sore losers as proxies to the actual election process. Anyone claiming that the people don’t want the wall is doing exactly this. If Trump had not campaigned on the wall and proposed it after the election, my thoughts would likely be different.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#5
This. It's also bemusing that people get upset about a thing that's intended to control illegal activity.
That’s why they’re so desperately trying to change the term to “undocumented”. It was just a simple mistake — they just left their documents at home, I swear! No person is illegal!
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,442
115
430
New York
#7
I watched the Steven Crowder bit, “build the wall, change my mind”, and there were some interesting facts. One debater suggested (via democratic senator) that drones would be a more advanced and frugal way of doing things and thaf the wall in more of a temporary issue. The wall isn’t so much the problem, it’s if/when it gets done, can we reform our imigration laws.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#8
No wall. I am fine with making changes at the border to beef up security and other measures to help them take care of any immigrants they capture and have to send back, but a multi-billion dollar boondoggle? No thanks.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#9
No wall. I am fine with making changes at the border to beef up security and other measures to help them take care of any immigrants they capture and have to send back, but a multi-billion dollar boondoggle? No thanks.
I know, right? Think of all the gender reassignment surgeries that money could be used for if they gave it to the military instead. Oh wait.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
5,550
1,939
1,000
#10
He won the election and it is his main promise. We should do what the people voted for. A giant concrete wall across the whole border is unrealistic though. Border patrol said they just want steel slats in some areas to help. It’s not that expensive and it will help them. We should do what border patrol requested and what people voted for.

I’d rather trust our agents on what they need over a millionaire politician like Nancy Pelosi who can’t even explain why we can’t allocate funding towards what border patrol said would help.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#11
He won the election and it is his main promise. We should do what the people voted for. A giant concrete wall across the whole border is unrealistic though. Border patrol said they just want steel slats in some areas to help. It’s not that expensive and it will help them. We should do what border patrol requested and what people voted for.
If we are going by election victories then the Dems have the latest major victory. But I know that isn't gonna count for some reason.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#12
He won an election stating repeatedly that Mexico would pay for it. Now he's trying to make taxpayers foot the bill, and holding the public servants hostage to do it.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
5,550
1,939
1,000
#14
He won an election stating repeatedly that Mexico would pay for it. Now he's trying to make taxpayers foot the bill, and holding the public servants hostage to do it.
Politicians say dumb campaign stuff all the time. I don’t think anyone actually thought Mexico was going to agree and cut a check. A giant concrete wall is also a bad idea too. People voted for a stronger border though. To me 5 billion for steel barriers in specific areas doesn’t sound like a crazy request.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#16
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea that occasionally you have to be creative to fulfill election promises but 1) Trump was called out for his lying on the campaign trail, and doubled down on his lie at every opportunity 2) he had two years where the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House, and 3) he's now hurting the public by shutting down the government.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#18
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea that occasionally you have to be creative to fulfill election promises but 1) Trump was called out for his lying on the campaign trail, and doubled down on his lie at every opportunity 2) he had two years where the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House, and 3) he's now hurting the public by shutting down the government.
Exactly. Its a transparent attempt to save face. He doesn't give a damn about whether or not the Wall will actually work. He is only trying to "get a win" and he doesn;t care how many lives he destroys in the process.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#19
Exactly. Its a transparent attempt to save face. He doesn't give a damn about whether or not the Wall will actually work. He is only trying to "get a win" and he doesn;t care how many lives he destroys in the process.
Whose lives are being destroyed? Unless you mean the public servants going without pay for a few weeks. They will be backpaid, you know?
 
Jan 26, 2018
852
862
200
#22
That doesn't help them pay their bills or put food on the table in the meantime and you know that. This is actively harming American Citizens and he doesn't care.
Most gouverment workers make a good pay. If they were smart they would have an emergency funds to last them 3+ months. Plus a lot of their positions should be privatized anyways.
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#23
That’s why they’re so desperately trying to change the term to “undocumented”. It was just a simple mistake — they just left their documents at home, I swear! No person is illegal!
That's disingenuous. The argument regarding "nobody is illegal" is more a semantical one, because using illegal as a short form for illegal immigrant ties the illegality to the person rather than the immigration process and is disrespectful. Sure, some people may state there should be no such thing as illegal immigration, but that's a fringe position.

The issue with the wall is that it is a symbolic, populist act that costs a lot of money without achieving anything.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
5,550
1,939
1,000
#24
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea that occasionally you have to be creative to fulfill election promises but 1) Trump was called out for his lying on the campaign trail, and doubled down on his lie at every opportunity 2) he had two years where the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House, and 3) he's now hurting the public by shutting down the government.
If we ignore all the politics would you be against building 5 billion in steel slats if border patrol sent in the request themselves saying it would help them at the border?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#26
That's disingenuous. The argument regarding "nobody is illegal" is more a semantical one, because using illegal as a short form for illegal immigrant ties the illegality to the person rather than the immigration process and is disrespectful. Sure, some people may state there should be no such thing as illegal immigration, but that's a fringe position.

The issue with the wall is that it is a symbolic, populist act that costs a lot of money without achieving anything.
Yes mate, I’m the disingenuous one, not those engaging in doubleplusungood wordplay by changing it from illegal to undocumented. Your reasoning for why it’s being done is flawed.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#28
Most gouverment workers make a good pay. If they were smart they would have an emergency funds to last them 3+ months. Plus a lot of their positions should be privatized anyways.
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to do that. Alot of families live paycheck to paycheck these days and federal workers are hardly the highest paid people to begin with.


You guys can keep trying to downplay the damage that is being done to people's lives in order to try and save face, but it doesn't make the reality any less real. People are being harmed by the GOP's refusal to let the shutdown end. Thats the reality. You don't get to handwave that away like you do all of the other shit that Trump and the Republicans do. Not this time.
 
Last edited:

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#29
If we ignore all the politics would you be against building 5 billion in steel slats if border patrol sent in the request themselves saying it would help them at the border?
I'm not against a wall in principle. I am, however, against shutting down the government to obtain it.

Also, the fact that the border patrol wants a wall doesn't necessarily mean its needed. I can guarantee you the every government department says that about almost every piece of infrastructure, policy etc.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#30
How is that Mexico paying for the wall?
Because the burden for supporting those people shifts from the US to Mexico. It’s a pretty simple equation: the money spent on the wall is offset by the money saved by forcing them to stay in Mexico. This of course assumes that the wall will achieve its stated purpose, but given that it’s what the people voted for, I think the onus is on those opposed to disprove its efficacy rather than the other way around.
 
Jul 31, 2014
1,271
134
295
Finland
#32
If it would actually do the things he claims, there would be some reason to it. He keeps complaining about drugs and terrorists. That’s his favourite argument. So when 90% of the drugs come through legal checkpoints and the wall is a financial shitshow, we are cool to spending 5 billion on a fence in a world where ladders exist?

Also trying to tie in the opioid epidemic to drugs was solid move /s it’s not like the previous administration tried to get money for the opioid epidemic, which the R’s decided was a waste of money. Yet 5 billion on a wall to stop less than 10% of the drugs. Nice. Fiscally responsible party.

Also the number of people coming over the border has gone down significantly in the past twenty years, but now it’s a crisis.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#33
Are you Trump's mouthpiece?

Please indicate the flaws in my argument against calling people illegals.
For starters, the technically correct term is illegal alien. You’re trying to spin some sob story about how it’s somehow dehumanising to call them illegals when in reality it’s just short for illegal alien. Don’t want to be called an illegal? Don’t illegally bypass the immigration process. You can call me Trump’s mouthpiece if you like but that’s pretty silly given that you’re effective arguing for open borders.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#34
only if the wall is looking like that



Or else just do it like East Germany with fences and mine fields.

 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
852
862
200
#35
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to do that. Alot of families live paycheck to paycheck these days and federal workers are hardly the highest paid people to begin with.


You guys can keep trying to downplay the damage that is being done to people's lives in order to try and save face, but it doesn't make the reality any less real. People are being harmed by the GOP's refusal to let the shutdown end. Thats the reality. You don't get to handwave that away like you do all of the other shit that Trump and the Republicans do. Not this time.
Lol I bet a lot of normal people are realizing that this isn't affecting their lives very much and maybe are wondering why the gouverment is so large. The fat should be trimmed off.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#36
Lol I bet a lot of normal people are realizing that this isn't affecting their lives very much and maybe are wondering why the gouverment is so large. The fat should be trimmed off.
800,000 federal workers are not being paid. No money for bills. No money for food and other essentials.


Are you seriously so delusional and so biased (and oh yes haha I "dare" to use those words. Save me the snarky comebacks about my own post history and be a real person for a second) that you are gonna sit there and tell me that no harm is being done? That all 800,000 of them have ample savings to be able to cope with this tremendous hardship?



Really?
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,760
1,757
240
#37
People that dont want a wall and rather take open borders knowing full well that they import crime and knowing full well that any talk of "hurr immigration reform" is just optics are clueless at best or dishonest liars seeking ulterior motives at worst.
And before the typical nonsense excuses start NO "b..but we have already criminal citizens so no one can complain when we illegal import more crime for future waves of amnesty and votes" is not a argument its idiocy and borders on selling out future political decision making power of US citizens.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#38
Exactly. Its a transparent attempt to save face. He doesn't give a damn about whether or not the Wall will actually work. He is only trying to "get a win" and he doesn;t care how many lives he destroys in the process.
This goes for both sides now. It is piss poor kindergarden from both. This is what happens when you only follow your ideology and not try to stand u for the people.
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#39
For starters, the technically correct term is illegal alien. You’re trying to spin some sob story about how it’s somehow dehumanising to call them illegals when in reality it’s just short for illegal alien. Don’t want to be called an illegal? Don’t illegally bypass the immigration process. You can call me Trump’s mouthpiece if you like but that’s pretty silly given that you’re effective arguing for open borders.
I am not arguing for open borders, I am not even in favour of them. I am arguing the following:
- The wall is not an effective way to stop illegal immigration
- Shortening illegal alien to illegal is offensive because it extends the term "illegal" to the whole person rather than just the person's status as an immigrant. Not a major issue for me, personally, but I can see how that can be seen as offensive and can lead to less nuanced ways to speak about those involved
- I am not in favour of illegal immigration, it is every country's right to control immigration and to disallow immigration for non-humanitarian reasons (i.e. for everyone but asylum seekers) as they see fit; people migrating from Mexico to the USA for economical reasons need not be accepted by the US
- The process of controlling immigration should be humane though, it is inacceptable to separate small children from their parents, put them on trial separately or similar
- The US would do good with a more stable registration process for its citizens as to prevent cases like deportations of (legal) US residents
- With illegal immigration that has happened many years in the past, but hasn't been detected up until now, a more lenient action should be chosen because it often affects children who do not know a life outside the US
- Racist stereotyping and generalisations about (e.g.) Mexicans in that discussion is inacceptable.
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#40
I am not arguing for open borders, I am not even in favour of them. I am arguing the following:
- The wall is not an effective way to stop illegal immigration
- Shortening illegal alien to illegal is offensive because it extends the term "illegal" to the whole person rather than just the person's status as an immigrant. Not a major issue for me, personally, but I can see how that can be seen as offensive and can lead to less nuanced ways to speak about those involved
- I am not in favour of illegal immigration, it is every country's right to control immigration and to disallow immigration for non-humanitarian reasons (i.e. for everyone but asylum seekers) as they see fit; people migrating from Mexico to the USA for economical reasons need not be accepted by the US
- The process of controlling immigration should be humane though, it is inacceptable to separate small children from their parents, put them on trial separately or similar
- The US would do good with a more stable registration process for its citizens as to prevent cases like deportations of (legal) US residents
- With illegal immigration that has happened many years in the past, but hasn't been detected up until now, a more lenient action should be chosen because it often affects children who do not know a life outside the US
- Racist stereotyping and generalisations about (e.g.) Mexicans in that discussion is inacceptable.
I like this post (y)
 
Jul 29, 2014
1,676
77
325
Ruhr Area/Germany
#41
To controll the boarder is ofcourse understandable but the wall will not help. When someone wants to cross the border a wall will not stop this person.
My father in law was raised in West-Berlin and told my about the 30 years he lived there. The wall was never the obstacle that stopped East germany citizens on their way to west germany/Berlin. It were the extreme dense surveillance and mines at the borders. The Wall itself was just a symbol. I'm sure a modern GDR would not waste resources für a big physical wall.
Trump just wants his useless billion dollar monument. You guys shoukld invest this money in modern systems. The democrat proposal is the right way to go and most republicans know that!
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#42
I am not arguing for open borders, I am not even in favour of them. I am arguing the following:
- The wall is not an effective way to stop illegal immigration
- Shortening illegal alien to illegal is offensive because it extends the term "illegal" to the whole person rather than just the person's status as an immigrant. Not a major issue for me, personally, but I can see how that can be seen as offensive and can lead to less nuanced ways to speak about those involved
- I am not in favour of illegal immigration, it is every country's right to control immigration and to disallow immigration for non-humanitarian reasons (i.e. for everyone but asylum seekers) as they see fit; people migrating from Mexico to the USA for economical reasons need not be accepted by the US
- The process of controlling immigration should be humane though, it is inacceptable to separate small children from their parents, put them on trial separately or similar
- The US would do good with a more stable registration process for its citizens as to prevent cases like deportations of (legal) US residents
- With illegal immigration that has happened many years in the past, but hasn't been detected up until now, a more lenient action should be chosen because it often affects children who do not know a life outside the US
- Racist stereotyping and generalisations about (e.g.) Mexicans in that discussion is inacceptable.
First of all they are criminals no matter what. And they should be treated as such,
Secondly it is their parents fault for just trying to get into the US instead of using the legal methods. Yes you can blame trump and co but I also blame the parents who went thousands of miles KNOWINGLY they had not right or chance to get into the US.

To controll the boarder is ofcourse understandable but the wall will not help. When someone wants to cross the border a wall will not stop this person.
My father in law was raised in West-Berlin and told my about the 30 years he lived there. The wall was never the obstacle that stopped East germany citizens on their way to west germany/Berlin. It were the extreme dense surveillance and mines at the borders. The Wall itself was just a symbol. I'm sure a modern GDR would not waste resources für a big physical wall.
Trump just wants his useless billion dollar monument. You guys shoukld invest this money in modern systems. The democrat proposal is the right way to go and most republicans know that!
Exactly You need to makes them fear for their lives to make it successful. A fence will hinder no one. Self shooting constructions and minefields will.
 
Last edited:

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#43
Because the burden for supporting those people shifts from the US to Mexico. It’s a pretty simple equation: the money spent on the wall is offset by the money saved by forcing them to stay in Mexico. This of course assumes that the wall will achieve its stated purpose, but given that it’s what the people voted for, I think the onus is on those opposed to disprove its efficacy rather than the other way around.
The USA still doesn't get any money from Mexico though. The USA just saves money (which isn't guaranteed).
 
May 22, 2018
3,678
2,442
265
#44
The USA still doesn't get any money from Mexico though. The USA just saves money (which isn't guaranteed).
He knows that. He is just repeating a talking point/excuse that has been floating around the Right for months in order to absolve Trump of his lies surrounding the wall.


"Yeah Trump said Mexico would pay for it, but he didn't mean literally guys come on. Mexico will pay for it in other ways! America still wins!"


I have seen it around right wing social media and outlets for the past 4-6 months.
 
Last edited:

ilsayed

Neo Member
Nov 7, 2018
24
13
80
#45
If we are going by election victories then the Dems have the latest major victory. But I know that isn't gonna count for some reason.
Trump / Republicans campaigned hard on the illegal caravan and the urgent need for a wall in 2018.
...Then they lost 40 House seats.

Americans don't want the wall as evidenced by polls and elections.
 
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#47
"Yeah Trump said Mexico would pay for it, but he didn't mean literally guys come on. Mexico will pay for it in other ways! America still wins!"
See above video. He specifically said (at least) reimburse. Having to deal with more criminals (allegedly) does not qualify for reimbursement. Reimbursement is a conscious process, not a side effect. So @matt404au's talking point is not working.
First of all they are criminals no matter what. And they should be treated as such,
Secondly it is their parents fault for just trying to get into the US instead of using the legal methods. Yes you can blame trump and co but I also blame the parents who went thousands of miles KNOWINGLY they had not right or chance to get into the US.
Yes, they have done a criminal act, but from my perspective it is the state's task to solve such cases within a reasonable span of time. If 5, 10 or even more years have passed and especially if children are involved, and moreover, if these people already have an esablished life and are productive members of the society, it is unreasnable and cruel to deport them. If they are still wholly unintegrated after such a long time, then the situation might be different, but it would do the US good to offer these people a reasonably simple path to citizenship.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#48
See above video. He specifically said (at least) reimburse. Having to deal with more criminals (allegedly) does not qualify for reimbursement. Reimbursement is a conscious process, not a side effect. So @matt404au's talking point is not working.
Yes, they have done a criminal act, but from my perspective it is the state's task to solve such cases within a reasonable span of time. If 5, 10 or even more years have passed and especially if children are involved, and moreover, if these people already have an esablished life and are productive members of the society, it is unreasnable and cruel to deport them. If they are still wholly unintegrated after such a long time, then the situation might be different, but it would do the US good to offer these people a reasonably simple path to citizenship.
As far as I know their children can not go to school, they are not paying taxes etc. because of the missing documents. So what they should do is pay taxes etc from all these years back as some kind of loan. ( a certain percentage needs to subtracted from your wage etc). But for this they can stay in the US as normal US citizen.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#49
As far as I know their children can not go to school, they are not paying taxes etc. because of the missing documents. So what they should do is pay taxes etc from all these years back as some kind of loan. ( a certain percentage needs to subtracted from your wage etc). But for this they can stay in the US as normal US citizen.
I am not a US citizen and thus less involved in this, but to my best knowledge, their children can go to school. I do not know how the tax system works in the US, so no comment on this. Maybe @Nobody_Important can clear this up? Anyway, if, as a consequence of their illegal immigration they really did not pay income tax for the time, that's a separate issue and I would agree that they would have to be held accountable for that.
 
Last edited: