Wall or No Wall?

Wall or No Wall?

  • Wall

    Votes: 93 50.5%
  • No Wall

    Votes: 91 49.5%

  • Total voters
    184
Aug 5, 2004
9,466
151
1,305
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.
Lost the popular vote though. Most people aren’t in favor, and this standstill is a good representation of that divide. If trump won in a landslide I’d understand this point of view, but honestly, he should be expecting everything to be contested and be prepared to compromise hard

That is, if he can actually comprehend the reality of his election and is not in his own reality thinking most of the country loves him
 
Last edited:
Jul 28, 2018
141
148
185
If barriers are proven to keep criminals out, how do we explain all of the criminals in the White House now? There's a barrier around that entire thing.
 
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
He won based on technicality alone with an impossible and outlandish campaign promise that a foreign government would pay for a foreign border wall project. The absurdity of all this is not that people are suffering for this, but that a minority is willing to stretch their defense of this being "a promise kept" to the point of snapping.
Just gotta let that train ride gracefully into its own wall.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Lost the popular vote though. Most people aren’t in favor, and this standstill is a good representation of that divide. If trump won in a landslide I’d understand this point of view, but honestly, he should be expecting everything to be contested and be prepared to compromise hard

That is, if he can actually comprehend the reality of his election and is not in his own reality thinking most of the country loves him
Stop bringing up the popular vote. Both players knew the rules of the game before they played. There are no participation trophies in elections.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
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.
Ok, so then you let the system do what it is designed to do. Flipping Congress is not carte blanche to start retroactively deciding what the people actually wanted in the presidential election, which is far more important than mid-terms.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
The USA still doesn't get any money from Mexico though. The USA just saves money (which isn't guaranteed).
Mexico doesn’t have to literally hand over money for it, that’s the entire point. He was loose with his words as he so often is. If he gets the wall and it reduces the flow of illegals I guarantee he will point out the reduced education and healthcare burdens that Mexico is now bearing. Trying to nail him on linguistic technicalities will be pointless then.
 

ilsayed

Neo Member
Nov 7, 2018
24
13
80
Ok, so then you let the system do what it is designed to do. Flipping Congress is not carte blanche to start retroactively deciding what the people actually wanted in the presidential election, which is far more important than mid-terms.
Well, 40 House seats is no small thing. And flipping Congress is really the only way the American people had to voice their opinion on how shit the idea of a wall was in 2018. Too bad it wasn't a Presidential election.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Well, 40 House seats is no small thing. And flipping Congress is really the only way the American people had to voice their opinion on how shit the idea of a wall was in 2018. Too bad it wasn't a Presidential election.
But you’re still attempting to read minds. If he doesn’t get the wall now, campaigns on it for 2020 and loses, you will have a point then.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
No, Trump shouldn't have to. He won the Presidency because of this stance. Elections have consequences. We're getting that F'n Wall. Deal with it.
Yeah, the last election had consequences didn't it. Not electing enough Republicans to get the votes in the House and Senate had consequences. No wall then, and no wall now.

Perhaps he should, but such a document would be so overwhelmingly stuffed with meaningless jargon that it would be rendered impossible to understand for 95% of the population. Given how the US is run, the last 5% would just lie about what is in it to suit their political agenda, so it really wouldn't accomplish anything.

Also the reason why we should do it is because it costs more money to keep the government shut down than the damned wall costs. Let us erect a monument to childishness in government for all to see for decades to come. We can add a plaque "We had to build this to get the damned government officials back to work."

Heck, if the wall is as big of a failure as many suspect it will be, a literal monument to failed policies would certainly be helpful in future elections, no?
He should just provide it. That should have been one of the first things he did, commission justification rather than relying on campaign rhetoric. Now he has to walk back his plan and find excuses.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Yeah, the last election had consequences didn't it. Not electing enough Republicans to get the votes in the House and Senate had consequences. No wall then, and no wall now.



He should just provide it. That should have been one of the first things he did, commission justification rather than relying on campaign rhetoric. Now he has to walk back his plan and find excuses.
What are your thoughts on Democrats wanting a wall 5 years ago?
 
Aug 5, 2004
9,466
151
1,305
Stop bringing up the popular vote. Both players knew the rules of the game before they played. There are no participation trophies in elections.
What are you taking about. You mentioned before that this is what the people wanted. It isn’t, and we know that. Unless you are deluding yourself.

Nothing to do with him deserving to win the election. It was deserved. Played by the rules and he won. Doesn’t mean the people are with him, which should be obvious and basic knowledge
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
What are your thoughts on Democrats wanting a wall 5 years ago?
You're actually talking about this claim right?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...heck-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Edit:

Oh you mean the 2013 immigration overhaul. That's apples to oranges considering that trump wanted a border wide wall, wanted Mexico to pay for it, and now doesn't have a concrete plan for the wall yet proposed. He's trying to sell it like the 2013 bill, but it's not the same thing.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
What are you taking about. You mentioned before that this is what the people wanted. It isn’t, and we know that. Unless you are deluding yourself.

Nothing to do with him deserving to win the election. It was deserved. Played by the rules and he won. Doesn’t mean the people are with him, which should be obvious and basic knowledge
What are you talking about? You can't say that he played by the rules and deservedly won and then say the people aren't with him. That's the point of elections. Please show some consistency. "It isn't, and we know that"? How? Unless you're dumb enough to buy into media-run polls instead of actual election results.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
No.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-fence-kill-visa-lottery-end-chain-migration

All Senate Democrats united with two independent senators in 2013 to push through a comprehensive immigration reform plan to build a border fence and end “chain migration” and the visa lottery, positions they now oppose because they are in President Trump’s immigration package.


Led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, 52 Democrats and two independents OK’d the legislation.

It called for “no fewer than 700 miles” of border fencing.


It also included a section detailing the end of the diversity visa, a lottery for green cards meant to diversify the U.S. immigrant population.
Senate Democrats who voted in favour of the bill, inc. Schumer:



Are they all horrible racists now too? Kinda makes Chuck's crocodile tears look a bit much now, eh?
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
May 10, 2009
2,742
278
665
No.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-fence-kill-visa-lottery-end-chain-migration



Senate Democrats who voted in favour of the bill, inc. Schumer:



Are they all horrible racists now too? Kinda makes Chuck's crocodile tears look a bit much now, eh?
It's easy to understand why Democrats are not giving Trump his wall. Everyone knows he will use it in the 2020 election and vice versa the Democrats can use it if he doesn't get it. What is weird are the democratic partisans in this thread contorting themselves into knots with nonsense.

I would respect them more if they just owned up to the fact that they want Trump to lose this one.
 
Likes: Tygeezy

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
Ah, there's that goalpost shifting you're famous for again.

Have you even read that report yourself or did you just google it and throw the longest report you could find at me so that you don't actually have to formulate an argument?
It's a bi-partisan bill, do you know what that means? Compromise, Quid quo Pro, a little this for a little that, don't get everything you want, but get something that you want. The bill is about far more than some border fencing, do you understand that? It's immigration reform front and center, and beefing security is a smaller aspect (amongst other things).

Trump can't live up to his campaign promise so he tries to brute force a lesser vision (or maybe his vision in chunks), and when that failed offered a petty compromise. Do you understand this?

Now maybe we can set up a bi-partisan bill since the government is back.
 
Nov 25, 2015
6,008
2,634
475
The wall costs a ton of money and looks like complete crap. If you’re gonna do it then make it like the great wall of china and not some crappy two bit chain link fence. Why not use prisoners to build it for you? America should have plenty of those and then the only cost is the parts, bricks, cement etc
 
May 20, 2007
9,892
270
940
He should just provide it. That should have been one of the first things he did, commission justification rather than relying on campaign rhetoric. Now he has to walk back his plan and find excuses.
A lot of stuff should happen but doesn't. It's an unfortunate truth of this world that we need to work with.

Instead of relying on Trump to be moral and doing what he should do, perhaps realizing that the moral victory here involves cutting off your nose to spite your face? It has been more expensive to NOT give the whiners their monument to government obstructionism.

Save money and have a thousand+ mile long campaign ad built on the southern border of your country. At a certain point giving the whiners what they want is the pragmatic choice.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
A lot of stuff should happen but doesn't. It's an unfortunate truth of this world that we need to work with.

Instead of relying on Trump to be moral and doing what he should do, perhaps realizing that the moral victory here involves cutting off your nose to spite your face? It has been more expensive to NOT give the whiners their monument to government obstructionism.

Save money and have a thousand+ mile long campaign ad built on the southern border of your country. At a certain point giving the whiners what they want is the pragmatic choice.
That is his own fault. His only course of action is to offer up a bi-partisan bill, or declare a state of emergency and get wrapped up in the courts.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2015
8,814
1,585
355
Unless the US can build this



for the entire 3,145 km (1954 miles), within an extremely low budget, then no physical wall. Also, 1052 km (654 miles) are already fenced or have some sort of physical barrier.

A border with fencing in populated and flat areas, relying on terrain "walls" like mountains or chasms, and a much better upgraded security surveillance will serve much better.
Everyone needs to remember that the Berlin Wall was less than half the length, 1393 km (866 miles), and it continually failed over and over as people were able to escape all the time.

I don't believe in the whole anti-immigrant thing anyway because I think America should work with Mexico in order to eliminate the reasons for Mexicans to leave anyway, but if there were to be a wall, a border with upgraded security surveillance and more well-trained personnel is more cost effective than a physical wall. Trump would need to enslave Americans, Pharaoh style, to get them to build a massive wall within a reasonable budget.
 

ilsayed

Neo Member
Nov 7, 2018
24
13
80
The wall costs a ton of money and looks like complete crap. If you’re gonna do it then make it like the great wall of china and not some crappy two bit chain link fence. Why not use prisoners to build it for you? America should have plenty of those and then the only cost is the parts, bricks, cement etc
A sound plan. Completely checks out. No flaws.
 
May 10, 2009
2,742
278
665
Unless the US can build this



for the entire 3,145 km (1954 miles), within an extremely low budget, then no physical wall. Also, 1052 km (654 miles) are already fenced or have some sort of physical barrier.

A border with fencing in populated and flat areas, relying on terrain "walls" like mountains or chasms, and a much better upgraded security surveillance will serve much better.
Everyone needs to remember that the Berlin Wall was less than half the length, 1393 km (866 miles), and it continually failed over and over as people were able to escape all the time.

I don't believe in the whole anti-immigrant thing anyway because I think America should work with Mexico in order to eliminate the reasons for Mexicans to leave anyway, but if there were to be a wall, a border with upgraded security surveillance and more well-trained personnel is more cost effective than a physical wall. Trump would need to enslave Americans, Pharaoh style, to get them to build a massive wall within a reasonable budget.
More BS. A wall is not anti-immigrant.
 
Nov 12, 2016
707
701
250
This is the most idiotic discussion, and it is quite sad that we have come to this. For decades, we have talked about illegal immigration being a huge issue. No one seems to come up with any fix. We have a proposed solution for 5 billion to greatly impact said problem. 5 billion is a drop in a bucket. Not to mention the solution is comprehensive, addressing other needs including staffing, and technology. Democrats only response is it won't work, let's negotiate more, or let's try something else, we just don't know. Obviously, a wide open field for people to run across, like they already have for decades, isn't a problem. If this isn't blatant obstructionism, I don't know what is. Democrats have clearly and repeatedly shown they support illegal immigrants in the US. You are a complete and udder moron if you believe this wouldn't pay itself back and then some. Even if it didn't pay us back at all, the security we would get from this is invaluable.

Trump will win this. We will build the wall.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,369
847
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
It's easy to understand why Democrats are not giving Trump his wall. Everyone knows he will use it in the 2020 election and vice versa the Democrats can use it if he doesn't get it. What is weird are the democratic partisans in this thread contorting themselves into knots with nonsense.

I would respect them more if they just owned up to the fact that they want Trump to lose this one.
You and me both.
 
Likes: Tygeezy
Aug 22, 2018
143
128
160
Everyone needs to remember that the Berlin Wall was less than half the length, 1393 km (866 miles), and it continually failed over and over as people were able to escape all the time.
The Berlin Wall was incredibly effective.
Over the course of a 28 year period, only 5000~ Successful illegal crossings were documented. That's under 200 for an entire year.

Other modern walls have an even higher success rate in stopping and even better, preventing illegal crossings. There's a psychological deterrent that a wall represents that keeps people from even trying.
 
Jan 14, 2015
2,288
147
320
Connecticut
This is the most idiotic discussion, and it is quite sad that we have come to this. For decades, we have talked about illegal immigration being a huge issue. No one seems to come up with any fix. We have a proposed solution for 5 billion to greatly impact said problem. 5 billion is a drop in a bucket. Not to mention the solution is comprehensive, addressing other needs including staffing, and technology. Democrats only response is it won't work, let's negotiate more, or let's try something else, we just don't know. Obviously, a wide open field for people to run across, like they already have for decades, isn't a problem. If this isn't blatant obstructionism, I don't know what is. Democrats have clearly and repeatedly shown they support illegal immigrants in the US. You are a complete and udder moron if you believe this wouldn't pay itself back and then some. Even if it didn't pay us back at all, the security we would get from this is invaluable.

Trump will win this. We will build the wall.
Ohhhhhh so close
 
Jun 25, 2015
2,723
894
300
Finland
It's odd how at first it was about how illegal immigration problem isn't that big and building a wall is racist and building a wall is immoral, and people were crying to let the caravan in, but now it's about the wall not being effective in stopping the problem. So now people admit the problem exists but that something else should be done other than whatever the man they hate suggests. So the wall in itself never was racist or immoral.
 
Apr 15, 2018
1,912
2,108
230
It's odd how at first it was about how illegal immigration problem isn't that big and building a wall is racist and building a wall is immoral, and people were crying to let the caravan in, but now it's about the wall not being effective in stopping the problem. So now people admit the problem exists but that something else should be done other than whatever the man they hate suggests. So the wall in itself never was racist or immoral.
Democrats are liars.

They do this all the time.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
Mexico doesn’t have to literally hand over money for it, that’s the entire point. He was loose with his words as he so often is. If he gets the wall and it reduces the flow of illegals I guarantee he will point out the reduced education and healthcare burdens that Mexico is now bearing. Trying to nail him on linguistic technicalities will be pointless then.
He wasn't loose with his words though. It's something he said probably thousands of times.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously be in the AOC thread complaining about lying and then in this thread saying essentially the opposite. Honestly, look at what you just said in the AOC thread:

So what happens when you gain the power you seek, enforce your version of morality on society, wreck the economy, and cause everyone to suffer? Do you simply claim it was clumsy and restate your point?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
He wasn't loose with his words though. It's something he said probably thousands of times.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously be in the AOC thread complaining about lying and then in this thread saying essentially the opposite. Honestly, look at what you just said in the AOC thread:
Did you read what I was responding to? It was a direct reply to NI saying “Facts of course matter, but so does Morality.” AOC was attempting to dismiss her statement that being morally correct is more important than being factually correct by saying she was just clumsy, but all she actually did was reveal herself for what she truly is: a coddled millennial trying to sit at the adults’ table.

My point with that comment was that every dictator who has committed atrocities thought they were morally justified. Trump knows what he is and isn’t trying to hide it. He is clumsy and loose with his words, yes, but is not using it as a cover for a complete lack of life experience in the same way that AOC is. He’s trying to build a wall, not re-implement a socialist economic model so that it can fail and make everyone suffer for the 10 billionth time in history.

Cherry pick and present out of context all you like, you don’t control the meaning of what I say.
 
Jan 16, 2019
59
4
140
No wall. I for one am ok with saying I dont want trump to get a win but it's also a stupid waste of money so a win win really. Majority of Americans are smart enough to know that a wall is not nearly important enough to put their livelihood at risk with a shutdown. Let's show that same vigor giving health care to every American, that is something that can make a nation stronger. Not a concrete wall from sea to shining sea that Mexico will pay for like he said a thousand times. He is a total ponzi scheme con man and hes got his base hooked good. Sad.
 
Oct 15, 2007
916
167
895
Mexico doesn’t have to literally hand over money for it, that’s the entire point. He was loose with his words as he so often is. If he gets the wall and it reduces the flow of illegals I guarantee he will point out the reduced education and healthcare burdens that Mexico is now bearing. Trying to nail him on linguistic technicalities will be pointless then.

I’m confused. I’m coming in in a back and forth, but Trump’s messaging was pretty clear Mexico would be compelled to pay for the wall. He’s backed off of it now in his classic ‘84 talk of saying it never happened but we all heard it. It happened.

http://time.com/5499391/donald-trump-border-wall-mexico-pay/

In 2016, Trump even said specifically that Mexico would be compelled to give the U.S. a “one-time payment” of $5 to 10 billion for the wall, both in a memo sent to reporters and in his campaign platform.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
515
305
Obama's border patrol chief votes YES.

DW: Is the wall (or a barrier) the best solution?

MORGAN: That's a good question, and I think that's another reason why decided to break my silence because the rhetoric is really getting twisted, and it really confuses and misinforms the American people.

The answer is, "yeah," but there's a comma. So yes, the wall works. It's not needed everywhere, but it is needed in strategic locations along the southwest border. And what do we mean by the wall? The border security experts will tell you that the wall in and of itself is not the solution. The wall is a critical element as part of a multilayer strategy of infrastructure, technology, and personnel. So yes, as part of that multilayer approach, the wall absolutely works and there's historical data that can prove that. You can go to San Diego, Nogales, El Paso, anywhere where that multilayered approach has been used, where the wall is part of that, and illegal immigration has drastically reduced by around 90%, and overall crime in those areas has drastically reduced as well. It's not hyperbole; it’s not driven by political ideology. That's fact, and data can show that.

DW: What is the proof that a physical barrier would work?

MORGAN: Go talk to the Yuma County Sheriff, and he'll tell you that in 2005, 2006 when they started building the wall as part of that multilayer strategy, it works. He'll say illegal immigration in that area went down 90%, overall crime in his county went down drastically. It's just fact.

DW: What type of barrier would be the most effective? There’s been a lot of talk about walls versus fences, and we’ve seen all the different wall prototypes. In the end, what type of barrier would make the most sense, not only financially, but in terms of keeping the United States secure?

MORGAN: That's another great question that again gets twisted and manipulated, I believe, for peoples’ personal agenda and their own political ideology. For someone to say that a fence is okay, but a wall is not, that's just disingenuous. So the depth and height of the physical barrier is what makes something immoral or not? That's just ridiculous.

A quick sidebar – let’s go back to 2006 when a bipartisan bill called the Secure Fence Act was passed. The same people who are now saying that the wall is immoral voted for the wall back in 2006.

The experts, who have dedicated their lives to securing the border and protecting the safety and security of this country, will tell you that the type of barrier, wall, fence, whatever you want to call it, that’s needed is driven by many factors including terrain and differing operational needs. There’s different terrain and territory along the 2,000 miles of southwest border driving the different types of barrier applications required.

And I'll give you an example. If you talk to the experts, they'll say that you definitely want a barrier that you can see through, so you can see what's coming. There are other areas with levies and other things where really nothing else makes sense except to build a concrete type barrier. So, it really depends on the terrain and the territory. The strategy has never been to build a wall from sea to sea, but rather to build the type of wall, fence, barrier, whatever you want to call it, that is best suitable for that specific terrain.

DW: Why do you believe so many politicians are so vehemently against a physical barrier?

MORGAN: I'm doing my best to remain apolitical and approach this from a very narrow prism based on my 30 years of federal service in this country. I can't even begin to get into the politician's head regarding what motivates them to not support the wall, especially those who supported it in 2006 – but all of the sudden it's immoral. I don't understand that. What I can tell you is that it’s not true when they say the wall is ineffective. If somebody says that the wall is ineffective as part of that multilayer approach, they're misinformed and they're misleading the American people. And I even hate to speculate why they're doing that.

DW: Many politicians claim that a wall is "too expensive," but many who say this have voted for numerous things that were much more expensive, including but not limited to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was projected at that time to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Why do you think someone would vote for something so pricy and then call the $20 billion southern border wall "too expensive"?

MORGAN: When somebody says, "It's not effective," the only conclusion I can come to is that it’s being driven by their personal political ideology because fact, historical data, and expert opinion clearly show that nothing else makes sense.

First, in the past, in a bipartisan way, they've approved a heck of a lot more spending than the $5.7 billion that's being asked. Second, $5.7 billion is less than one fourth of 1% of our overall budget. So it's disingenuous to say that it’s "too expensive."

Third, when they talk about the wall in the context of cost, which some do, they know that they're misleading the American people because they've been briefed that this isn't just a wall, but a wall system. It's a smart wall. That comes with technology, it comes with access roads so personnel can access it. A lot comes with that. It's not just throwing up some steel and calling it a day – and that's why the cost is what it is. And don't forget, it's 230 new miles, plus the replacement and upgrading of hundreds of miles of old, ineffective barriers.

To say that $5.7 billion is too expensive to secure the safety of this country, I don't understand.

DW: Is there anything that you haven't been able to say, that the media hasn't touched on, that you would want to get across to a large readership about this issue?

MORGAN: I think what's important to hit is that we really do have a dual set of issues along the southwest border. We definitely have a massive security crisis as well as a humanitarian crisis. So just quickly let me dissect this, too. On the national security side, we definitely have bad things and bad people coming in, both through the ports of entry and then in between the ports of entry every single day.

The other element that goes really to the heart of your question as well is this – a lot of times, they'll use a talking point to illustrate how Customs and Border Protection interdicts more drugs at the ports as opposed to in between the ports of entry, and claim that because of that, we don't need the wall. And that's absolutely a false narrative because the border is so porous, we don't know what's getting through. But we do know that there is a ton of human trafficking, drugs, and bad people and gang members getting through our borders in between the ports of entry every single day because we need additional miles of wall to effectively secure the border and improve the border patrol’s operational control and response.

Let me give you an example. So, a little under 400,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended last year. Well, some experts will tell you that thousands more, more than likely double this amount, are getting through unapprehended because again, the border's so porous.

But let's cut that number in half, just for the sake of argument. Let's say it's 200,000 getting through because we didn’t have the resources to effectively enforce our borders. So you take the 400,000 that were apprehended, add another 200,000 that are getting through that we're not catching, and we have about 600,000. Well, that's bigger than the entire population of the state of Wyoming. How's that not a crisis?

Some people want to say that the numbers have been reduced from previous decades. But my first answer is, yeah, part of the reason why the numbers were reduced is because we built 700 miles of wall, and we improved our strategy, and we also implemented consequences, meaning we deported those who were coming into the country.

We need the wall as part of the multilayer approach to shutdown the avenues in between the points of entry. Can it be defeated? Yes. But it's still 90% effective, and the last time I checked, 90% is a pretty good stat to have.

By building that wall, we're going to drastically reduce those avenues for the cartels. We’re going to shut down, to a great extent, their drug routes, human trafficking routes, and illegal immigration routes, and then we've funneled them to the ports of entry where now we have offensive advantage, and we stand a better chance of interdicting. And by doing that, the patrol’s operational capacity and control is extremely enhanced so that when things come to the wall, they'll have time to actually respond and interdict.

Now, let's move to humanitarian side, which is not really talked about enough. Here’s the thing – the wall and that multilayer strategy and personnel – none of that is going to address the humanitarian issue, and here's why.

[Morgan went on to speak about the loopholes in the asylum laws that are being exploited.]

All you have to do is say the magic words and you're allowed into our country. So you can either do that illegally or you can come to the ports. The same thing happens. If you come to the ports, you just have to wait a little bit longer. Again, that's why the incentive is there. It serves as a pull factor.

We need the wall as part of that multilayer strategy to really address the national security system, but then we have the humanitarian issue, and the only fix for that is legislative. We need to fix the asylum laws. We need to fix bad judicial case law such as the Flores decision.

So, why are parents turning their kids over to the cartels to make this dangerous trek, whether they’re in caravans or at the hands of the coyote, and paying thousands of dollars? The reason why they're doing that is because they know the incentive. Once they set one foot on American soil, and say the magic words, they're released into the United States never to be heard from again. Think about that. Why wouldn't they? This is the broken "catch and release" issue.

So, the very people that are against what I'm saying, who claim they're being compassionate, it’s actually the opposite. They're actually facilitating these individuals making this perilous trek. I'll give you an example. The Yuma County Sheriff said that during his time with the sheriff's department, his deputies recovered over 100 dead bodies of illegal immigrants – just his county – who died from exposure or other related things trying to enter the country illegally.

So we have to shut those loopholes in the asylum laws. We have to fix the bad judicial precedent to remove that pull factor, to remove that incentive, because if we don't, they're going to keep coming. So you really have two dual tracks. You've got one track, which is national security. Then you've got the humanitarian side where the only fix for that is legislative, and both have to be done.