Wall or No Wall?

Wall or No Wall?

  • Wall

    Votes: 93 50.5%
  • No Wall

    Votes: 91 49.5%

  • Total voters
    184
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
I'll read the rest later as I've only skimmed for now, but he says that he's apolitical but he calls the border a crisis. Obviously it's not. And it's not like he's sharing hard data off the top of his head, but of course he would want to justify more spending, and to do that he needs Trump's support. Just saying there's a lot of politics in this so far.

But I'll read more later because he seemed to have some good insights.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2018
155
120
170
So after reading a bunch of comments I realized that a wall is bad because it might hurt the feelings of outsiders. It really is just that, unbelievable.

People working at the border have agreed with Trump and a wall would make things easier to slow them down enough so that it becomes a nuisance to drug and child traffickers. Which exist by the way, it's not just right-wing rhetoric. Are any of you democrats that like to think of themselves as compassionate ever think about the children used to cross the border and women who are raped as a payment?

Walls don't work, OK. What would you rather have, 1.000 murderers in your country or 100.000? ANY reduction in the number would be a completely good justification for a wall.

If you're truly looking for asylum go through the checkpoints and present your case. But because you know it's not asylum you seek but to take advantage of the welfare system of course you'll attempt to jump over the wall.

To me a country is like a household, everyone living there has to agree to let a person come and live in the house. Then they need to contribute with the rent and food because we're not running a charity here.
Illegal crossings is like getting home from work and finding out someone ate your lunch that was in the fridge.
 
Apr 15, 2018
1,885
2,063
230
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.
Sometimes I honestly wonder why you bother. He obviously isn't arguing in good faith by presenting your post completely out of context
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
I'll read the rest later as I've only skimmed for now, but he says that he's apolitical but he calls the border a crisis. Obviously it's not. And it's not like he's sharing hard data off the top of his head, but of course he would want to justify more spending, and to do that he needs Trump's support. Just saying there's a lot of politics in this so far.

But I'll read more later because he seemed to have some good insights.
Why "of course he would want to justify more spending?" He's no longer in the position.

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?
Totally not a crisis. The Obama appointee who no longer has any skin in the game is the disingenuous political hack in all of this. :pie_eyeroll::pie_eyeroll::pie_eyeroll:
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2015
2,709
863
275
Finland
So after reading a bunch of comments I realized that a wall is bad because it might hurt the feelings of outsiders. It really is just that, unbelievable.
One guy in that Steven Crowder's "Build the Wall - Change My Mind" video said in the end that he's right because he comes from being compassionate. Not only he implied that Crowder isn't a compassionate person, but he also thinks he is compassionate himself - meaning virtuous - and he thinks that is something you can base the issue with the wall on. This really comes down to "I'm a better person than you so shut up, you're wrong."
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,417
1,019
290
We would already have a 50 foot tall wall, guarded by sharks with laser beams, if the people coming over are all Republican voters.
 
Mar 23, 2018
836
478
250


Wall of patrolling drones.

Easy way to see where they are and to pick them up.

I also do vote for somekind of wall to make it clear that you are making it clear you are now passing land of another country. This wall could be as small as possible or even a water river that gets digged if that's even remotely possible.

However a big wall without paroling on it, i don't see much point in it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 5, 2013
442
80
320
I used to be like warm on a wall. Thought there may be better ways. However I’m now on board. Build it across the whole border if needed. Two things cemented my viewpoint: border security says they need it (some wall) and the growing lawlessness of the radical democrats to completely ignore our immigration laws and think they are morally correct. If we can’t depend on our local governments near the border to enforce our existing laws, then another solution is required.
 
Last edited:
Apr 18, 2018
7,029
10,778
545
USA
dunpachi.com


Wall of patrolling drones.

Easy way to see where they are and to pick them up.

I also do vote for somekind of wall to make it clear that you are making it clear you are now passing land of another country. This wall could be as small as possible or even a water river that gets digged if that's even remotely possible.

However a big wall without paroling on it, i don't see much point in it.
This will be incredibly expensive long-term, and significantly more prone to failure. Fuel costs, energy costs, and employee costs to drive to the site, employees to man the drones, review footage, or otherwise utilize the drones, staffing costs for the maintenance of the drone, motor pool for the vehicles used to drive out to the site, etc.

Many of these things are in place, true, and drones seem like a sensible compliment to a wall.

But a wall + drone will be more effective and much cheaper than drone + exponentially more manpower to chase down the crossers in open stretches of land after they're already over the border. I know Democrats love government spending, but choosing the less-effective, more-expensive option for border security seems strange even for a Democrat. Drones are almost completely meaningless in areas near urban centers, since drones cannot follow someone inside.
 
Nov 12, 2016
707
700
250
I'll read the rest later as I've only skimmed for now, but he says that he's apolitical but he calls the border a crisis. Obviously it's not. And it's not like he's sharing hard data off the top of his head, but of course he would want to justify more spending, and to do that he needs Trump's support. Just saying there's a lot of politics in this so far.

But I'll read more later because he seemed to have some good insights.
Did you even read that article at all? Why do Liberals feel like they know more from their cushy home than the border patrol? Since it is "obviously not a crisis," I would be interested to know what your definition of a crisis is.
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2010
20,796
2,818
675
In a cave outside of Whooville.


Wall of patrolling drones.

Easy way to see where they are and to pick them up.

I also do vote for somekind of wall to make it clear that you are making it clear you are now passing land of another country. This wall could be as small as possible or even a water river that gets digged if that's even remotely possible.

However a big wall without paroling on it, i don't see much point in it.
Drones can't really do anything to stop people from crossing. Once they've gotten a foot over that imaginary line, they are now protected by laws and get stuck in the long legal queue.

I can only go on basic assumption here, but there is absolutely no way I could believe that digging out and filling an entire river across a border would be more physically or financially practical than building a concrete or steel barrier. And how would that actually stop anything anyway? Are you filling the river up with acid?

Also, why would there be no patrolling on the proposed barriers? The idea would be to have long sections walled off and monitored with people and instruments.
 
Likes: Teletraan1
Mar 30, 2011
1,168
171
490
Southern California
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!
The wall doesn't exist in some vacuum by itself, but it is a vital part in overall border security when combined with technology, strengthened immigration laws and Border Patrol Agents. The Border Patrol has backed up their request for better physical barriers at the border with facts. Every place where barriers have been put in place, the Border Patrol's effectiveness has increased. It has also resulted in economic prosperity for border communities that at one time were being overrun by illegal immigrants.
 
Last edited:
Dec 5, 2009
10,234
0
685
OR
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.
You're right. Elections do have consequences. After 2 years of full control and not building a wall, Democrats destroyed Republicans in the House and now control the countries coffers.

Trump ain't getting his wall.

Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,362
842
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
You're right. Elections do have consequences. After 2 years of full control and not building a wall, Democrats destroyed Republicans in the House and now control the countries coffers.


People seem to confuse majority with full control all the time. Republicans had the majority in both the House and Senate, they did not have the 60 seats required to pass legislation without Democrat votes.
 
Feb 22, 2009
463
275
630
Ottawa, Canada


People seem to confuse majority with full control all the time. Republicans had the majority in both the House and Senate, they did not have the 60 seats required to pass legislation without Democrat votes.
You're right, but at the same time, so is GrandHarrier: without control of both sides of Congress, Trump isn't getting a spending bill that authorizes even a portion of his wall (AKA his vanity project). That he waited until he lost the House to fight over this is both sad and hilarious.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,362
842
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
You're right, but at the same time, so is GrandHarrier: without control of both sides of Congress, Trump isn't getting a spending bill that authorizes even a portion of his wall (AKA his vanity project). That he waited until he lost the House to fight over this is both sad and hilarious.
He wasn't getting it with control of both sides of Congress either as we witnessed last month when Paul Ryan and the House proved Pelosi wrong.

Knowing that, this was an opportune time for him to bring the wall back into the spotlight because Pelosi's response was practically guaranteed. We can call it a loss, win or stalemate, but in the end will this matter if Trump wins re-election? I view it as a long term campaign strategy, if he can sell the public on the idea that resisting Trump = resisting good/common sense policy - and keep in mind Dems are on record expressing support for this wall as the government shutdown was happening - then he can use the loss of the wall (and whatever else) to his advantage. It's why Pelosi can't simply resist anything and everything just because it's something Trump supports.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
Right on. Pomeranians are the shit.



No sarcasm. I meant it. This place, this is where people can talk.
There are plenty of people from all over the political spectrum here and we have great discussions in which we are allowed to disagree with each other. However, in my experience, the modern ideological version of the left can only thrive when dissenting opinions are silenced. So, anyone coming back here after locking themself away in an echo chamber like Ree would likely feel overwhelmed by the wrongthink. Looking at the recent post history of the guy you’re responding to, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one such person.

Something something equality feels like oppression.
 
Last edited:

pimentel1

Gold Member
Jul 22, 2018
759
322
340
FIXED

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.
Letting people be who they want to be, that’s a positive for the military. Way, way more positive than when the military was experimenting on people. Hmmm... what does mustard gas do to the skin? What happens when you lock a bunch of soldiers on acid in a brig?

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.
As Donald said on TV, “It’s a crisis of compassion.” When they say the left argues with feelings, remember their President is apparently all about emotions.

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.
Agreed.

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!
West Berlin story — Winner is U. A symbol is all it is. Don’t think we’re gonna do the mine thing though. Some US kid gonna want to stand at the border and boom, gone.
Walls are easily bypassed. Go figure.




https://thehill.com/latino/426857-b...igrants-climbing-over-border-wall-with-ladder





And you expect people like me to support a billion dollar boondoggle that can be evaded by spending $30 at the hardware store?
I just want to say that video had me laughing at how ridiculous a wall is as a deterrent. Bloop. Bloop. Bloop. They just keep dropping over and then the guy runs off with the ladder. 😂

Though they were caught, that’s not what stopped them. Cameras did.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
You say this a lot. Game of Thrones line? Where does it come from?

The effectiveness of a border wall is not even in dispute. In countries that have implemented one, there was a 99% reduction in illegal crossings, see: Israel, Hungary.

I'm not one for emotional or idealist arguments, only pragmatic solutions.
The cost is almost nothing relative to the savings from not having to subsidize illegal aliens and their children for generations. The senators who complain about the cost argue in bad faith, Chuck Schumer for example, a dual Israeli-US citizen, was more than happy to approve 38 Billion dollars in tax payer money to Israel, but a border wall to affirm US sovereighnty, stop human trafficking, and prevent crime as well as drugs crossing the border is FAR too expensive at 6 Billion out of a several trillion dollar budget.
Senators like him know what they are doing.
It looks bad because it is, they push for the acceleration of demographic change by leaving the border open, all but ensuring Democrat's ideas are the only ones speaking to voting blocs in the US and use any excuse to maintain the status quo until it's too late.
America and people in general have always participated in each others culture, even from the beginning where the Indians taught us their cultural farming techniques, and fed us. Thanksgiving. We broke bread with them.... And then we slaughtered them a hundred years later.

No matter what, we take in other cultures. Mostly in food, but in other ways as well. Love sac, baby. Had one in my living room for years. Thank you India. Truly romantic and awesome supernatural / horror / warning stories, thank you Mexico and China.

We are the melting pot and it’s time we stop blaming people trying to make lives, because 99% of them, actually make our lives better. There is a vastly better and cheaper way to address the threat posed by drugs and ruthless criminals!


I tend to differ to people that work the border and live near borders, they seem unanimous that it’s needed. Democrats voted for it in 2013 and it’s obviously become a political matter to obstruct Trump and his agenda, which he’s been consistent on from the beginning.

Anyone that says it’s immoral or it’s not who we are, what about the Statue of Liberty, think of the children etc. I would contend do we really want people who’s first act entering the country is breaking through our border illegally? And more importantly, are you willing to absorb the cost of the welfare programs, medical expenses and the estimated 120 billion illegal immigration costs us annually? Can they stay at your house? Are you willing to fund them? I can say without hesitation that I’m not. Empathy alone isn’t a solution. Americans should always be our first priority. Immigration should be merit based. I want the best and the brightest, not legions of unskilled workers that drive down labor costs. The welfare state is just an advertisement for free stuff as long as you make it across.

On a personal level, any large immigrant population alters the fabric of a country. I went to high school in Maryland, I graduated in 1985. There were maybe a few dozen Hispanic kids from various countries in a graduating class of 1200 students. That same school today is 80% Hispanic and the surrounding town has been completely altered. Virtually unrecognizable from when I grew up. This rapid change hurts our culture. Change is inevitable, but give people time to truly assimilate. Not just work here, send money home and never have any personal attachment to being American.

Mass immigration hasn’t been positive here, or anywhere else imo. A border wall combined with improved surveillance seems reasonable and humane.
Americans are spreading everywhere in the world too. Honduras has KFC, McDonalds, etc. Migration is inevitable and everywhere will ultimately even have the same commodities.

DHS asked for a wall, they have data that shows wherever they put one reduces the flow of drugs, trafficking, illegal crossings. Yet we have all these bullshit "experts" on MSM saying they don't work. I love how the security apparatus is infallible until it doesn't fit your narrative.

It isn't a 2k mile wall. We are down to a couple hundred of miles of extending what they have, reinforcing what exists as much of it was only designed to stop automobiles. The rest will be covered by natural walls and electronic walls in areas where it is miles from developed area and apprehension is possible. Electronic walls only work in this situation. They are worthless in areas where whatever is coming over can slip into an urban area. The proposal included more technology for points of entry to help curb drugs crossing. However if you only do that you are just playing a shell game where they will move to the next easiest point of entry. With no barriers they will just driving across 40 miles away from where they are now. This is at least 65b/yr industry. Slowing it down/making it harder/more expensive is the goal. Even a 40% reduction in drugs crossing the border is worth the cost of the wall. Anyone against the current proposal from the republicans are just misinformed sheep or worthless ideologues.
There is a better way!

Doesn't this show that by slowing them down, to scale the wall, the Border Patrol managed to capture them all? Isn't that proof in action?
No. Many more escape over the barriers, are seen on camera, and still get away. The cameras they use and the amount of personnel guarding the border are insufficient.


If a wall is the best way to stop the influx of illegal immigration, then I think it should be built. If a wall doesn't do anything, then it would be a waste. It's hard for me to have a strong opinion on this because I know jack shit about border protection. It's like asking me what I think the federal reserve should change the interest rate to - how the fuck should I know?
Because you should know! You should! jk Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

😂 Dig a tunnel. Dig, dig a tunnel. 😂 🤣

Why we need those sky high super ultra HD cameras California is putting up to monitor miles of forest for heat signatures. They can also detect people underground for miles. Add more border patrol and coast guard, and you got a winning combo!


We don't need goalies in ice hockey, because with enough skill and trying they can shoot the puck in the goal nevertheless.
When final scores are always in the single digits, hockey needs more points. Get rid of the goalie. Be like basketball. Tons of points. Way more exciting.

Trump can still make the case that the only reason the wall isn't being built and isn't being funded by Mexico is because the Democrats won't allow it... and he'll be right.

The El Chapo act would take $14B in seized assets from the drug kingpin and use it to pay for the wall. It obviously requires Democrat votes.
That would be an awesome way to fund more border patrol, better infrared higher positioned cameras that can cover miles and underground, more coast guard, and lawyers and judges to process them.

I think when Trump supporters chant Build the Wall and Trump promises a wall, that it’s a symbol of what they really want. Real security. Like we all want superheroes, but they don’t exist. We have to rely on what’s real. What’s pratical. We can put in speed bumps and fuck up cars racing this way.

And although this is funny, here is where I can’t help but suggest some advice to Democats: DO NOT TAUNT. DO NOT TAUNT. God damn, as he said, he has “...powers afforded to him”

Build the wall and increase security at airports for illegal entry. Building the wall is a 5 billion dollar injection into the economy that will create thousands of jobs.
But it also does one other thing: it unmasks the real price of things. Not being able to rely on cheap labor, who in turn get better lives here, it hits every American’s pocket. And Republicans I know are commenting on this. On how everything is becoming more expensive. And they pin it on Trump.


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.
You win.

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 get you. Although the wall is what they want, it’s really just a symbol of what they want: better border security.


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?
Chuck Schumer looks like Frank from House of Cards.

QUOTE="WaterAstro, post: 253744571, member: 576875"]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.[/QUOTE]

Restabilizing Mexico and Central America should be part of the plan. More businesses should do business down there and help the people because certain governments down there are revealing to be too corrupt to do the right thing. El Chapo bribing Mexico Presidents and the current President talking about pardoning past political figures. Honduran voting council withholding and changing the vote to extend the unconstitutional duration of their President. Venezuela.

I can talk regime change, but it would cost more lives than save on both sides of the border. I agree, more businesses need to invest down there. We have a giant job pool here. Lets give them jobs, too.

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.
Wall-of Garbage.





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.
Nothing can deter people with nothing to lose.



Wall of patrolling drones.

Easy way to see where they are and to pick them up.

I also do vote for somekind of wall to make it clear that you are making it clear you are now passing land of another country. This wall could be as small as possible or even a water river that gets digged if that's even remotely possible.

However a big wall without paroling on it, i don't see much point in it.
In response to the wildfires, California is putting up ultra hd cameras so high up that they can detect heat signatures for miles. And underground. This is more cost effective and what we need for the border.



There are plenty of people from all over the political spectrum here and we have great discussions in which we are allowed to disagree with each other. However, in my experience, the modern ideological version of the left can only thrive when dissenting opinions are silenced. So, anyone coming back here after locking themself away in an echo chamber like Ree would likely feel overwhelmed by the wrongthink. Looking at the recent post history of the guy you’re responding to, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one such person.

Something something equality feels like oppression.
I read through all the comments and did just a number tally of for and against the wall on each page, but only counted users first appearance.

Page 1: 5 Against 8 For
Page 2: 14 Against 11 For
Page 3: 6 Against 8 For
Page 4: 4 Against 4 For

Pro Wall had at the time I started this post, 2 more users. The poll at the time had 1 more Against the Wall. Balanced here is an understatement.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
FIXED



Letting people be who they want to be, that’s a positive for the military. Way, way more positive than when the military was experimenting on people. Hmmm... what does mustard gas do to the skin? What happens when you lock a bunch of soldiers on acid in a brig?



As Donald said on TV, “It’s a crisis of compassion.” When they say the left argues with feelings, remember their President is apparently all about emotions.



Agreed.



West Berlin story — Winner is U. A symbol is all it is. Don’t think we’re gonna do the mine thing though. Some US kid gonna want to stand at the border and boom, gone.


I just want to say that video had me laughing at how ridiculous a wall is as a deterrent. Bloop. Bloop. Bloop. They just keep dropping over and then the guy runs off with the ladder. 😂

Though they were caught, that’s not what stopped them. Cameras did.



You say this a lot. Game of Thrones line? Where does it come from?



America and people in general have always participated in each others culture, even from the beginning where the Indians taught us their cultural farming techniques, and fed us. Thanksgiving. We broke bread with them.... And then we slaughtered them a hundred years later.

No matter what, we take in other cultures. Mostly in food, but in other ways as well. Love sac, baby. Had one in my living room for years. Thank you India. Truly romantic and awesome supernatural / horror / warning stories, thank you Mexico and China.

We are the melting pot and it’s time we stop blaming people trying to make lives, because 99% of them, actually make our lives better. There is a vastly better and cheaper way to address the threat posed by drugs and ruthless criminals!




Americans are spreading everywhere in the world too. Honduras has KFC, McDonalds, etc. Migration is inevitable and everywhere will ultimately even have the same commodities.



There is a better way!



No. Many more escape over the barriers, are seen on camera, and still get away. The cameras they use and the amount of personnel guarding the border are insufficient.




Because you should know! You should! jk Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.



😂 Dig a tunnel. Dig, dig a tunnel. 😂 🤣

Why we need those sky high super ultra HD cameras California is putting up to monitor miles of forest for heat signatures. They can also detect people underground for miles. Add more border patrol and coast guard, and you got a winning combo!




When final scores are always in the single digits, hockey needs more points. Get rid of the goalie. Be like basketball. Tons of points. Way more exciting.



That would be an awesome way to fund more border patrol, better infrared higher positioned cameras that can cover miles and underground, more coast guard, and lawyers and judges to process them.

I think when Trump supporters chant Build the Wall and Trump promises a wall, that it’s a symbol of what they really want. Real security. Like we all want superheroes, but they don’t exist. We have to rely on what’s real. What’s pratical. We can put in speed bumps and fuck up cars racing this way.



And although this is funny, here is where I can’t help but suggest some advice to Democats: DO NOT TAUNT. DO NOT TAUNT. God damn, as he said, he has “...powers afforded to him”



But it also does one other thing: it unmasks the real price of things. Not being able to rely on cheap labor, who in turn get better lives here, it hits every American’s pocket. And Republicans I know are commenting on this. On how everything is becoming more expensive. And they pin it on Trump.




You win.



I get you. Although the wall is what they want, it’s really just a symbol of what they want: better border security.




Chuck Schumer looks like Frank from House of Cards.

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

Restabilizing Mexico and Central America should be part of the plan. More businesses should do business down there and help the people because certain governments down there are revealing to be too corrupt to do the right thing. El Chapo bribing Mexico Presidents and the current President talking about pardoning past political figures. Honduran voting council withholding and changing the vote to extend the unconstitutional duration of their President. Venezuela.

I can talk regime change, but it would cost more lives than save on both sides of the border. I agree, more businesses need to invest down there. We have a giant job pool here. Lets give them jobs, too.



Wall-of Garbage.







Nothing can deter people with nothing to lose.



In response to the wildfires, California is putting up ultra hd cameras so high up that they can detect heat signatures for miles. And underground. This is more cost effective and what we need for the border.





I read through all the comments and did just a number tally of for and against the wall on each page, but only counted users first appearance.

Page 1: 5 Against 8 For
Page 2: 14 Against 11 For
Page 3: 6 Against 8 For
Page 4: 4 Against 4 For

Pro Wall had at the time I started this post, 2 more users. The poll at the time had 1 more Against the Wall. Balanced here is an understatement.
It needs to be 100% against or this is a neo-Nazi echo chamber that wants to kill all ze jews and poc (pronounced pock, like the snack without the y). Except jews are now white adjacent so they don’t count. In fact, let’s don pussy hats and kill all ze jews because they’re using their white privilege to oppress us.

-DaForest, probably
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,788
3,484
460
But it also does one other thing: it unmasks the real price of things. Not being able to rely on cheap labor, who in turn get better lives here, it hits every American’s pocket. And Republicans I know are commenting on this. On how everything is becoming more expensive. And they pin it on Trump.
Well, if wages had kept up, that wouldn't be a problem. Instead we funneled all the productivity gains to a select group of people by depressing wages using cheap labor. America abandoned capitalism for corporatism, much like how "communist" Russia and China abandoned communism for authoritarianism.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,362
842
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
That would be an awesome way to fund more border patrol, better infrared higher positioned cameras that can cover miles and underground, more coast guard, and lawyers and judges to process them.
It would. You could make both parties happy putting El Chapo's money to use at the border, except I don't suspect Pelosi is going to walk back her claim about walls being immoral. She boxed herself in with that nonsense.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
A paper from the Congressional Research Service, updated today: Barriers Along the U.S. Borders: Key Authorities and Requirements

Federal law authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct barriers along the U.S. borders to deter illegal crossings. DHS is also required to construct reinforced fencing along at least 700 miles of the land border with Mexico (a border that stretches 1,933 miles). Congress has not provided a deadline for DHS to meet this 700-mile requirement, and as of the date of this report, fencing would need to be deployed along nearly 50 additional miles to satisfy the 700-mile requirement. Nor has Congress provided guidelines regarding the specific characteristics of fencing or other physical barriers (e.g., their height or material composition) deployed along the border, beyond specifying that required fencing must be reinforced.

The primary statute authorizing the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the international borders is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208, div. C). Congress made significant amendments to IIRIRA Section 102 through three enactments—the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, div. B), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161, div. E). These amendments required DHS to construct hundreds of miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and they also gave the Secretary of DHS broad authority to waive “all legal requirements” that may impede construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA Section 102. These statutory modifications, along with increased funding for border projects, resulted in the deployment of several hundred miles of new barriers along the southwest border between 2005 and 2011. But in the years following, DHS largely stopped deploying additional fencing, as the agency altered its enforcement strategy in a manner that places less priority upon barrier construction.

On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order that, among other things, instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border ... to most effectively achieve complete operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border. The order defines a “wall” to mean “a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.” The order does not identify the contemplated mileage of the wall to be constructed.

Until recently, interest in the framework governing the deployment of barriers along the international border typically focused on the stringency of the statutory mandate to deploy fencing along at least 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. But attention has now shifted to those provisions of law that permit deployment of fencing or other physical barriers along additional mileage. IIRIRA Section 102 authorizes DHS to construct additional fencing or other barriers along the U.S. land borders beyond the 700 miles specified in statute. Indeed, nothing in current law would appear to bar DHS from installing hundreds of miles of additional physical barriers, at least so long as this action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry or was deemed warranted to achieve “operational control” of the southern border. DHS’s policy not to deploy a substantial amount of additional fencing, beyond what is expressly required by law, appeared primarily premised on policy considerations and funding constraints, rather than significant legal impediments.

This report discusses the statutory framework governing the deployment of fencing and other barriers along the U.S. international borders. For more extensive discussion of ongoing activities and operations along the border between ports of entry, see CRS Report R42138, Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, by Carla N. Argueta.
The primary statute authorizing DHS to deploy barriers along the international borders is Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).7 Congress made significant amendments to IIRIRA Section 102 through three enactments—the REAL ID Act of 2005, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.8 These amendments established a mandate upon DHS to construct hundreds of miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and also provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with broad authority to waive “all legal requirements” that may impede construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA Section 102.
Section 102(c) of IIRIRA confers the Secretary of Homeland Security with broad authority to waive legal requirements that may impede the construction of barriers and roads along the border. The nature and scope of this waiver authority changed significantly pursuant to modifications made by the REAL ID Act of 2005. In the years following, the Secretary of Homeland Security employed this waiver authority to facilitate the construction of hundreds of miles of fencing and other infrastructure along several sections of the southwest border. More recently, however, this waiver authority has not been employed to facilitate further large-scale border projects. President Trump’s executive order calling for immediate construction of additional physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border did not directly call for the invocation of this waiver authority by the Secretary, but such authority could be employed at a later date to facilitate the deployment of a border wall.
To date, the Secretary of Homeland Security has provided notice in the Federal Register on five occasions that he was invoking the waiver authority conferred under IIRIRA Section 102(c):

 San Diego Border Sector—On September 22, 2005, a notice was issued in the Federal Register indicating that waiver authority had been exercised over various legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.125 The waiver applies to “all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject,” of various federal statutes listed in Appendix B.

 Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) in Southwestern Arizona—A Federal Register notice was published on January 19, 2007, indicating that the Secretary was waiving various legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the BMGR in southwestern Arizona.126 The waiver applies to all “[f]ederal, tate, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject” of several federal statutes listed in Appendix C.  San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Southeastern Arizona— On October 5, 2007, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club brought suit seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining DHS from border fence and road-building activities in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, located in the vicinity of the U.S. border in southeastern Arizona.127 On October 10, 2007, the presiding district court judge issued a TRO halting fence construction activities in the Conservation Area, finding the relevant federal agencies had failed to carry out an environmental assessment as legally required under NEPA.128 On October 26, 2007, a notice was published in the Federal Register indicating that the Secretary of Homeland Security had exercised waiver authority over various legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of physical barriers or roads through the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (including any and all lands covered by the TRO),129 thereby enabling DHS to resume fence construction. The waiver applies to “all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject” of a collection of federal statutes listed in Appendix D.

 Hidalgo County, Texas—On April 3, 2008, notice was given in the Federal Register that the Secretary of Homeland Security had exercised his waiver authority under IIRIRA Section 102(c) to ensure the construction of barriers and roads in Hidalgo County, Texas.130 The waiver applies to “all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject” of various federal statutes listed in Appendix E.

 Border Projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—On April 3, 2008, the Secretary of Homeland Security gave notice in the Federal Register of the waiver of various laws in relation to border construction projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.131 The waiver applies to “all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject” of various federal statutes listed in Appendix F.

In multiple instances, lawsuits were brought challenging the constitutionality of an issued waiver. Constitutional claims raised in these collective cases included arguments that the waiver authority was an impermissible delegation of Congress’s lawmaking authority; the waiver provision violated the Presentment Clause by effectively enabling the executive branch to “repeal” or “amend” existing laws to exempt border infrastructure projects from their coverage; and the waiver authority’s application to state and local laws violated federalism and anti-commandeering principles. In each case, the reviewing federal district court upheld the exercise of waiver authority as constitutionally valid.132 Parties in two of the cases sought Supreme Court review, but the Court declined to grant certiorari in either case.133
Conclusion

Pursuant to IIRIRA Section 102, Congress has conferred DHS with clear authority to construct barriers and roads along the international land borders to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry. More specifically, it has required fencing to be constructed along specified mileage of the southwest border. In recent years, legislative attention has primarily focused upon the fencing requirements contained in IIRIRA Section 102(b). Prior versions of Section 102(b) imposed specific requirements as to the location where fencing was to be installed and the layers of fencing to be constructed. The current provision affords DHS with significantly greater discretion to determine the appropriate location, layers, and types of fencing to be installed along the southwest border.

Whether DHS has discretion to construct less fencing than the amount specified under IIRIRA Section 102(b), on account of a proviso that posits that the agency is not required to construct fencing at any “particular location” where it deems fencing to be inappropriate, has been the subject of disagreement (and apparently inconsistent views by DHS itself). While there appears to be stronger support for construing Section 102(b) to establish a firm mandate for the deployment of fencing along 700 miles of the border, with the agency retaining discretion as to the locations along the border where fencing should be installed, it is not clear whether a court would have the ability to compel DHS to install additional fencing (or that a plaintiff would have standing to bring such a claim). If Congress disagrees with DHS’s implementation of the fencing mandate under Section 102(b), it would likely need to enact legislation to modify or clarify the fencing requirements found in current statute.

But even assuming that DHS satisfies the fencing requirements under Section 102(b), the general authority conferred to the agency under Section 102(a) permits it to construct additional fencing or other barriers along the U.S. land borders. Moreover, Section 102(b) authorizes DHS to deploy additional physical barriers—beyond the mandated fencing along 700 miles of the southwest border—in order to obtain operational control of the southwest border. There is nothing in current statute that would appear to bar DHS from potentially installing hundreds of miles of additional fencing or other physical barriers along the border, at least so long as the action was determined appropriate to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry. In addition, IIRIRA Section 102(c) grants DHS authority to waive any legal requirement that would impede the expeditious construction of additional barriers and roads. DHS’s decision not to deploy a substantial amount of additional fencing, beyond what is required under IIRIRA Section 102(b), appears primarily premised on policy considerations and funding constraints, rather than significant legal impediments. Accordingly, policymakers may deem it appropriate to review and assess the scope of DHS’s authority to construct barriers, and the manner in which such authority is exercised, even after any requirements under IIRIRA Section 102(b) are satisfied.
It looks like we may not even need a state of emergency for Trump to build what's needed.

In case anybody is wondering who this is:


The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as Congress's think tank,[3] is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Its staff of approximately 600 employees includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists.[4] In fiscal year 2016, CRS was appropriated a budget of roughly $106.9 million by Congress.[1]

CRS is joined by two major congressional support agencies. The Congressional Budget Office provides Congress with budget-related information, reports on fiscal, budgetary, and programmatic issues, and analyses of budget policy options, costs, and effects. The Government Accountability Office assists Congress in reviewing and monitoring the activities of government by conducting independent audits, investigations, and evaluations of federal programs. Collectively, the three agencies employ more than 4,000 people.[4]
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
967
381
205
Trump should just call it fence, to show how ridiculous the opponents of the wall are. It is a freaking fence, and they want literally open borders.
 
Jul 25, 2013
5,332
287
390
England
He promised Mexico would pay for it.

He should be enough of a man to admit he cant keep his promise.

Purposefully denying pay to Americans with families to feed because of his obvious lies/incompetence is quite the dick move.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
967
381
205
He promised Mexico would pay for it.

He should be enough of a man to admit he cant keep his promise.

Purposefully denying pay to Americans with families to feed because of his obvious lies/incompetence is quite the dick move.
There are ways to make mexico pay for it, though.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
He promised Mexico would pay for it.

He should be enough of a man to admit he cant keep his promise.

Purposefully denying pay to Americans with families to feed because of his obvious lies/incompetence is quite the dick move.
Yeah, why can't he be like all of our other saintly politicians and prostrate himself before the people over his unkept promises?
 
Jul 25, 2013
5,332
287
390
England
There are ways to make mexico pay for it, though.
Good, I'll wait to see when that happens.

For now though, the only people who've paid anything is federal workers and their families, because Trump broke his promise.

Yeah, why can't he be like all of our other saintly politicians and prostrate himself before the people over his unkept promises?
Yeah, I guess removing the pay packets of Americans and their families, and indirectly disadvantaging other Americans who require their assistance as part of their job is the best choice he could have made in this situation.

Trump before everything, after all.

Or he could just take some personal responsibility for the fact that he sold a lie to the American people.

Or he could personally decided to just send working people to food banks and deny families the pay they need to get by.

Whatever helps Trump, I guess.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
967
381
205
For now though, the only people who've paid anything is federal workers and their families, because Trump broke his promise.
You act as if Trump could force legislation through congress, any measure to make mexico pay would probably be blocked by democrats. Don't they want to block even the use of El Chapo's money?

President Trump has been battling Democrats for weeks to secure $5.7 billion in funds to expand the border wall, a fight that has led to a government shutdown for five weeks.


But legislation from Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., would reserve up to $14 billion seized from "El Chapo" for the construction project. "El Chapo" is being tried in federal district court in Brooklyn, and Brooks said the fight with Democrats over money would become much easier if Trump had access to seized funds from the Mexican drug lord.

-washingtonexaminer
Trump's promise or democrats' thirst for innocent blood and suffering?
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
Good, I'll wait to see when that happens.

For now though, the only people who've paid anything is federal workers and their families, because Trump broke his promise.



Yeah, I guess removing the pay packets of Americans and their families, and indirectly disadvantaging other Americans who require their assistance as part of their job is the best choice he could have made in this situation.

Trump before everything, after all.

Or he could just take some personal responsibility for the fact that he sold a lie to the American people.

Or he could personally decided to just send working people to food banks and deny families the pay they need to get by.

Whatever helps Trump, I guess.
Boo hoo. Let's do a death toll comparison, illegal immigration vs the shutdown. What's the score? How many to zero?
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
Cost? Illegal immigration costs us an estimated $112 billion a year.
So what's another $5 billion that achieved nothing then..


The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, released a report in 2013 about the costs of illegal immigration. The study found there were 3.7 million undocumented households and the costs were an estimated $54.5 billion per year — five times less than Trump's estimate.
And the critique by the Cato Institute in 2017 gave an even lower number, with costs estimated at between $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion annually.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...al-immigration-cost-united-states/2540512002/
 
Last edited:

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
439
209
290
Here's an interactive border tour I saw a few months back. Please, take the time to scroll through it and realize just how long our border with Mexico is, and just how impractical a wall would be over it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...mexico-border-flyover/?utm_term=.fe7c589b9a77

I think it's very easy for people to picture the US as their backyard and Mexico as their next door neighbor's. How do you keep their dogs out? Why, you build a wall (actually a fence, usually). It's so simple, people! And it only takes a trip to Home Depot and a weekend to get it built! Its a straight line over even terrain and it's probably a few hundred feet, max.

I'm pretty positive that most people do not take into account the twists and the turns, the mountains and deserts and rivers, the wildlife, etc. that all exist along the border. Not isn't a wall feasible in most of these places, it isn't necessary.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
Dollars are definitely a more meaningful metric than American lives.

Let's say I accept your numbers on illegal immigration. How do you think your faux outrage over 5 billion plays while you post illegal immigration cost estimates that vastly exceed that number on an annual basis?

This has the cost at $116 billion.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
Here's an interactive border tour I saw a few months back. Please, take the time to scroll through it and realize just how long our border with Mexico is, and just how impractical a wall would be over it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...mexico-border-flyover/?utm_term=.fe7c589b9a77

I think it's very easy for people to picture the US as their backyard and Mexico as their next door neighbor's. How do you keep their dogs out? Why, you build a wall (actually a fence, usually). It's so simple, people! And it only takes a trip to Home Depot and a weekend to get it built! Its a straight line over even terrain and it's probably a few hundred feet, max.

I'm pretty positive that most people do not take into account the twists and the turns, the mountains and deserts and rivers, the wildlife, etc. that all exist along the border. Not isn't a wall feasible in most of these places, it isn't necessary.
it's a good thing that nobody is proposing building a wall along the entire border, then. Geez.
 
Jan 1, 2011
1,385
215
575
USA
Build the wall and have electronic equipment ( drones/ cameras and whatever other surveillance hardware available) to supplement border security.
Every border agent says the wall works and helps them do their jobs and is very much needed.
The part I don’t get is how democrats were all for it years ago but know that Trump and most of Americans want one they don’t . Hypocrisy at its best , poor Chuck Schumer looks like a fool now . He wanted one before but not now, what changed?
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,362
842
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
I'm pretty positive that most people do not take into account the twists and the turns, the mountains and deserts and rivers, the wildlife, etc. that all exist along the border. Not isn't a wall feasible in most of these places, it isn't necessary.
“It’s a 2,000-mile border, but much of it has mountains and region where you can’t get across so we’re looking at between 500 and 550,” Trump said.

When the mainstream media is laser-focused on feeding you negative coverage it's no surprise that, even today, many people still think Trump wants to cover the entire border with a wall. Hell, Julian Castro, a 2020 candidate, was on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper this morning saying he opposes a 2,000 mile concrete wall. :rolleyes:

Be critical of your media sources and seek out opposing views to give you a more accurate picture of what's really happening.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
967
381
205
No Wall.

You're going spend billions on a wall, that nearly every expert on the subject agrees isn't going to halt the problem of people overstaying their visas. That's it by the way. Most illegals in the US are only there because they came in legally and didn't leave when their visa ran out.

Hasn't most immigration from Mexico been dropping anyway?
Here's an interactive border tour I saw a few months back. Please, take the time to scroll through it and realize just how long our border with Mexico is, and just how impractical a wall would be over it.
IT is a mere fence, and that you seem to oppose it and want open air, no barriers is ridiculous.

So we should have nothing then? Just open air?
 
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
Dollars are definitely a more meaningful metric than American lives.

Let's say I accept your numbers on illegal immigration. How do you think your faux outrage over 5 billion plays while you post illegal immigration cost estimates that vastly exceed that number on an annual basis?

This has the cost at $116 billion.
Trump is not going to change any estimated cost or the debt.

Other than making it worse, that is.
 
Last edited: