Wall or No Wall?

Wall or No Wall?

  • Wall

    Votes: 93 50.5%
  • No Wall

    Votes: 91 49.5%

  • Total voters
    184
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?
Opposing a wall does not equal wanting no border control at all.

It just seems odd to focus on the illegal entry to the US to lower the number of illegals, when the majority that are there, are there through legal entry. Surely it would more efficient and cost effective to work on this group than building a wall for the smaller group?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Opposing a wall does not equal wanting no border control at all.

It just seems odd to focus on the illegal entry to the US to lower the number of illegals, when the majority that are there, are there through legal entry. Surely it would more efficient and cost effective to work on this group than building a wall for the smaller group?

You're talking about overstayed visas vs randoms walking across the border, many who we would never grant a temporary visa in the first place. People we gave permission to visit the US who have stayed too long vs anonymous people who aren't here yet but want to get in? Throw drug trafficking, human smuggling, cartels, etc. on top of that and I know where I'm going to start. We need to deal with both, obviously, but you're sort of talking about apples and oranges here. This isn't a matter of just taking a head count and saying, "Well, there are more of these."
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,369
847
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
Opposing a wall does not equal wanting no border control at all.

It just seems odd to focus on the illegal entry to the US to lower the number of illegals, when the majority that are there, are there through legal entry. Surely it would more efficient and cost effective to work on this group than building a wall for the smaller group?
You do both, but comprehensive immigration reform is trickier for the US government than border security, as the past few decades show us. Bush and Obama were both putting physical barriers up. Walls have been going up all around the world in recent years, yet the media is trying to make us believe they're immoral and Trump is some sort of racist or xenophobic monster for wanting to do what his two predecessors did?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
You're talking about overstayed visas vs randoms walking across the border, many who we would never grant a temporary visa in the first place. People we gave permission to visit the US who have stayed too long vs anonymous people who aren't here yet but want to get in? Throw drug trafficking, human smuggling, cartels, etc. on top of that and I know where I'm going to start. We need to deal with both, obviously, but you're sort of talking about apples and oranges here. This isn't a matter of just taking a head count and saying, "Well, there are more of these."
Exactly. The overstayed visas argument is a bad one because those people have gone through the screening process.
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Since someone pointed out to me that Trump wasn't asking for a coast to coast wall, I looked it up and yes, his position has evolved numerous times on that fact. He even mentioned various natural terrain features of the border that act as a deterrent. Ok, good. I'm glad that was brought to my attention.

Question: Has Trump identified precisely where he would like his wall or fence or hedge or whatever?

Seriously, if he or the GOP lawmakers were to come out and say we need a fence here, here, & here, I think that would go a long way towards securing funding and support for something down there. But all I've heard is, "We need a wall or barrier on our Southern border." That sounds pretty damned inclusive of everything from coast to coast.

If there's been a more precise, more nuanced request, please point me to it.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
969
382
205
Opposing a wall does not equal wanting no border control at all.

It just seems odd to focus on the illegal entry to the US to lower the number of illegals, when the majority that are there, are there through legal entry. Surely it would more efficient and cost effective to work on this group than building a wall for the smaller group?
IF I recall correctly Chowder said I think 42% are due to overstayed visa, so most are indeed from crossing the non-fenced border, If I'm not mistaken
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
IF I recall correctly Chowder said I think 42% are due to overstayed visa, so most are indeed from crossing the non-fenced border, If I'm not mistaken
700k overstays, 400k apprehensions/asylum (can't remember breakdown) at border last I saw. But yeah, we need immigration reform
 
Last edited:
Jan 16, 2019
59
4
140
This is what happens when a cheeto gets on a stage in front of thousands and call for a concrete wall from sea to shining sea that Mexico will pay for. And he says everyone coming from southern border are rapists and murderers infesting us like rats. Maybe next time dont elect a total douche bag con man, and we can actually get somewhere.
 
Jan 1, 2011
1,385
215
575
USA
This is what happens when a cheeto gets on a stage in front of thousands and call for a concrete wall from sea to shining sea that Mexico will pay for. And he says everyone coming from southern border are rapists and murderers infesting us like rats. Maybe next time dont elect a total douche bag con man, and we can actually get somewhere.
So you don’t think we need to secure the border and have better immigration laws?
He never said everyone coming here illegally is a rapist or murderer get your facts right before posting garbage.
As a legal immigrant I’m all for more border security.
 
Jan 16, 2019
59
4
140
So you don’t think we need to secure the border and have better immigration laws?
He never said everyone coming here illegally is a rapist or murderer get your facts right before posting garbage.
As a legal immigrant I’m all for more border security.
Sure secure borders are good. But we are not in a "crisis" like trump likes to claim though, not even close. He was elected because he fear mongered the shit out of slightly less then half the voters that just so happened to be mostly racist. Let's fix real problems already.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Sure secure borders are good. But we are not in a "crisis" like trump likes to claim though, not even close. He was elected because he fear mongered the shit out of slightly less then half the voters that just so happened to be mostly racist. Let's fix real problems already.
Again...Obama's border chief yesterday:

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?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Sounds to me like he's arguing for more resources to effectively patrol the border. And if more security fencing is in order, then let's hear where it's needed.
It's needed where the border patrol and DHS determine it's needed. You need them to show you on a map exactly where they're going to build because why? The proposed site needs to meet your specifications? Do you have a lot of experience securing borders?

I posted this yesterday in this thread yesterday:

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.
Dems are just flat out fucking wrong here.
 
Last edited:

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
You need them to show you on a map exactly where they're going to build because why?
Because this sort of thing needs to be brought up through proper channels, just like the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which so many people are fond of quoting Democratic support for.

Because it costs money, and people should be aware of where their money is being spent.

Because if Trump supporters actually found out he wasn't serious about a coast to coast wall and that it was just a slogan for simpletons, they would freak the fuck out. SEE: Ann Coulter
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Because this sort of thing needs to be brought up through proper channels, just like the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which so many people are fond of quoting Democratic support for.

Because it costs money, and people should be aware of where their money is being spent.

Because if Trump supporters actually found out he wasn't serious about a coast to coast wall and that it was just a slogan for simpletons, they would freak the fuck out. SEE: Ann Coulter
Eh...you might be the only person I've seen this week who didn't already know that. You have a pretty strong opinion here but don't seem to have a grasp of the very well-publicized details of the proposal. I imagine CNN doesn't put those details out front very often. If any group of people is well-schooled in the details of what Trump is looking to do here, it's the side that is opposing the people repeatedly saying, "Nana I can't hear you, NO WALL." The fact that you didn't know that coast to coast wasn't the plan doesn't mean nobody else did.

You don't even know what Ann Coulter's angry about. I imagine you never bothered to read past some clickbait headline. I can't laugh hard enough at the notion that Ann Coulter ever thought Trump was going to build a wall across the entire 2,300 miles.

Not that this will change your mind, but here you go. Frontier in south Texas gets 100 miles.

Homeland Security officials laid out the stakes in the budget brinkmanship that threatens a partial government shutdown late Friday: the $5 billion the House has approved for a border wall would be enough for about 215 miles of barrier.

Less than half of that — about 100 miles, mostly in South Texas — would be frontier that doesn’t already have a fence.

The rest would go to replacement fencing or to build secondary fencing.

President Donald Trump threatened to veto any stopgap spending measure that didn’t include $5 billion for a wall.

Senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security briefed journalists Friday afternoon on the funding.

The estimate of 215 miles for $5 billion works out to an average topping $23 million per mile.

That’s far higher than the cost of the nearly 700 miles of barrier already in place along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico border. Most of that was authorized under George W. Bush, in the Secure Fences Act of 2006.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2009 that put the initial cost per mile at $2.8 million to $3.9 million. But that was in urban areas, where roads were already in place.

Some of the replacement fencing installed during the Trump administration has cost about $8 million per mile. The more remote the area, the higher cost per mile.

Homeland Security officials insisted Friday that comparisons are inappropriate.

“Every mile of border is different,” said one official. “It depends on the terrain” and other factors.

Since Trump took office, Congress has approved $341 million for 40 miles of replacement fencing and new gates in San Diego, New Mexico and West Texas, plus gates in the Rio Grande Valley to close gaps between existing fence. Of that, 34 miles is complete.

Earlier this year, Congress provided another $1.375 billion for about 84 miles of new and replacement border barrier.

That includes levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley, with construction expected to start in February, plus some new wall construction in that area of South Texas, along with replacement barrier in Arizona and California.

About $500 million in contracts have been awarded, and another $500 million worth could be finalized in coming weeks, officials said.

Homeland Security officials wouldn’t discuss the priorities for new construction, but have provided plans to Congress. Officials who spoke with reporters on Friday that the top priorities are in South Texas, segments around Laredo, Yuma, Ariz., and El Centro, Calif.

Most of the new construction would be bollard fencing — steel slats similar to the fencing already in place, though taller. Officials said the prototypes built near San Diego provided some lessons and certain design elements would be incorporated to improve reinforcement and fortification

When Congress authorized wall funding earlier this year, it restricted construction to designs already in use.

It’s unclear how much of the $5 billion would go to land acquisition, including costs to condemn property when landowners refuse to sell.

“Eminent domain is always an option. Eminent domain is a tool in our toolbox,” said one senior Homeland Security official. “People would have a very difficult time finding a more public use for property than defending the United States’ borders.”
 
Last edited:
Jan 16, 2019
59
4
140
Eh...you might be the only person I've seen this week who didn't already know that. You have a pretty strong opinion here but don't seem to have a grasp of the very well-publicized details of the proposal. I imagine CNN doesn't put those details out front very often. If any group of people is well-schooled in the details of what Trump is looking to do here, it's the side that is opposing the people repeatedly saying, "Nana I can't hear you, NO WALL." The fact that you didn't know that coast to coast wasn't the plan doesn't mean nobody else did.

You don't even know what Ann Coulter's angry about. I imagine you never bothered to read past some clickbait headline. I can't laugh hard enough at the notion that Ann Coulter ever thought Trump was going to build a wall across the entire 2,300 miles.

Not that this will change your mind, but here you go. Frontier in south Texas gets 100 miles.
He said concrete wall from sea to shining sea and Mexico will pay for it. He said it like every chance he could in front of live tv, he is a con man. Enjoy the L
 
Mar 30, 2011
1,170
175
490
Southern California
Because this sort of thing needs to be brought up through proper channels, just like the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which so many people are fond of quoting Democratic support for.

Because it costs money, and people should be aware of where their money is being spent.

Because if Trump supporters actually found out he wasn't serious about a coast to coast wall and that it was just a slogan for simpletons, they would freak the fuck out. SEE: Ann Coulter
The border is broke down into Sectors. Border Patrol Sectors and OFO (ports of entry) submit infrastructure plans to headquarters in Washington DC, which includes stuff like fencing/walls, cameras, sensors, new buildings, ground radar, air support, drones, personnel requirements, etc, etc. All this stuff is done in advance. The Border Patrol has been doing this since 1924 and has it down to a science. The BP knows where enhanced walls/fencing/vehicle barriers will be effective. Congress needs to pass a budget that the President will sign and the building can begin right away. Democrats are addicted to changing the demographics of America, as it favors them politically. That is the battle we are in right now. The Dems know walls work and that is why they are fighting it so hard.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
So let's get a few things right.

Trump initially wanted a border wall across the entire border. He sold it by saying that our border is being invaded by rapists and muderers, and that Mexico would pay for it.

Some Republicans liked it, most people didn't.

Fast forward to today. Trump has significantly downgraded his border ambitions. He's going with the DHS language and policy on border barriers, which is targeted, and mostly deals with repair. He's also trying to brute Force tax payers into footing the bill, and shutting down the government to get Congress to provide funds (collateral damage).

There is no southern border crises.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...-the-argument-for-building-a-border-wall/amp/

So it's easy to see why Democrats oppose Trump because he's failed to make a valid case for spending increases, when it's not likely to create a lot of results. The multilayer strategy is a better way of communicating it that makes sense, and has good metrics behind it. But the allocation for it is still an issue.

So at this point you need to make a deal. If you want to be done with the multilayer border security stuff, then you need a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
He said concrete wall from sea to shining sea and Mexico will pay for it. He said it like every chance he could in front of live tv, he is a con man. Enjoy the L
He has never said that we needed 2,300 miles of wall. He has only ever said that we don't. He made it clear the first week that he announced he was running that we don't need a wall along the entire border but that we need it in certain areas, that it would be to complement our "great, tremendous, wonderful" border patrol, and the "best, greatest, amazing" technology, etc. He said this in interviews over and over and over. You probably have never heard those details because CNN or tuning out as soon as you see his face or whatever, but those are the facts. People who have actually been paying attention and not listening to soundbites know. I know it will pain you to do this, but head over to the comments section of a few Nazi news sites and read what the mouth breathers are saying for yourself. Let's just say you don't exactly have your finger on the pulse.

I know you desperately want to believe that his supporters should "enjoy the L" and be upset that we're not getting the magical wall from coast to coast that will fix everything, but nobody on the right ever expected that. I hate to break it to you, but whether it's concrete or Mexico pays for it aren't high on the list of things that upset anyone, either. Trump's approval rating remained static during the shutdown. Sorry to disappoint you. Enjoy basking in your ignorance. We need a wall. We will get what we need.

So let's get a few things right.

Trump initially wanted a border wall across the entire border.
Fiction.
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2013
3,711
1,799
440
The wall is a huge waste of money unless you build a serious wall like the Great Wall of China and have guards patroling atop it, but the costs involved in such an undertaking would be massive to say the least. There are much cheaper and more effective border deterrents than Trumps simple wall available, though some people would probably object on moral grounds.
 
Mar 30, 2011
1,170
175
490
Southern California


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.
That drone is cute. Trump likes his drones more advanced and bigly.:messenger_winking_tongue:



I voted no wall, A wall will be seen as provocation, it will fuel hatred, sadness, violence and depressive thoughts for those people that will encounter it also as I understand will do unnecessary damage of earth landscape, as well as make wild life having difficulties at areas..

Just look at wall history of Berlin. Or play Paper Please.
Are you sure?

Secure Border


Unsecured Border
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
He has a point.

If walls are immoral and wrong and blah blah blah, why doesn't Pelosi and other leftists knock down the current walls? What a weird sense of morality
Because they're already up, actually they need repairing as he correctly stated, and were put up during the golden era of illegal crossing.
 
Last edited:

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Listening to a story on the El Chapo trial earlier, I heard some of his crazy methods of smuggling. None of which would have been stopped by a wall.

Note: This article is from 2016, but the story I heard today mentioned these methods being brought up during the trial.

https://www.businessinsider.com/el-chapo-guzman-strange-drug-smuggling-methods#planes-2
"He opened a cannery in Guadalajara and began producing thousands of cans stamped "Comadre Jalapeños," stuffing them with cocaine," Radden Keefe writes, before "vacuum-sealing them and shipping them to Mexican-owned grocery stores in California."
In one instance, according to a court in San Diego, 1,400 boxes of canned peppers, containing "hundreds of kilos of cocaine," were intercepted at the border.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pimentel1
Jun 25, 2015
2,723
894
300
Finland
Because they're already up, actually they need repairing as he correctly stated, and were put up during the golden era of illegal crossing.
So making a new wall is immoral. Having an old wall isn't. And repairing an old wall to be better is not immoral either. But building completely new walls is? Did I understand that right?
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
So making a new wall is immoral. Having an old wall isn't. And repairing an old wall to be better is not immoral either. But building completely new walls is? Did I understand that right?
Wasn't I talking about this with you in another thread already?

I believe we're at the point where if Trump wants new wall construction he's gonna negotiate a bi-partisan bill, win the next election with his majorities, or try to do the emergency thing.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Wasn't I talking about this with you in another thread already?

I believe we're at the point where if Trump wants new wall construction he's gonna negotiate a bi-partisan bill, win the next weekend with his majorities, or try to do the emergency thing.
You just completely dodged his question and talked in circles. He was asking about the morality of the wall. You started speculating on what Trump is going to do.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
You just completely dodged his question and talked in circles. He was asking about the morality of the wall. You started speculating on what Trump is going to do.
I'm over that stuff already, and expressed myself in another topic yesterday. I'm more concerned about what's going be done to get this done. Also I want to know why we need the 100 miles of wall at that location because I'm nosey.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
I'm over that stuff already, and expressed myself in another topic yesterday. I'm more concerned about what's going be done to get this done. Also I want to know why we need the 100 miles of wall at that location because I'm nosey.
You talk out the side of your mouth than Trump. Have you considered making a run in 2020?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
Wasn't I talking about this with you in another thread already?

I believe we're at the point where if Trump wants new wall construction he's gonna negotiate a bi-partisan bill, win the next election with his majorities, or try to do the emergency thing.
The Congressional Research Service says he doesn't need to do any of those things. DHS can just go ahead and do what they want.

I posted this earlier in the thread.

I would much rather this happen that way than through state of emergency. I do not want to set a precedent that potentially grants the POTUS broader state of emergency powers going forward.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
516
305
If one believes that an inanimate object whose sole purpose is to stop people from entering the country illegally is immoral, then one believes that it is immoral to stop people from entering the country illegally and they are advocating for open borders, period.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
The Democrats’ opposition to it is based entirely around it being immoral. But you don’t care about the morality argument because it’s not going to change anything. Uh huh.
The opposition came from Trump spouting xenophobia to sell the wall. Now the wall, which he wants really badly, can potentially be used to get something else that Democrats like out of it. So it's more political now. The rest is there but takes a back seat. There's many motivations, but things come in strides.
 
Last edited:
Oct 3, 2004
1,369
847
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
This stalemate over an issue the Dems once supported (and still do, as much as they try to proclaim otherwise) still makes me laugh. Pelosi's leading this indefensible charge against the wall funding and since she's from California I would love to see Trump take the pettiness to the next level: give her what she wants - tear down the wall in San Diego and see how things play out over the next couple of years. Let the results speak for themselves.
 
Likes: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
This stalemate over an issue the Dems once supported (and still do, as much as they try to proclaim otherwise) still makes me laugh. Pelosi's leading this indefensible charge against the wall funding and since she's from California I would love to see Trump take the pettiness to the next level: give her what she wants - tear down the wall in San Diego and see how things play out over the next couple of years. Let the results speak for themselves.
I like this. The debate should be over the efficacy of the wall, not some absurd morality argument. Tear down the walls in blue states and let the results show for themselves.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,840
1,769
235
feel like at this point a wall is not some grand racist gesture. i voted wall. there is a wall on all our borders. we have the two oceans. we have the northern border. i've been to Maine, my aunt lives there in the middle of nowhere, and one day we decided to go to Canada and check it out. there was a miles long fence and no way to go in without a passport. there is already a lot of southern border already built, fences and walls, plus natural territory. why not build more? yes IMO we should spend money on Medicare 4 All or something more helpful but Dems have adopted Pay Go and the fact that this isn't droning or torturing people in another country is a bonus. it's a wall. climbing over it is a FEATURE.

tbh nationalism is a joke and bullshit and i've thought this since i was a teenager. but it's the way things are. and tbh, Democrats have done NOTHING to address immigration, legal or otherwise, in the 16 years of Clinton-Obama presidencies.

a Smart Wall would be the real way to do it, but also the most bloody, the most Orwellian, to have everything under surveillance, and drones catching people, alerting them to these crazy militia lunatics w guns. i can see Dems go for the bloodier option if it makes Trump look bad.

put up a wall. have Trump put his name in gold on it. then take instagrams of people peeing on it and covering it with ladders and stuff. yes it won't stop all the super genius drug people that have been getting away with things for decades anyways. who cares? Dems will not lose the minority vote, they need only pay it lip service and they will just vote for Homeland Security money that funds ICE anyways. all this grandstanding is tiring.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
feel like at this point a wall is not some grand racist gesture. i voted wall. there is a wall on all our borders. we have the two oceans. we have the northern border. i've been to Maine, my aunt lives there in the middle of nowhere, and one day we decided to go to Canada and check it out. there was a miles long fence and no way to go in without a passport. there is already a lot of southern border already built, fences and walls, plus natural territory. why not build more? yes IMO we should spend money on Medicare 4 All or something more helpful but Dems have adopted Pay Go and the fact that this isn't droning or torturing people in another country is a bonus. it's a wall. climbing over it is a FEATURE.

tbh nationalism is a joke and bullshit and i've thought this since i was a teenager. but it's the way things are. and tbh, Democrats have done NOTHING to address immigration, legal or otherwise, in the 16 years of Clinton-Obama presidencies.

a Smart Wall would be the real way to do it, but also the most bloody, the most Orwellian, to have everything under surveillance, and drones catching people, alerting them to these crazy militia lunatics w guns. i can see Dems go for the bloodier option if it makes Trump look bad.

put up a wall. have Trump put his name in gold on it. then take instagrams of people peeing on it and covering it with ladders and stuff. yes it won't stop all the super genius drug people that have been getting away with things for decades anyways. who cares? Dems will not lose the minority vote, they need only pay it lip service and they will just vote for Homeland Security money that funds ICE anyways. all this grandstanding is tiring.
Wouldn't Orwellian be a wall that prevents citizens from leaving, not one that prevents non-citizens from trespassing?
 
Likes: gunslikewhoa
Aug 30, 2018
375
525
210
I'm 100% for the wall, it must be built in order to have a well-rounded border security strategy.

Did anyone see Nancy making her case yesterday? She looked like a mess. She's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it shows. She's barely holding it together.