If animals reaching water supplies is the best thing you can come up with to defend leaving the borders unsecured then you aren't going to get very far with it. Also, given that the current dispute over wall funding is funding intended for the most important areas left to secure and not building them through canyons and over ridges that part of your argument falls apart as well. I'm sure there are places along the border where a wall is infeasible or unnecessary due to natural barriers but that's simply not a reason to not build the rest of it.
You can't build squat within the purview of the Corps of Engineers without an Environmental Impact Statement exactly because of the impact on animals. (without a National Security declaration) You've got 700 miles of walls already in what past administrations have considered to be critical areas. The reason we don't "Build A Wall" elsewhere is exactly because the cost/benefit equation says it's a frivolous expense. And really admit it, this whole bullshit was started by candidate trying to whip up xenophobia among the rubes and now he's stuck with it.
In fact, he started the "Mexico will pay for it" when it became obviously stupid. I'd guess he had some idea about trade or something , but the very idea as professed was never ever a serious proposal. Just more Trump bullshit, like everything he spouts.
Nearly everyone in Border Patrol disagrees with you that it is a "frivolous expense", the more of the border that has some sort of physical barrier, the easier their job gets and the fewer that will make it in. The propaganda that has been accepted by some is that having a secure border is "xenophobia" in order to dismiss that entire discussion....but that won't work with most people. Suggesting that only 700 miles of the nearly 2000 mile border needs to be secured falls flat when you are still catching hundreds of thousands of people attempting to do so every year and many more that don't get caught. When an estimated 3-5% of the entire US population is comprised of those here illegally, you have a problem that needs to be taken seriously. A physical border making the job that Border Patrol has to do considerably easier is a nice first step.
Did they take a vote? did HR say it anonymous so they could freely express their opinion without fear of retribution? https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/09/10/he-left-the-border-patrol-after-listenin The numbers are about 2,000 a day about 70,000 a year.
They were polled, 89% said that an expanded wall system was necessary to securing the border, 7 percent agreed with you and disagreed, the rest didn't know or wouldn't say.
by golly . . . insert he's right you know meme https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
your question was "Did they take a vote?" and Bobby answered with a specific percentage. I googled the percentage and came up with the news report. The poll (or "vote" as you put it) was conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the border agents' union. What part of any of that can you respond to without a red herring about the Washington Times?
If you polled policemen about whether they should get Covette patrol cars, how do you think it would go?
If you polled them and asked if buying them Corevette patrol cars were necessary to get the job done, you'd have more than 7% tell you that they weren't necessary.....hell you'd have more than 7% that would tell you Corvette patrol cars would actively hamper them from doing their jobs. I know, you are faced with information that is detrimental to the narrative you wish to be out there so you have to write it off as if those people were lying or something like that. It's okay, I understand....I'm just not going to accept it. It's blatantly obvious that having a physical barrier on more than 500-700 miles of the nearly 2000 mile border would help Border Patrol do their jobs easier and more effectively. It's also obvious that when you are still catching tens of thousands of people illegally crossing the border every MONTH, that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Building a physical barrier over more of that border wouldn't be a cure all, but it would be a VERY good first step. A border wall makes crossings take longer and it makes surveillance that much more effective. To me, the final goal is amnesty for the illegal immigrants in the country already, but that can't happen until you secure the border and stop the flow of new illegal immigrants into the country....or rather it shouldn't happen until then. If you cut off the flow from the south and then implement a system similar to E-verify and put into law penalties for companies caught hiring people without going through the system, the problem would essentially not exist anymore. You'd go from having potentially 5% of the entire country living illegally as second class citizens to almost no one living like that. There's no rational reason to oppose any of those steps.....but BOTH parties and their blind followers somehow do oppose them.
Quit blaming me for your laziness. You posted a “Reason.com” article written by a member of the open-borders advocate the CATO Institute, and you never bothered to read the article. You asked for a direct quote and I gave you one. Face it: you are a mindless NPC. “Wall racist”. “Perpetual Syrian War good”. “Orange man bad”.
This really is the crux of it. The wall has always been an idea that was tossed around but not really considered a serious or feasible solution to illegal immigration, but as soon as the orange carnival barker came along and started spouting his nonsense the wall suddenly became an essential element to national security to many on the right. As a great example of this, I bet you could go back and look at Bobbythedisabledchildmocker's posting history and not find one mention of a border wall prior to mid-2015 and then a whole bunch of posts touting it as a great idea subsequent to that. Of course, that would require sorting through 50K garbage posts to do so and my time is far too valuable for that.
not as good as the kool-aid that you trumpublicans are drinking which makes yall ignore the fact that trump said mexico was going to pay for the wall.
I like that you think you can derail the conversation with irrelevant nonsense like that....but it's not going to work. All you are doing is proving that you didn't have an argument against what I was saying since you feel the need to move the goalposts and discuss something else instead.
lol. trump is the one who keeps moving the goalposts. you trumpbulicans are being lied to, manipulated and played for suckers...i dont know who is sadder, the ones who are too stupid to realize it or the ones who know and dont care due to their extreme partisanship and/or blind loyalty to trump.
