You're parroting a talking point that has been repeated for so many years. Of course, they'll never do these hard labor jobs, not because they're lazy or it's beneath them, it's mostly because the wages for these jobs are too low. When you can pay an illegal to do something for less then why pay market price? Also, I don't think someone who is struggling to put food on his table cares about the cost of living.
I'm confused, is IBTL the author of the posts that appeared on http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/199147127/i-am-not-normally-political-this-post-will-be-an ? This is a sincere question, not a criticism; but it is unclear who authored the post. A link would help
Honestly it would make me feel better to hear that he just copied something he read on /pol/ and pasted it here given that it was so easily debunked. I would hate for him to have wasted the effort required in writing the whole thing himself.
I didn't say they all had legitimate asylum claims. But they did all have a legal right to seek asylum. The fact that they came to a legal point of entry doesn't show a need for a border-long wall. If 3,548 caravans head towards a legal port of entry it doesn't necessitate a need for the wall. It does mean that resources that would be wasted building a useless wall could be better spent on more agents, more staff to process requests, judges, etc. If resources are wasted building a wall, that means they aren't being spent on things that can help deal with caravans. It's also a reason why caravans aren't really bad or scary. Those are people that are in the media's attention and easy to keep track of those folks in there.
whoops, nothing. They are traveling in a huge group that has been monitored the entire way and it would be easy to send agents there to meet them. No need for a stupid wall.
Yeah, and you'd need thousands of agents and you'd still just end up with them all going to an already overcrowded detention facility.....that's pretty much a disaster. Now if you have a physical border, they are forced to stay on the Mexico side and you have no problem....but of course you can't have that because orange man bad.
The vast majority of which will continue to have no physical border even after spending 5 billion dollars. Looks like the estimates are a little over 215 miles of fence would go up with 100 or so being new fencing, the rest would be replacing existing fencing. Over 1250 miles are currently unfenced. So they'll still go around. Whoops. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/heres-what-5-billion-in-border-wall-funding-would-buy https://www.businessinsider.com/us-mexico-border-wall-photos-maps-2018-5
Chuck and Nancy memes helpfully collected in one place http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/09/comprehensive-round-best-chuck-nancy-memes/
You notice how I never claimed that this would fund the entire wall....yeah, that was for a reason. There's no doubt that it would take more than this to complete the job, but if you don't start, you can't ever finish. Also, you'd be putting this up in the most important parts first. Honestly that's why the position Democrats have taken is so incredibly laughable when it comes to this. I do like that you went ahead and confirmed the need to to the job though, I suppose that is heading in the right direction.
No, with a wall they would use a ladder or 80 ladders. They aren't forced to stay anywhere. I also don't believe that the border patrol would need a 1:1 ratio with members of the caravan.
Really? You basing this on what the caravan did in Tijuana? You know there's a wall/fence/physical barrier/whatever you want to call it there right? As to how many Border Patrol agents it would take, that number is a LOT smaller if there is a wall to help make their job easy. If there is no wall and they are trying to stop thousands from just walking across the border, it would absolutely take thousands to stop them unless you are going to authorize deadly force and then you'd have a massacre on your hands. You avoid that entire problem by doing the right thing and securing the border with a physical barrier. The ONLY reason why the caravan didn't end up being a major problem is that they went to a part of the border that had a physical barrier keeping them stuck in Mexico.
Yes, there is a wall at the legal entry point. Nobody including Democrats is against that. The caravan went to a legal port of entry. That is what a caravan would do. Anyone intending to sneak into the nation in the middle of the nowhere would not try and do it with 1,500 other people. They would go alone. Your whole premise of a caravan heading off into the waste in hopes of sneaking in because there's no wall is silly. Your spouting strange hypotheticals to make a case that you don't have.
That is exactly my point. They weren't from Mexico but they trekked across Mexico after fleeing the violence from their home country. If they were just trying to flee violence why not stop as soon as they were safe? Nope, they put their "children" at more risk and continued on to the US. Be well.
There is a wall all across California. The reason for the conversation is that if they had picked a spot without a wall, it would have caused a catastrophe. The US would have had to send out the Army or it would have taken nearly the entire combined force of Border Patrol to stop them....if they didn't respond that strongly then a lot of them would just get in. I'm not sure how "easy" you think it is to stop 4000 people without severely hurting or killing them, but it takes an absolutely ridiculous number of people to pull it off. Also notice how I never said "sneaking in", when you are going somewhere in a caravan of thousands, it's a brute force attempt. That brute force attempt fails when you run into a wall, it doesn't fail when there's no wall.
The purpose of the wall funding is to build sections of walls where it is most needed, let the border patrol agents decide where they are needed most. It’s not hard to understand that it will help in them doing their jobs.
I don't buy into your hypothetical crap, and there is no point in arguing it. I have seen video of border patrol officers rounding up numerous people illegally crossing. They wouldn't need a 1:1 ratio. There weren't 4000 people in the caravan when the reached the US.
Because they were coming to America. You remember America... Ronald Reagan beautifully described as a "shining city on a hill". In his farewell speech, Reagan said: "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."
