The simple fact is that border control without a barrier is NOT POSSIBLE. Say you set up the immigration checkpoints that way, with no physical barriers. How would you ensure people actually went through the checkpoints, and didn't simply just cross over the border? Please do elaborate on what we're missing.[/QUOTE] Wow... if I can wade my way through your word salad (do you write tweets for trump?), let me see. 1. So now trump isn't talking about wanting a whole wall (or metal slats with pointy tops, if you prefer), but only a partial wall? And somehow you have stats (hopefully from the U.S Border Patrol or DHS) that where "the wall" (partial? whole?) was built illegal immigration crossings have dropped 90%. Id like to see that report from the Border Patrol or DHS. 2. "or do they address the FACT that border control with no border is IMPOSSIBLE. " The use of capital letters is very trump like btw. Anyway, this is really interesting. Border control with no border is IMPOSSIBLE"? Unless you forgot a few words... I am really having trouble understanding what you are meaning here. Are you arguing we need to have a new border? What happened to the old border? No wonder we have a immigration problem... someone stole the border! 3. Nor did they address that the wall (trump's vanity wall, but I jest) is just PART of border security. First, I have supported increased border security through increased use of technology (surveillance, satellites, drones, drug surveillance), increased Border Patrol hiring, and laws to reduce hiring of illegal immigrants. I also like the idea of working with Mexico and other countries in the region to help them improve the quality of life and reduce the number of people wanting to immigrate. And... repair reinforce existing physical barriers (I think these are called fences) where needed. And, these are all things Democrats in congress have agreed to as part of their negotiation with trump. 4. The simple fact is that border control without a barrier is NOT POSSIBLE. Say you set up the immigration checkpoints that way, with no physical barriers. How would you ensure people actually went through the checkpoints, and didn't simply just cross over the border? Please do elaborate on what we're missing. Talk about strawman arguments. Who is arguing to removal the barriers around checkpoints. Are you saying the real problem is that checkpoints are being over run? If you are, trump's vanity wall is not going to fix that.
LOL, simply go back to when trump banned Acosta (and previously, when he banned an NBC reporter) and you will see people bringing up the fox news reporter (even though it was a single instance, and it wasn't even a presidential news briefing). And btw, Obama appeared on fox news numerous times for exclusive interviews.
Trying to move the goalposts and the conversation in a direction you think is more advantageous I see. You won't bait me with it. I will find any media outlet contemptible if they wrap themselves in the cloak of victim hood, claim they aren't bias and claim the administrations attacks on them are an erosion of the Republic and of the Free Press, when in reality, they are mouthpieces for one party or the other (which certainly CNN and Fox News have both become).
trump brings on constant criticism because HE LIES ALL THE TIME (did I get the all caps correct?). He started with the number of people that attended his inauguration. Thousands of lies later, it continues.
If you are calling CNN disingenuous, then you must have a history of calling out Fox news in the past doing the same?
she fundraiser for Senator Menendez last election (as in a few months ago) . What republican views to you think a NJ senator has that she found appealing? She donates to DWS and many other Dems. Wonder what republican views they must have that she likes? Why would I care about her views Trump? Go Bill Nelson!!!
[QUOTE="JuanValdez, post: 12163727, Not sure I understand this point. How is land ceded to Mexico?[/QUOTE] If the river is outside the wall , Americans can't get to it but Mexican's can.
I've donated to republicans (gasp). I guess I am not a Democrat anymore. btw, trump also donated to Menendez. And thanks to you and other republican votes, he is currently president. And, apparenty, the leader of the republican party. Now that she is one of the harshest critics of trump, you seem to dislike her, and want her kicked out of the republican party?
Get a clue conservatives.... Trump again rejecting a GOP Senate proposal for a partial bill... This is about Trump’s ego and pushing himself into a corner that makes one look weak by compromising... Bottomline, Trump can’t compromise with his own party.
Uh, dude, you're missing the point. The whole point of my original post on this subject was to show a tweet by Jim Acosta showing how unfit he was to be considered unbiased in any way. He is clearly very bias and a shill for the left. He works for CNN and Acosta is representing CNN's view as well. CNN and Acosta and others on the left has called Trumps attacks on CNN as an attack on the "Free Press" and said it is an attack on the foundations of our Republic. This is ridiculous. CNN is not an unbiased pure provider of unfiltered information. CNN is merely the mouthpiece for the opposition determining which news to run with and how to frame things. If there was a Democratic administration in power and they attacked Fox News, who provides overwhelmingly negative coverage, and Fox News attempted to take on the cloak of victimhood and act as if an attack on them was an attack on foundations of the Republic and an attack on the "Free Press" and all that drama, I'd find that equally contemptible.
I agree that a wall in certain areas along with additional measures like drones works. I agree this is part of the solution of immigration reform.
The Rio Grande is fresh water and there's parts that are only a few feet deep. There's no reason why you couldn't put a wall right down the middle in those parts. Other parts where the rio is actually pretty grande, you could have different discussions, but for the part of the river where you can simply walk across, it makes sense to have something there.
What is a better option? Leaving the border as its been? The current state of affairs is a gigantic waste of money. What we are doing right now is spending billions and all we have to show for it is a quasi-guarded border which is extremely ineffectual and porous. Solving the problem of poverty and violence in Mexico and Central America which would curtail migration? I'll get right on that.
Democrats want to address border security but are focused on proven, effective, and cost effective ways. Increased use of technology (surveillance, drones, satellites), increased hiring of border patrol agents, reinforcing existing physical barriers that are in disrepair or in need of reinforcement, increased laws against the hiring of illegal immigrants (to reduce the magnet to illegal immigrants), and increased cooperation and support of Mexico and other countries to help reduce the number of people that want to come to the United States. All effective and less costly.
Lets get our definitions in sync. How do you define "free press" and where does it say that the media or press has to be accurate with their claims? Your scenario of having a democrat attack a news agency to try and silence them has never happened correct? Basically nobody from FOX news has had their pass taken away. Do you agree that Obama got the bad end of the stick when it comes to coverage from fox yet he has not taken out anybody's credentials? Is that a good or bad thing?
Where are there walls down the middle of a river? Legit question as it relates to the environmental impact. I've never seen such a thing.
