Why don't you focus on posts that make sense and follow logic so that we might be able to focus on the title of this board and actually debate and discuss? It's been pointed out before why your selective posting of crimes in Mexico doesn't really make a case for a wall to the United States. People have posted evidence over and over again showing that very rarely does this type of crime come over the border in the middle of nowhere. It's been pointed out over and over that illegal aliens commit less violent crimes than U.S. Citizens though slightly more than legal aliens. You just ignore it and keep doing this over and over, and act like this time you have made a point. You haven't.
The leas violent Mexican border-state are Coahuila and Durango with homicide rates of 9.4 and 9.9, respectively. For perspective, Louisiana, the most violent state in the US has a homicide rate of 12. Sorry for the "racist" chart.
Walls are immoral, right. That naturally leads to removal of existing walls..because they're immoral as well. One leads to the other. Ditto for any and all arguments that walls aren't effective, which the Dems have been stating ever since they weren't (when they were in favor of this wall, not that long ago) If your argument is that they aren't calling for that, then walls aren't immoral, they are effectiveand Pelosi and the Dem's stance has no basis. OR...Democrats are for immoral, ineffective things...meaning the argument against the proposed wall again has no basis. Take your pick, neither can stand. But thanks for waiting.
That probably SHOULD be the question, but it isn't...because funding for that isn't even in the current discussion. The government shutdown is over 234 miles of wall. If what you say is true (and I agree that it objectively is)...then the shutdown is over nothing, and the Dems should just include it in a spending bill. But, and this is ironic...they constructed such a wall around that that even though they built it, they can't cross it.
You know what this post is really missing? You tugging on your eyelids and mimicking what you think their language sounds like.
Only if you have been brainwashed to look for racism in every statement ever made. Or more likely, in order to win attaboys from the echo chamber one currently slurps ego gratification from by calling others "racist" like some word soup "comfort food". (Is there a version of "Godwin's law" that applies to SJW's who cry racism like others draw oxygen? If not, there should be.)
Walls aren't racist. They are inanimate objects. It is how people use them and sell them and talk about them that is. The Constantine, Theodosian, and Leonine walls were pretty swell too. Siege of Constantinople in 625 by Arabs, Avars and Slavs the biggest setback for Islam in Europe prior to the Battle of Tours in 732. Anastasian, Antonine, Hadrian's walls all sucked ass and were pretty close to useless. Can you tell what the difference between the two categories is?
There's no reason to go that far back in history, we've seen that the current 700 miles worth of border barriers built in 2006 has already been largely successful, there's no reason to think that expending upon that wouldn't be successful as well.
The current fence and any wall that you replace it with both suffer the logistical shortcomings of the latter group. If you are interested in surrounding Laredo with a wall to protect the city against a besieging army, it might work, so long as they dont have access to modern high explosive artillery.
That so many people are sucked in by that nonsense is a sad commentary on the state of politics today.
