My point is that arguing that we need to wall our cities to defend them from being sacked and pillaged by roming armies of illegal immigrants is ridiculous and anachronistic. It's about as much of a legitimate need as claiming we need to dome all of our cities right away in case of alien invasion and death ray attack by UFO's. But by all means, if you think that is your best argument, roll with it.
If you told me a decade ago that we would shut down the government for over a month fighting over a stupid wall, I would call you a liar. It has gotten to Jerry Springer levels........ just absurd.
Isn't it true that the vast majority of the tax cuts went to the top 1% who did not need them? Isn't it true that rather than as promised ,the tax cuts would pay for themselves, instead our country is going deeper in debt? How can you say we are better off than we were 2 years ago?
A Trump supporter will never say anything resembling a negative remark about him or his time in office, so don’t bother. All the sane ones have already jumped off the train.
But, by all means, please do elaborate on how you control your borders with no physical barriers. Until then, it IS the best argument..since it's the only one provided. It's also the argument that every security architect everywhere uses: first provide physical security, w/o that the rest doesn't matter much. Meanwhile, on the other side...we refute all knowledge of human history and security...AND then top it off with 'walls are immoral' despite the fact that they are everywhere INCLUDING around the house of the person who said that. Never mind that in YOUR example, the unwalled cities were indeed overrun and burned down. Yes, indeed...by all means, if that is your best argument, roll with it.
uhhh, because we are? Repeating: tax cuts put more money in people's pockets, economy is up, jobs are up, pay is up. Which one of those is a bad thing again? As for the debt...that isn't going to go away. I've given up on that. So, until then...money in my pockets is much better than money in their pockets. There is also a correlation with the economy rising. So, yes...better off. Not even close. Which is the case for the vast majority of Americans.
Follow the reasoning. Trump likes wall: must hate wall. That's really all it is. Because the same group was in favor of it just a few years ago when Obama proposed it. Apparently their hypocrisy, unlike Doc Holliday, knows no bounds. Most of the wall:good arguments are really just pointing out the fallacies of the wall:bad group...and pointing out that without physical security, there really isn't any security. That those on the left do seem to agree that physical barriers in some contexts work...just points out the fallacy of their own arguments. They don't even agree with themselves.
You were the one making claims of cities being sacked and pillaged by armies after the fashion of Arabs besieging Rome. You do understand that that is different than a trickle of illegal immigrants coming to the US in small groups to try and earn money in a job? I know thinking is hard. Walling and fortifying cities like you are defending against marauding Vandals and Goths has absolutely no effect on illegal immigration. As far as how the border works, if you really need me to explain how the 100 mile deep border zone works, I can repeat myself, but it's probably easier for you to use the search function. You can also read the Wikipedia article on defense in depth. It talks about military strategy, but hopefuly you can extrapolate how that applies to protecting a border. When was the last time you were within the Southern border zone? The thing about a wall, they can sit on the other side and plot and plan new ways to breach it and they've done nothing wrong. And they are really creative about coming up with new ways to circumvent it. But until they actually cross the border they've commited no offense. A wall is a passive defensive structure. Read the summaries of the El Chapo trial if you doubt the wall will have little effect. Most drugs used to tunnel under border fencing in Arizona. Recently they are handed off by Mexican fishing boats to American boats, or they cross the border hidden in trucks that cross at checkpoints. A new shiny border wall has no effect on any of these methods of contraband. Human smugglers will make routes through or around or over or under and a wall will just passively sit there. The primary benefit of limited walls is to deincentivise attempted crossings in high population areas where it is easiest to blend in. Wall the entire border and there is no reason why people won't go back to breaching in McAllen or El Paso where they can disappear in a crowd instead of the desert where nobody goes unless they can't help it.
When did Obama propose a border wall? I haven't even seen Trump try to make that claim so it's hard to figure out what exactly you're referencing here. Obama, Schumer and Hillary all voted in favor of a bill in 2006 that installed fencing along highly-trafficked areas of the border (among other border security measures) but the context of that seems quite a bit different considering that it was at the peak time of illegal border crossings as well as the fact that it was a bipartisan bill with concessions from both sides included.
That fence did it’s job. Still doing its job. Wish congress could get around to doing their job again. What the hell changed in the past 13 years that turned the Democrats into the anti-American, pro-open borders party?
So he just claimed 17K that were arrested were criminals via the border. Doesn't that mean that we were able to CATCH them even with this so called "limited border security" . If the left has no sense of humor, what do you call the party that elected trump? Which mental state would you attribute that to?
If the fence did it's job as you say and illegal border crossings are down since that time, then how can anyone claim that the current situation is a crisis that requires immediate construction of a border wall? Your argument almost seems to indicate the opposite conclusion: that a nuanced, multi-layered approach (increased surveillance, sensors, larger border patrol presence, etc.) would be more effective than building a gigantic wall that will require tens of billions of dollars to construct and exponentially more money to maintain.
Most newly minted illegal aliens are just visa overstays. Please elaborate how a wall would prevent visa overstays.
Has it been made public where the new 200+ mile border wall/sats/barrier will be located? Pretty sure the hot spots have got a fence already. This could be BFE Texas for all we know.
Actually, no I wasn't. Someone else brought that up. Which is why no one is talking about doing so. Except you, that is. As for whether or not border walls have an effect on illegal immigration...they absolutely do. Illegal immigration has dropped DRASTICALLY where the wall has been built. Did you even read the article you cited? "Defence in depth (also known as deep or elastic defence) is a military strategy that seeks to delay rather than prevent the advance of an attacker" First line. Except we ARE seeking to prevent. Defense in depth also talks about funneling invaders into concentrated choke points (fire zones)...hopefully that is not what you are proposing? I suspect what you were after is more along the lines of The basic layers of physical security. Note item #1: " Physical Security Design Physical security design refers to any and all environmental structures that can be built or installed to deter, impede, or stop an attack from occurring." Yes, it is. But it serves it's purpose, which is to impede trangression. Incorrect. A wall certainly DOES impact these things. Why did they tunnel? Because there was a barrier there, that they needed to find another way past. What's easier to patrol...a single tunnel entrance, or hundreds of miles of open borders? Plus, the disincentive itself will winnow out those who aren't ready to take the far more onerous steps. Which is how 'defense in depth' works. . Correct. Still waiting for someone to tell me how we control those borders without walls. First, the $5B, as has been brought up numerous times, is not for the entire border. Second...the wall is serving its purpose then. Is it easier to spot illegals crossing where nobody goes...or where everybody is already? Finally, why do they build barriers around the checkpoints? Because they work. In fact...the check points would be pretty useless without them.
