People get that and people from the rational side got it years ago. That’s why almost everyone not in the Trump cult thought the wall was a stupid idea... because it’s only part of the solution and it’s the part that is literally impossible to accomplish in the next decade. Technology at the ports of entry, more man power, drones, etc... that can be implemented in 6 months and a fraction of the cost. Fact: did you know that land a good portion of the govt tried to seize back with the 2006 fence act is STILL in the courts? There is like 1000 miles of private property on the border. You’ll have a Swiss cheese wall with chunks wherever the govt can win an imminent domain case. Plus the middle of the desert and the mountain ranges are a far greater deterrent than a stupid cement wall or fence you can cut through. The fencing around border towns like Matamoras... totally makes sense. You need to be able to separate the cities with a barrier and you have the ability in places like that to have more police presence. Point being - everyone on the normal objective side agrees that a barrier is only a portion of the solution for completely stopping border crossings in this all white right wing fantasy fever dream. However “The Wall” as Trump has proposed is the dumbest, largest waste of money that is part of that fever dream fantasy. You really are living in fantasy land or just straight up ignorant as hell if you buy into Trump wall bullsh$& that Mexico was supposed to pay for. That’s why “The Wall” is so much more popular in the mid west or States like West Virginia. Us here in Texas should know better unless you a Texan that never leaves the bubble of the Woodlands or Friendswood which I’m sure there are a few of those here. Continuing the Bush/Obama strategy is the right one. Border crossings are at an all time low and continuing to decrease. Help fix the violence in Central America and you can save our border even more hardships. But you don’t really care though. The fact that Trumps wall will never get built is the best part of this stupid argument for you guys anyways. It’s a symbolic taking point to get you worked up and posting on online forums to own the libtards so you feel more empowered in your insecurities within modern society. You’d hate to lose that internet argument if Trump or whoever actually did something to act on truly trying to solve the problem in a serious way.
Respectfuly, the fact that so many conservatives are trying so hard to sell this as a fair exchange and not a single Dem is interested in biting is more than enough validation for my initial instinct that this is a "Manhattan for a handful of beads" type exchange. I'm sure the Dutch East India company traders were effusive in their praise of the local native leaders and how they totally took advantage of the Dutch. If you want this wall, you are going to have to give me something that I want that is as offensive and upsetting to you, as this wall is to me. If you expect me to eat a s**t sandwich, you have to be willing to sit next to me and have one yourself.
Dems should negotiate because they are not in a position of power. Trump can declare a crisis and just handle it without them. Then the ninth district which is basically an activist court at this point will negate it. It will then go to the Supreme Court and pass. So yeah the dems should take what they can get. I would prefer to not allow DACA and defend the border. Allowing people free citizenship is no light action. You are crazy if you think the dems even have a strong position on this. Their party is fracturing already and aren't in a position to stop this.
Walls are effective at slowing and stopping people. Drones don't do that. You are honestly proposing defending the border without a wall? It has been without a wall for a long time and that doesn't work. We have large groups that resemble an invasion army forming on the border to storm it at the same time. Don't you see that the wall is going to be more effective than a drone? You honestly are one of the weakest sounding people on this board. You lash out like a child who didn't get his way. Let me guess why you don't support a wall... you secretly know that it gives the Dems more power because it will allow massive numbers of future Democratic supporters. Dems don't oppose it because it is ineffective. Dems oppose it because walls are highly effective.
Define “control”. The status quo for border control includes many strategies. The whole “no physical barriers” is a BS straw man. Are Chuck and Nancy on the border ripping out existing barriers with their bare hands? The 1.3B spent from last year budget on border barriers somehow does not count. The proposed budget’s 1.3B in the bill passed by last year’s Senate and this year’s House somehow does not count.
Desperation time for trtump, who doubles down on the lie, yet even state news fox news disagrees... Trump doubles down on border wall, as polls show voters turning against his shutdown strategy https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...-voters-turning-against-his-shutdown-strategy
Agree completely. This whole debate is centered around thinking that the wall would be the ONLY barrier. That has never been the case...it is a straw man argument. Which brings us back to whether or not you can create effective border security without a wall at all. The answer to that is no. So, the question then is can you really have proper security without a wall in more areas (not the whole border, that is also not part of the current proposal). The answer to that is pretty much no. The question is also, in those areas, is it cheaper to provide security with a wall, or without it. The answer to that seems to be its cheaper with a wall. This is why walls are so prevalent. They work, and they are cost effective. It's far easier to use those other technologies when a physical barrier is in place. Now, later, when the conversation might move towards discussing the rest of the border, those answers might change. But even those on the left in this thread that aren't mired in rhetoric seem to agree that in urban areas, a wall is an essential part of border security.
Nope, doesn't work that way...even your own math points that out. You don't get 100x spending. Equal trade. Since you're backing off of that now...come up with something else for the $5B then. FWIW....even for universal health care, the wall would need to be part of that. it would likely cost less than the health care costs under such a plan that it would keep out. So, there you go. We'll just include the wall as step 1 in universal health care, and check both boxes. Done!
One reason trump and supporters are losing more and more public support is that you can't agree on your talking points. Wall or fence? Comprehensive border security or wall? The entire border or just parts? Stopping marauding invaders or helping poor women and children? My advice? Drop the wall word from your pitch. Change it to fence, and focus on repair, replacement, and reinforcement at areas where border patrol says is most in need and targeted new fencing where most needed. Start small. At the same time, focus the spend and discussion "comprehensive border security" and on technology, increased border patrol hiring, reducing hiring of illegal immigrants, and working with Mexico to deter immigrants coming to the U.S. border. If you do all this, you get increases in physical barriers, and you also get the other components of increased border security. Everyone wins. Even trump since you know he will call it a wall and put his plaques all over it.
A common strawman... the left don’t want border protection. Trump keeps repeating this lie, which isn’t a surprise as he is the biggest liar in modern US political history.
Agree on the objective posters, but read the thread....lots of non objective posters here. You are also arguing against a wall along the entire border, when all that is being discussed is $5B for a portion of that, AND enhanced security in other areas. The rest of the wall is a completely separate discussion. Interesting...you're a mind reader now? One universal truth I've observed, over decades of online debate: Almost universally, when people make statements like this, they are completely wrong. Being completely wrong doesn't really further your case; quite the opposite. See above point. Making me wonder who it really is who has the insecurities...and has to stoop to baseless allegations and claims of clairvoyance and omniscience. FWIW...that argument really applies more to the left in this discussion: as you said, all the objective thinkers agree that a wall is an essential part of border security in populated areas. Given that...which side is really just worked up and posting on online forums to feel more empowered in their insecurities, and worried about someone actually trying to do something to solve the problem in a serious way, hmmm? FWIW...the U.S. recently pledged billions in foreign aid to Mexico to help control immigration from Central America. So, Trump already doing exactly what you asked for.
Look at the arguments...it's a fairly easy case to make. Many Democrats are openly advocating completely open borders..they honestly don't want any border protection. Add in 'walls are immoral' (making one wonder well, wouldn't all the other border control measures be equally immoral, if they serve the same purpose?), and the straw man quickly becomes alive. This is the problem Pelosi faces. There are so many in her caucus that truly believe in these pretty outrageous positions that she has to cater them ,making statements like 'walls are immoral' and drawing an unnecessary hard line in the sand over any extension of the wall...and making it fairly easy to portray them as being against border protection. Many of them aren't...but it's easy to portray them that way. Especially when politics these days is all about sound bites. If you took politics out of it, I'd bet Nancy and Trump could work out a deal in 10 minutes. The problem is, the various statements and subsequent positioning has made taking politics out of it nearly impossible. That's on Nancy...she's the one who drew the hard line in the sand saying she wouldn't ever support any funding for a wall. That position makes compromise nearly impossible. Normally, politicians work through these things in more of a quid pro quo fashion....you give the other side what they want, and you get something you want (DACA for wall, for example). Nancy has backed herself into a corner where those types of deals aren't possible. All over $5B.
You obviously didn't even read what I had to say about barriers. But thank you for your judgement about the way I act since you know me so well. if you actually read what I posted, you'd see that I noted the fencing that is effective where needed like on the border of cities like Matamoras & Brownsville. The wall will not be effective in the Chihuahua desert, Big Bend, and cannot be built on the hundreds of thousands of miles of private property. If you read what I posted you'd see the problematic issue of imminent domain. How there are still dozens of cases yet resolved regarding the 2006 Fence act where the US government has yet to be able to build even fencing. Point being... you are wrong about my views, and the views of democrats and the border. We don't think like you where everything in life is a zero sum game of winning against libtards on the internet. Sometimes stuff just makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. The Wall is a symbolic internet debate... NOT a real issue to be solved, nor do you really want to solve it (border security). Its about a fight with Libs on the internet. Hence why you went after me personally & politically instead of actually responding to the points that I made & the actual stance I have about border security measures. And yes... I do think that a physical barrier is a deterrent & of course. If you could in theory have a wall like the great wall of China, of course you'd solve some issues. However you are either a fool or just straight up trolling if you want to sit here and make a case that this is a legitimate way to solve the problem at least in the next 10 to 20 years.
This "debate and discussion" of the wall has gone around in circles so many times I feel like I'm watching NASCAR.
You and I know objectively that it is not 5B for the wall. The 5B wouldn't get very far, and once they give money to start the wall, they have to fund it till the finish. I actually think there is a deal to be made on border security measures, but its Congress' duties to make sure they aren't just flushing 5 Billion into the middle of the desert for a photo opp wall. The money being spent has to make sense, and the president needs to grow a backbone to his right wing talk radio hosts who he allows to bully him. Trump loyalists since they'll follow him into a burning building should be able to buy into his messaging if he makes a case that after review of the evidence, its better for year 1 of increased border security measures if they tackle multiple efforts including technology at the ports, drones, manpower etc. ALONG WITH increased fencing/steel slats, whatever. But no... its about the symbolism and the internet fight. I don't think this has anything to do with actually solving problems, and sure as hell has nothing to do with working with Democrats for a real solution. Its about the fight, and that's quite obvious, and Trump & co. want the fight more than they want real border security. Maybe you are a different, and maybe I don't know your truly intentions. However I'm surrounded by Trumpers daily. Having ammunition to talk crap to and about Libs on the internet is more of a hobby than anything. Yes the left has social justice warriors that are using the internet to personally feel empowered, but on the issues like "The Wall", "NFL Kneeling" etc. you and I know its about the fight more than it is about the underlying issue. Oh... don't get me wrong. What the Trump administration is actually doing in alot of cases vs what Donald J. Trump says he wants to do, or tries to do are two totally different things. There are people in his administration that do the obvious things to solve problems, and its good there are some people there doing the daily job of governance. However... when it comes to the politics, the power at the top certainly welcome the issues because they know it gives them political power. Hence the "Ominous Migrant Caravan" that suddenly dissipated after the election. When Trump, FoxNews, and co. saw there was a migrant caravan of women and children fleeing violence from Honduras they didn't say "Yes!". They wanted that caravan, and they wanted them to be as scary and dangerous looking as possible. If you really are as objective as you say you are you know this, and should be able to admit this. This whole "Wall" debate isn't about border security just as the NFL kneeling issue wasn't really about respecting the flag. Its about an internet fight.
It is part of the solution. And yeah actually a wall in the desert would be great because it would deter people from crossing with kids. The desert is usually a deterrent but it doesn't stop everyone. Defending the border and saving innocent lives is a double win.
