I knew we'd get to the strawman eventually. I wasn't calling for one to stretch the length of the entire Rio Grande. I was talking about the parts of the river that are only a few feet deep, areas where you can walk across easily. I spelled all of this out when I initially posted about this.
So the parts that are deeper than than 'walk across' is where you'll be ceding the river to Mexico? The part where the usable surface water is? Here's a fun fact: Excluding areas irrigated above the reservoirs, the river provides water for some 2,100,000 acres (850,000 hectares) of cropland; slightly more than half of the irrigated land is in Mexico. The leading crops raised by irrigation vary from potatoes and alfalfa in Colorado; to cotton, pecans, and grapes in southern New Mexico and in the El Paso–Juárez region of Texas and Mexico; and citrus fruits, cotton, and vegetables in the valley of the lower Rio Grande delta region in Texas and Tamaulipas. Just a million acres of river irrigation on the US side.
Hmm... the very largely ineffective stuff that have been most effective and will be most effective. Versus expensive walls that can be circumvented by ladders, tunnels and cutting a hole. But OK, since what you say has been done has caused a decrease for decades... no additional things are needed.
No, I don’t think we all agree that the wall would work. We don’t all agree that it is really even a top priority now like it was 30+ years ago when people were flooding in. I think most people really do not care about a wall (one way or the other) and don’t really care that Trump wants it so badly and don’t care that the democrats don’t want it... what they do care about is how the chaos impacts them, whether they are federal employees or lose disaster funding or see instability in the government. It will be interesting to see how the public views this, the longer this goes on. Neither the democrats in Congress, nor Trump look good. I personally saw a lot of backlash against the President when he floated declaring a national emergency. At the least Trump has kept the Mueller investigation out of the headlines.
That was 12 years ago.... the amount of illegal crossings have dropped 80% since 2006... they were already dropping even when she supported building of partial walls. She isn’t an elected official anymore either. It really isn’t even comparable at this point. There are bigger issues and more important concerns than a wall.... there are even bigger concerns within immigration reform/monitoring than a wall. Most people are sick of it all.
You guys know that 5 billion is a drop in the bucket to what a wall would actually cost, and that it would take 10+ years to complete? Do you truly believe that whoever is president in the future is really going to push this forward? Or is it more likely that the next several presidents aren’t completely insane like the current one, and just scrap the idiotic idea entirely? I believe it was the Republican senate which estimated it would take upwards of 70 billion to complete. Since it is intended to save American lives from all those murders by illegal aliens, couldn’t we save a whole lot more lives by putting it towards health care?
Yeah, that's sort of proving that they work now isn't it? I get that you don't think illegal immigration is a problem, but others do and think it's something that should be fixed. The 700 miles of barriers managed to change the numbers from the millions per year to the hundreds of thousands per year. If the job was finished, perhaps we could get those numbers eventually down to the thousands per year. Also, we're really not talking much money here in the bigger picture. Essentially the ONLY reason why Democrats are so against finishing the job that they shut down the government is because they don't want Trump to get a win. It really is that petty in the end.
Seems folks question whether Ana Cabrero is a "real republican" since she hates trump and opposes trump's vanity wall, so here's a true republican that supports trump and his vanity wall...
A modern Visa/Guest Worker program? Increased border security? Amnesty/path to citizenship for the millions here illegally? You just lack imagination and your feeble mind only thinks of walls.
Fair points...I would assume the argument for hardening is just that...hardening. harder to cut, harder to climb over, etc. As for what the other 234 miles are for...fair point. I would assume the next most populous sections. I would also say that perhaps that could be it...that would reach the point of diminishing returns. That could be a bargaining point, too...but not with the no wall at all stance. I would debate that. Immigration has been a political football for a while, long before Trump. Not sure whose fault I would say...probably everyone's...but it was that way before Trump. As for the state of politics in general...that goes both ways. Trump could certainly be more of a unifying factor (I actually tend to agree with what Romney was saying...I just question why/how he went about saying it). BUT most of the left has been so anti Trump everything, that it's pretty hard to lay it all on Trump. Again....there were Hitler comparison put out by the national media during his inauguration (ie, before he'd had time to do ANYTHING to warrant any such comparisons)...and it's gone that way ever since. I think its more symptomatic of the state of politics in general. That was the lightning rod that got Trump elected in the first place...so the polarity seemed there before Trump tapped into it. Had Hillary got elected, it would likely have been much the same...just with a far more supportive press. Did he? Or did the Democrats? I think Trump and the Republicans were ready for the deal you proposed...but Nancy and Schumer made any deal including the wall a non starter. Trump seems to know why....Nancy is dealing with a very hard left caucus, and she has to maintain their support. I would think she could have done that without drawing such a hard line in the sand...but then I haven't been privy to their meetings and discussion, so maybe not. No, it doesn't really matter. Could be an interesting political debate on it...but we'll probably see who actually wins before we'd get very far anyway
Uhhh, the left is (therefore, you are). Walls are immoral, remember. So, there shouldn't be any walls there either, right? Or are only 'bad' walls immoral, and 'good' walls aren't? If so, how do you tell the 'good' walls from the 'bad' walls? Character references?? Walls are either immoral, or they are not. There isn't any grey area there. You seem to agree that they aren't immoral, and are in fact necessary...so what's your argument again? And please stop with the 'do you write tweets for Trump' nonsense. Unlike you, I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, and articulating them, without resorting to using the rhetoric de jour (ie, Trump's vanity wall). So, at the very least....look in the mirror before making such accusations...and start there with the solution, m kay? My opinions on border security, and the wall, haven't really changed much in a long time. I was fine with Obama proposing it....were you? If so...what changed, other than the rhetoric, and you following it...all whilst merrily kidding yourself that you're the one who isn't.
Ok, provide citations of Democratic leadership calling for the removal of physical barriers around checkpoints. I'll wait...
The gravest national emergency and biggest threat to the well-being of our country is sitting in the Oval office.
Ah the ad hominem attacks. Very nice. “More border security” - wow, profound, that’ll do it. “Amnesty for those already here” - doesn’t address the insecurity of the southern border. Brilliant stuff. Let me subscribe to your newsletter.
The gravest national emergency and biggest threat to the well-being of our country is sitting in the Oval office.
I wonder what percentage of people against border security have personal bias because of their family ties. Wrong, China.
