A question for Trump wall supporters

[KevinKohler]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

Thanks to our 2nd amendment, it's not really a choice we have to make. Our options are less limited.

 

[mike2810]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

- First, I would work towards getting my country back and get rid of the radical Stalinists.
- Second, if I was to leave I would educate myself on Mexico's immigration laws and abide by them.

- Third, under your OP, you don't say how many are affected in the US.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The extra border guards can be recalled at any time. A wall can't. Even with less border guards a wall can be properly manned and will still make it difficult for people to come into the country illegally.

I'm confused are the people manning the wall the same border guards who can be recalled any time? You're not making much sense.

Why not just improve border security and forget the useless expensive wall?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

- First, I would work towards getting my country back and get rid of the radical Stalinists.
- Second, if I was to leave I would educate myself on Mexico's immigration laws and abide by them.

- Third, under your OP, you don't say how many are affected in the US.

You don't seem to understand the point of the question. I'll spell it out for you.

The point is that if someone is highly motivated to cross the border a wall won't stop them.

The point of the hypothetical is to imagine yourself in a desperate situation where you desperately want to cross the border. By imagining that situation it's clear that a wall won't dissuade you.

Clearly, the kind of people willing to risk being raped and murdered by drug cartels and walk hundreds of miles are highly motivated.

Now that you understand, I hope you see that your points are irrelevant.

 

[NotreDame]

In other words, it will only deter people who are not highly motivated. Maybe the casual border crosser who goes in and out. I'm glad we agree and you now see what a waste of money it is.

What are the other reasons for a wall?

My comments do not speculate as to who would be deterred. You reach agreement between the two of us by using a Strawman argument.

The point you have made, that since some people will not be deterred, then no attempt should be made to deter anyone, is not a rationally persuasive argument.

The other reasons for the wall is to be an impediment, and obstacle, to unlawful entry. To make unlawful entry into the country more difficult. To facilitate apprehension by making more difficult unlawful entry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The point you have made, that since some people will not be deterred, then no attempt should be made to deter anyone, is not a rationally persuasive argument.

It is rationally persuasive if you believe that the "some people who will not be deterred" are the vast majority of people. Crossing the border involves risking your life in the desert or at the hands of drug cartel members. So clearly, these people are highly motivated. How can you deny that?

The other reasons for the wall is to be an impediment, and obstacle, to unlawful entry. To make unlawful entry into the country more difficult. To facilitate apprehension by making more difficult unlawful entry.

That's not another reason. That's the same reason we already addressed. And as I have argued, it's not an impediment to highly motivated people.

 

[Fledermaus]

Using the word 'scum' to describe people with differing options is rational? Actually in this day and age with Trump as Prez, unfortunately maybe it is.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Fruityfact]

Advocating for open borders and illegal immigration is a choice. It not existing different. So I call those people degenerate **** sucking piece of **** because of their choice to support those things:simple.

Did I touch a deplorable nerve? Anyways, nobody on the left is arguing for open borders, just like nobody on the right is arguing for jailing asylum seekers while separating them from their childr..oh wait that's exactly what this deplorable administration with its deplorable supporters are doing and cheering for. Pathetic. Isn't it funny, you hold less American ideals than illegal immigrants who just want to escape a bad situation and secure the American dream while you deplorably use xenophobic rhetoric and lies to demonize them. That's what I call deplorable, deplorable.

 

[NotreDame]

That's not another reason. That's the same reason we already addressed. And as I have argued, it's not an impediment to highly motivated people.

It is rationally persuasive if you believe that the "some people who will not be deterred" are the vast majority of people. Crossing the border involves risking your life in the desert or at the hands of drug cartel members. So clearly, these people are highly motivated. How can you deny that?

I do not have any evidence for your “vast majority” allegation. So, that evidentiary unsupported assertion isn’t compelling.

Furthermore, deterrence shouldn’t be assessed based solely on how many people are deterred. The vast majority of people perhaps are not deterred by laws prohibiting driving under the influence or theft, but that doesn’t mean those laws should evaporate from existence.

That's not another reason. That's the same reason we already addressed. And as I have argued, it's not an impediment to highly motivated people

To the contrary, it is an impediment. Indeed the very nature of a border wall is an impediment. Impediment is not the equivalent of dissuading.

And I listed several reasons, impediment was one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Risky Thicket]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

Many of the early settlers who came to America faced enormous hardships to get here and live here. Today for people many people the sacrifice to come to America is perhaps no less daunting. I don't blame them at all for trying to find a better, safer life. I could imagine given the same circumstances I too would be willing to attempt a journey to save my family.

 

[VanceMack]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

:lamo

You created that idiotic scenario and then claim you want 'rational' responses?

OK...how about this.

I form up with a group of like minded freedom loving mother ****ers and we take back our country and **** the Stalinists.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

Nah, I would get a work visa, unless that was not allowed, in that case its revolution time. If the US becomes radical stalinist there really is nowhere that you could run.

But I imagine that you mean that if things were reversed what would you do? In that case might learn how to sail. Sounds familiar doesnt it? We could go to Antarctica since it will be warm down there eventually.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I do not have any evidence for your “vast majority” allegation. So, that evidentiary unsupported assertion isn’t compelling.

The evidence is that crossing the border is currently a dangerous activity. Therefore almost everyone who crosses the border are willing to risk their lives to do so. Therefore the vast majority of people are highly motivated and would not be dissuaded by a wall alone.

Furthermore, deterrence shouldn’t be assessed based solely on how many people are deterred.

If the wall is intended as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration then certainly how many people will be deterred is the most import issue considering that border security is not free. Is it worth spending billions of dollars on a wall that will only deter a small percentage of people? You've heard of cost-effectiveness, right?

I could hire a security guard to watch my home but it wouldn't be cost effective for me to do so.

To the contrary, it is an impediment. Indeed the very nature of a border wall is an impediment. Impediment is not the equivalent of dissuading.

Actually, the entire point of an impediment is to dissuade people from attempting to overcome the impediment.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

:lamo

You created that idiotic scenario and then claim you want 'rational' responses?

OK...how about this.

I form up with a group of like minded freedom loving mother ****ers and we take back our country and **** the Stalinists.

I don't think you understand the point of my hypothetical question. I explained it clearly for the intellectually challenged in the following post...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...n-trump-wall-supporters-3.html#post1069510539

The point is that highly motivated people will not be dissuaded by a wall.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Nah, I would get a work visa, unless that was not allowed, in that case its revolution time. If the US becomes radical stalinist there really is nowhere that you could run.

But I imagine that you mean that if things were reversed what would you do? In that case might learn how to sail. Sounds familiar doesnt it? We could go to Antarctica since it will be warm down there eventually.

The answers I'm getting from you Trumpsters are just embarrassing.

The point is that if you desperately needed to get into Mexico a wall would not stop you.

 

[jonny5]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.

I cant really speak for people who come from such desperate countries. As an american, I would fight for my freedom, not make my problems someone else's. Thats why we try to keep america as free as possible NOW, instead of allowing socialists tendencies to lead us to fascism.

It doesnt really matter if the border discourages them from trying to sneak in. If it stops them from sneaking in, then thats what matters. They are Mexicos problem.

 

[jonny5]

The answers I'm getting from you Trumpsters are just embarrassing.

I think perhaps youre not actually interested in honest rational answers as you said in your op.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The answers I'm getting from you Trumpsters are just embarrassing.

The point is that if you desperately needed to get into Mexico a wall would not stop you.

Ok this is a first, just let me think about it for a while.....

Ok you should ask yourself why you think that I am a Trumpster? I am pretty sure that you should already know better. ANd I also must assume that you are not into dark sarcasms?

 

[VanceMack]

I don't think you understand the point of my hypothetical question. I explained it clearly for the intellectually challenged in the following post...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...n-trump-wall-supporters-3.html#post1069510539

The point is that highly motivated people will not be dissuaded by a wall.

I have a better point. REAL mother ****ers will fight for what is theirs and not run like a bunch of little bitches.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

It doesnt really matter if the border discourages them from trying to sneak in. If it stops them from sneaking in, then thats what matters.

It won't dissuade them because they know it can't stop them. A wall would not dissuade you either because you know you can find a way to scale the wall.

People climb mountains, what makes you think they can't climb a wall?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Ok this is a first, just let me think about it for a while.....

Ok you should ask yourself why you think that I am a Trumpster? I am pretty sure that you should already know better. ANd I also must assume that you are not into dark sarcasms?

My apologies but the OP was "A question for Turm wall supporters." I got you confused with the Trump supporters who gave similar answers. The hypothetical question is only intended to point out that highly motivated people won't be deterred by a wall. They'll do whatever they need to do to scale the wall.

It makes more sense to invest in border security like drones and sensors to detect and apprehend people crossing the border. A wall is a waste of money.

 

[NotreDame]

The evidence is that crossing the border is currently a dangerous activity. Therefore almost everyone who crosses the border are willing to risk their lives to do so. Therefore the vast majority of people are highly motivated and would not be dissuaded by a wall alone.



If the wall is intended as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration then certainly how many people will be deterred is the most import issue considering that border security is not free. Is it worth spending billions of dollars on a wall that will only deter a small percentage of people? You've heard of cost-effectiveness, right?

I could hire a security guard to watch my home but it wouldn't be cost effective for me to do so.



Actually, the entire point of an impediment is to dissuade people from attempting to overcome the impediment.

The evidence is that crossing the border is currently a dangerous activity. Therefore almost everyone who crosses the border are willing to risk their lives to do so. Therefore the vast majority of people are highly motivated and would not be dissuaded by a wall alone.

Nope. Nonsequitur. Your premises do not match the scope of your conclusion. Your conclusion is very broad, “vast majority of people,” but the sub-claim/premise is more narrow, “everyone who crosses the border.”

At best all you’ve demonstrated is the vast majority of people who do attempt to cross the border are not deterred by the wall. Your argument doesn’t establish a “vast majority of the people” are not deterred.

If the wall is intended as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration then certainly how many people will be deterred is the most import issue considering that border security is not free.

Yes, the wall is “a solution” but not “the” solution. The wall is but one factor, one variable, in the equation. The wall is not the equation.

Second, you resort to another nonsequitur by alleging “how many people will be deterred is the most important issue” on the basis of “border security is not free.” Yes, border security costs some shekels, but that fact doesn’t mean the number of people deterred is the “most” important issue. Border security involves many different components, each with a price tag, but the existence of a price tag doesn’t mean the thing with a sticker price is the “most important.”

Is it worth spending billions of dollars on a wall that will only deter a small percentage of people?

Your loaded question is problematic. There’s been no evidence a “small percentage of people” will be deterred. Neither did you make rational argument showing a small percentage of people will be deterred.

Actually, the entire point of an impediment is to dissuade people from attempting to overcome the impediment.

“Entire point”? No. An impediment, such as a border wall, isn’t limited to just dissuading but to make more difficult entry into the country for those who attempt to enter unlawfully.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

My apologies but the OP was "A question for Turm wall supporters." I got you confused with the Trump supporters who gave similar answers. The hypothetical question is only intended to point out that highly motivated people won't be deterred by a wall. They'll do whatever they need to do to scale the wall.

It makes more sense to invest in border security like drones and sensors to detect and apprehend people crossing the border. A wall is a waste of money.

My apologies you are correct about the OP.

The main reason I oppose the wall is because its stupid. I think that we should give the money requested for the wall and put it into the border patrol allowing hiring more border patrol agents. Logically you would do that first since a wall/border cannot guard itself. Without people there to guard the wall, the wall might as well not exist. And if you have enough personal to guard the wall, then you do not need the wall. The entire thing is stupid.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

My apologies you are correct about the OP.

The main reason I oppose the wall is because its stupid. I think that we should give the money requested for the wall and put it into the border patrol allowing hiring more border patrol agents. Logically you would do that first since a wall/border cannot guard itself. Without people there to guard the wall, the wall might as well not exist. And if you have enough personal to guard the wall, then you do not need the wall. The entire thing is stupid.

I agree 100%

 

[Grokmaster]

Imagine the U.S. was taken over by radical Stalinists. Life is so miserable that you desperately want to move to a more free country but emigration is banned. Canada is just as bad. Your best hope is to escape through Mexico.

There's just one problem. Mexico has built a wall.

Would you give up your plans to escape because of the wall Mexico built? Would a wall discourage the kind of person so motivated that they would travel 1,000 miles on foot across territory controlled by drug cartels who are likely to rape or murder them?

I'm looking for honest rational answers.