Democrats are for border security

[bullseyelqcs]

I've read that first link before. Since you apparently didn't actually read it here's a summation of it...

Walls work...but it funnels those seeking to enter illegally into more dangerous areas such as deserts and therefore doesn't really work and costs some illegals their lives. Ergo: THINK OF THE LIVES!!! and because it costs lives walls don't work. It also ignores that China's Great Wall fell not due to illegal immigrants, but due to a determined army. No wall through out the entire human history has ever stood against determined invaders. That doesn't mean that walls don't help keep out those that don't have the capabilities of an army.

Funny you would go there.....all a "determined army" (your words, for the record) would need to do would be go to a freaking Home Depot or Lowes on the way to the border, and voila, they would be in....or did you miss the testing of the wall prototypes that Trump has been toting as the answer...here, let me bring you up to speed:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/sep/17/government-report-shows-border-wall-designs-broken/

And no one has suggested that ONLY walls work. It's a combination of several things that make Walls effective. Which is why Trump has requested that money be spent on getting extra border patrol agents and technology to help detect tunnels being built and detecting drugs.

But only after we give him money for a wall. You know why? Because if it turns out that giving money to those things you spoke of is effective, the need for his monument becomes lessened, and he can't risk not being able to make good on his dumb campaign promise.

Didn't bother with the other two links. One is from a blog, the other is from the CATO institute which is a think tank. Not experts in the field of border security in the least.

Okay.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think we agree, then. Walls (or fences) work in cities so long as border patrol agents or other law enforcement are nearby. They don't work in the desert.

Walls by themselves do not work. Correct. No one has ever said differently. However, walls with increased border patrol and technology aiding those agents all combine to make a very effective way to severely stem the tide of illegal immigration through our borders.

 

[augustus]

No, because it is a study that needs to be done by the government (not just the Democrats), given that the President should be involved. Isn't he supposed to be the one that makes the best decisions for our country. If the Democrats did it, would he listen to it? Probably not!

What does the government know about border security? We don't have one! How could they possibly know anything about it? That's the problem with democrats and liberals. You rely on the government for everything. Take the advice of the experts who are actually on the border. Those who are there and seeing everything that's happening. They've already come out and said we desperately need a border.

 

[Mycroft]

For someone who preaches against big gubbimnt you are trucking clueless.

All departments ask for, then lobby hard for far more than they need.

They do not budget for what they need to function properly but for a dream list, then when there is a surplus raises are given.

Oh and one of the most important things is to make damn sure you spend more than you have or your budget will be cut next budget.

Well then, trot out the numbers that dispute the numbers from DHS.

If you can't do that, then your notions have no bearing on this issue.

 

[lwf]

Walls by themselves do not work. Correct. No one has ever said differently. However, walls with increased border patrol and technology aiding those agents all combine to make a very effective way to severely stem the tide of illegal immigration through our borders.

I agree with your last sentence. But many others who argue for the wall (in fact most in my experience) HAVE said that walls by themselves work. Many on these boards have said that walls would reduce the need for border patrol agents, and that walls would help stem the tide of illegal immigration in under-patrolled areas out in the desert where most border crossings happen. This is simply untrue. In those areas and in those circumstances, walls don't work.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Funny you would go there.....all a "determined army" (your words, for the record) would need to do would be go to a freaking Home Depot or Lowes on the way to the border, and voila, they would be in....or did you miss the testing of the wall prototypes that Trump has been toting as the answer...here, let me bring you up to speed:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/sep/17/government-report-shows-border-wall-designs-broken/

As your own article notes:

In response to a request for comment on the documented flaws of the barriers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Ralph DeSio said the prototypes “were not and cannot be designed to be indestructible.” He said they were instead meant to help create barriers that would “impede or deny efforts to scale, breach, or dig under such a barrier, giving agents time to respond.”

And something that your article doesn't note: How long it took for a breach to happen. Something that is factored when implementing the rest of what needs to be done besides building a wall. As Ralph points out.

But only after we give him money for a wall. You know why? Because if it turns out that giving money to those things you spoke of is effective, the need for his monument becomes lessened, and he can't risk not being able to make good on his dumb campaign promise.

Actually no, he's asking for both at the same time.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

When has Trump ever said that a wall is 100% effective? The only ones touting that line are those that do not want the wall built.



He has been attempting to get everything that he wants. Which is why his proposals have included extra border agents and better technology to detect both drugs and tunnels.

Reading is fundamental.

I said EVERYTHING ELSE....you know, the stuff that the people you are negotiating with have already said they would be on board with. I never meant to imply he should get whatever he wants. Hell, the election in November shows that the general populace doesn't think he should either.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I agree with your last sentence. But many others who argue for the wall (in fact most in my experience) HAVE said that walls by themselves work. Many on these boards have said that walls would reduce the need for border patrol agents, and that walls would help stem the tide of illegal immigration in under-patrolled areas out in the desert where most border crossings happen. This is simply untrue. In those areas and in those circumstances, walls don't work.

Only fools argue such.

So we agree, walls work along with the proper enforcement and technology?

 

[lwf]

Only fools argue such.

So we agree, walls work along with the proper enforcement and technology?

I do agree.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

As your own article notes:



And something that your article doesn't note: How long it took for a breach to happen. Something that is factored when implementing the rest of what needs to be done besides building a wall. As Ralph points out.



Actually no, he's asking for both at the same time.

But hes not willing to accept one without the other, so what I said stands correct. Unless we give him money for a wall, hes not gonna pass a bill that includes EVERYTHING ELSE he wants. Cutting off his nose to spite his face, in a manner of speaking.

 

[Luckyone]

Just a note: I personally don't want walls. But to claim that they are ineffective is just bovine excrement.

So what you are saying is that the expense and amount of actual good they will do, as well as holding over 800,000 people hostage does support building of a wall? For a person that doesn't want a wall, you sure are willing to spend a lot and hurt a lot of people to get it.

 

[bongsaway]

No.

We have the information we need concerning "the best ways to protect our borders" from the people who's job it is to do just that. They have said they want a number of things...including a wall. We don't need a "study". We need to put our trust in the people who are doing the job.

Sorry, but I'll need more from Clyburn than him saying "Trump does not have any credible information about border security". Clyburn needs to tell me WHY Trump's information is not credible.

The Democrats are taking part in this "hostage situation".

Because he, trump, to put it politely, exaggerates the numbers he quotes when he's on one of his rants against the democrats trying to get his 'campaign promise' fulfilled. If you haven't noticed, it's the republicans who are all over the place with this non issue. The democrats keep clearly repeating they are all for border security and money is not the issue. Open the government and then negotiate in good faith.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So what you are saying is that the expense and amount of actual good they will do, as well as holding over 800,000 people hostage does support building of a wall? For a person that doesn't want a wall, you sure are willing to spend a lot and hurt a lot of people to get it.

Just because I don't support building a wall does not mean that I do not recognize the validity of building a wall. Nor have I ever stated that I support this government shutdown. (or any government shutdown for that matter)

 

[trouble13]

No, because it is a study that needs to be done by the government (not just the Democrats), given that the President should be involved. Isn't he supposed to be the one that makes the best decisions for our country. If the Democrats did it, would he listen to it? Probably not!

Why cant the Democrats do their study and bring it to the floor for debate?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Kal'Stang]

But hes not willing to accept one without the other, so what I said stands correct. Unless we give him money for a wall, hes not gonna pass a bill that includes EVERYTHING ELSE he wants. Cutting off his nose to spite his face, in a manner of speaking.

If he's not willing to accept one without the other then no, your statement is not exactly correct. A correct statement would be along the lines of "Trump will not pass any bill unless he gets everything that he wants, which includes a wall, extra border security agents, and technology to detect drugs and tunnels". Your statement hinges on the wall. A correct statement would hinge on everything. Not just one thing. Semantics is a pain but at times its the difference between accuracy and talking points. Talking points often leave out things in order to push agenda's.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

If he's not willing to accept one without the other then no, your statement is not exactly correct. A correct statement would be along the lines of "Trump will not pass any bill unless he gets everything that he wants, which includes a wall, extra border security agents, and technology to detect drugs and tunnels". Your statement hinges on the wall. A correct statement would hinge on everything. Not just one thing. Semantics is a pain but at times its the difference between accuracy and talking points. Talking points often leave out things in order to push agenda's.

I get it. Sometimes reading is hard.

What I said is EXACTLY what he has said. Any bill that doesn't have funding for the wall is dead the second it hits his desk....his words, not mine. The Democrats could send him a bill that gave him everything he wanted besides the wall, and he has said he won't sign it. That means he is not willing to accept one without the other. Your statement in red above is nothing more than a restatement of EXACTLY what you claimed wasn't right. My statement hinges on the wall because without the wall, there is no "rest of the statement". Hell, the way he keeps on about this, I actuallly believe that if the Democrats offered him the exact OPPOSITE of that deal (money for the wall and nothing else), he would actually sign that bill. The wall is his Waterloo....

Also....its usually best to stop arguing when all you have is semantical arguments to survive on.

 

[Luckyone]

What does the government know about border security? We don't have one! How could they possibly know anything about it? That's the problem with democrats and liberals. You rely on the government for everything. Take the advice of the experts who are actually on the border. Those who are there and seeing everything that's happening. They've already come out and said we desperately need a border.

Here are some opinions from others than have "some experience", Below are 4 links to articles about "there is a better way for the wall" and in searching through Google, there were many more articles I could have put up. Why don't you are least give me the same 4 links to articles about why the wall is the best option. This way we can resolve this debate between us.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/border-patrol-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/politics/trump-border-wall-funding-surveillance.html

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

 

[Kal'Stang]

I get it. Sometimes reading is hard.

What I said is EXACTLY what he has said. Any bill that doesn't have funding for the wall is dead the second it hits his desk....his words, not mine. The Democrats could send him a bill that gave him everything he wanted besides the wall, and he has said he won't sign it. That means he is not willing to accept one without the other. Your statement in red above is nothing more than a restatement of EXACTLY what you claimed wasn't right. My statement hinges on the wall because without the wall, there is no "rest of the statement". Hell, the way he keeps on about this, I actuallly believe that if the Democrats offered him the exact OPPOSITE of that deal (money for the wall and nothing else), he would actually sign that bill. The wall is his Waterloo....

Also....its usually best to stop arguing when all you have is semantical arguments to survive on.

Just because its exactly what he said that automatically means that is all that there is to it? The only reason that he has said that is because Democrats are refusing to fund the wall. Something that they agreed to in the past. Why are they refusing to fund the wall this time around? What makes this time so different? What makes the wall "immoral" this time around when it wasn't before? What makes the wall "ineffective" when it wasn't before?

 

[Luckyone]

Just because I don't support building a wall does not mean that I do not recognize the validity of building a wall. Nor have I ever stated that I support this government shutdown. (or any government shutdown for that matter)

No, but I have not heard you say either that you support the Democrats not giving in on Ransom demands. I have just seen you give articles about why a wall should be built.

 

[Luckyone]

Why cant the Democrats do their study and bring it to the floor for debate?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Because Trump will laugh at it and disregard it. He does not read anything and he believes everything the Democrats say is garbage. If he didn't listen to his own people saying that Global Warming is a problem, a report that just came out a month ago by his own people, do you honestly believe he would pay attention to anything the Democrats bring him?

 

[Rogue Valley]

So either it works 100% or its trash and shouldn't even be attempted?

It's patently dishonest to portray Trumps wall as a panacea application. It's not. In the places where a wall can have an impact, a wall is already there.

Even in places where a wall is already existent, it can be circumvented by shovels and dogged determination. See Post #12.

 

[justabubba]

What experts exactly? Seems to me that the experts would be those that actually patrol our border and interact with it every single day. And they say that walls work. Walls Work

kudos for your willingness to listen to what the border patrol members find to be appropriate:

Walls and fences are temporary solutions that focus on the symptom (illegal immigration) rather than the problem (employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens) ~ National Border Patrol Council/AFGE
Walls and fences are only a speed bump,” the webpage read. “People who want to come to the United States to obtain employment will continue to go over, under and around the walls and fences that are constructed

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Just because its exactly what he said that automatically means that is all that there is to it? The only reason that he has said that is because Democrats are refusing to fund the wall. Something that they agreed to in the past. Why are they refusing to fund the wall this time around? What makes this time so different? What makes the wall "immoral" this time around when it wasn't before? What makes the wall "ineffective" when it wasn't before?

Interesting move of the goalposts.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

A dumb wall is not border security.

Also, republicans refused to even vote on legislation in 2013 that

they can't possibly get this resolved, because then what are they going to dupe their idiot base with? That's why they do nothing when they are in power, then push for idiotic things and then blame dems. How dumb are their constituency that they continually fall for this, for decades?

Same thing with abortion. They passed 50 bills when Obama was president attacking abortion, knowing it would not pass. They have had all branches for 2 years, they did nothing with abortion or immigration.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, but I have not heard you say either that you support the Democrats not giving in on Ransom demands. I have just seen you give articles about why a wall should be built.

Because I don't consider them "ransom demands"? I don't consider this a "hostage" situation? Democrats are using hyperbole to spin the narrative. Both "ransom" and "hostage" are nothing more than talking points. The government has shut down many times in the past and its only NOW considered a "ransom/hostage" effort? Pfft. Sorry but I don't give into buzz words.

I have however blamed both Trump, Republicans, AND Democrats for the shutdown. Both this time and the last time it happened when Obama was in office. Does that sound like someone that supports the shutdown?

I have also expressed many times how I think that there are better ways to reduce illegal immigration than a wall and have given examples of such ways. Should I list several of those ways again? Does that sound like someone that supports The Wall?

I may not support the wall, but I'm not going to claim that it would be or is ineffective. That would be false and a lie since I know better.