• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Efficacy of the wall

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.
 
Real life experience that a physical barrier absolutely does work! It's been proven
around the world. Look at the success that State of Israel has had with the border wall.

San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control
April 6, 2006

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."
 
Border Patrol Makes Its Case For An Expanded 'Border Barrier'

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684037990/border-patrol-makes-its-case-for-an-expanded-border-barrier



We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control.

Rodney Scott, chief border patrol agent, San Diego sector




"I started in the San Diego sector in 1992 and it didn't matter how many agents we lined up," said Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott. "We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control."

Forty-six of the 60 miles of border in the San Diego sector are currently protected by some type of barrier. Scott says in the places where he has two levels of fencing he achieves 90 percent operational control.


WALLS/BARRIERS WORK!
 
Border Patrol Makes Its Case For An Expanded 'Border Barrier'

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684037990/border-patrol-makes-its-case-for-an-expanded-border-barrier



We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control.

Rodney Scott, chief border patrol agent, San Diego sector




"I started in the San Diego sector in 1992 and it didn't matter how many agents we lined up," said Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott. "We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control."

Forty-six of the 60 miles of border in the San Diego sector are currently protected by some type of barrier. Scott says in the places where he has two levels of fencing he achieves 90 percent operational control.


WALLS/BARRIERS WORK!

This section of fence is addressed in the CATO article. The reduction was attributed to the housing market collapse not the fence.
 
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.

I read your links. The reasons why walls/barriers don't work were all very weak or non existent.
Anything (like the 1st and 3rd links) that mentions CATO is suspect. The 1st is loaded with slippery numbers and written by a consultant for Dems. CATO isn't "conservative" but rather libertarian COC never trump.
The second link really didn't focus on the efficacy of walls/barriers. If you read and think about what it said it really made a case for more extensive walls/barriers.

No, I believe the folks on the job ... the BP.
 
Illegal immigration has been declining for years without one giant wall running across the border. An overwhelming amount of the illegal drug flow into the United States occurs through legal ports of entry. If republicans are serious about stopping the flow of immigrants, including asylum seekers, they would be talking about how to avoid meddling with governments to the south of us. I support border security, including strategically placed walls, but the idea of stretching one wall across the entire border is something so dumb I doubt my 4 year old would even think it made sense.
 
Real life experience that a physical barrier absolutely does work! It's been proven
around the world. Look at the success that State of Israel has had with the border wall.

San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control
April 6, 2006

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.

"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras.

"Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."

CATO, being pure Libertarian, remains my go to site to find excellent arguments for civil liberties, but they have been pretty anti-Trump overall on several issues. CATO is pretty much open borders period, so of course they would oppose the President's concept of a physical barrier on the border. As would a leftwing pro-immigration including illegals organization, and "Business Insider" hasn't had a supportive article on any Trump policy since he announced his candidacy.

President Obama's border security chief, however, says a physical barrier is an effective, in fact critical component to help the border patrol maintain border security. It isn't the ONLY tool they need at their disposal, but all the other tools they use combined are far less effective without a physical barrier. He says that even though President Trump replaced him early in the Administration. All the current border patrol people support a physical barrier without reservation 100 percent.

It's always amazing to me that leftwingers will support any kind of government program their side wants. When it is pointed out the ways that program will not help, they shrug and say it is a start. But when it comes to the wall/fence, because that wall/fence will be breached by some, the same people say therefore there is no justification for a wall/fence. Even though there was justification when Obama wanted it.

Just one more example of the group think, hyper-partisan hypocrisy that we are dealing with.
 
The bottom line?

Dw1fCVpUwAAolaW.jpg:large
 
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.

So you DON'T want to talk about FACTS about walls, only leftwing theories about a wall on the Southern border? :lol:

What about the 700 miles already of the existing Pelosi-Schumer Southern border barriers? May we discuss that? Or that also is prohibited and we can only talk about Trump's plan to repair and update the Pelosi-Schumer walls and barriers and the 300 miles Trump wants to add?

"Truth is" all walls slow people down - and all passive security measures are only and always about slowing people down.
 
The bottom line?

Dw1fCVpUwAAolaW.jpg:large


I heard the last person to win the 100 meter dash in the Olympics did it by being the only one to scale a 30 foot wall at the 50 meter mark with a grappling hook - while all the others were slowed down by having an open field to run across. People should built a 30 foot wall in front of the doors to their houses so then can come and go quicker and more easily. That 30 foot wall to get over would come in handy particularly if they are running late getting their children to school and so are in a particular hurry. :lamo

Of course, prenatal care for pregnant women always recommends scaling walls with a grappling hook every day when in the 3rd trimester.
 
Okay let's take your "articles" one at a time.

1. Cato Article:

Arguments: Legal Obstacles; Practical Considerations; Efficacy; Unintended Consequences; Price Tag; Economic Downside.

Legal obstacles is the argument that the land belongs to property owners along the border, and then there are all those "ecological" laws. The property rights is dealt with simply via "eminent domain." This is actually more of a "price tag" argument because all it involves is taking the property in exchange for "just compensation." That would be based on "fair market value" or the average price researched for similar property in the area. NOT a real problem as far as legal obstacles except in some local activist court. As for the environmental impact issues? Again, those can be dealt with just as they were with the existing 650+ miles of border barriers. Non-issue except in some activist court.

Practical Considerations. This includes natural events which can damage or knock it down, and people can "climb over it, drive through it (referring to normal fencing)," and needs to be maintained. So what? Maintenance is simply budgeted like any other line item in an Appropriations Bill. IMO something our Congress has failed to properly do for the current walled areas in favor of social welfare spending, after voting to build them way back when. The "people will find some way anyway" argument has been dealt with in other threads.

Efficacy. This is a spurious argument, pointing out problems with the current wall (being able to go around it, etc.) So the argument is that the current "walled area" is not effective because it is not stopping migrants...is actually an argument for improving the wall and extending it at least through areas which have been used to go around. Another argument is "no studies on how well it will work. :roll: That would be a big waste of time and money better spent on building something that does inhibit crossings.

Unintended Consequences. This argument is essentially building the wall we have simply caused people to find other ways in, i.e. getting a visitor visa and then simply staying. Another is that "coyotes" smuggling people increased thanks to being able to charge more when border enforcement and the current wall made it more difficult to cross. Both arguments can be dealt with by supporting ICE and Border Patrol agents with increased hires and investigation/arrest support.

Price Tag and Economic Downside: The price tag is the cost to build and then maintain the wall. Yes it will cost money, money paid in salaries for American construction workers, and profiting all sorts of American businesses, i.e. a major jobs program which always serves to stimulate the economy in all sorts of ways. IMO one of the best ways to use Taxes. The Economic Downside argument is "who will pay for the wall if not Mexico" argument. We will, and yes this argument is really just part of the Price Tag argument. Mexico was never going to pay and I never thought they would. However, Trump's idea to use confiscated drug cartel funds which are even now being smuggled back and forth across the border would go a long way toward wall maintenance and Border Patrol costs. This is a perfect (and IMO the only valid) use of “asset forfeiture.”

2. Migration Information Source.

MPI maintains a special commitment to work on immigration and integration policies in North America and Europe, where its two offices are located, but it also remains active around the world, and takes a global and comparative approach to migration issues when possible.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/about/about-migration-policy-institute

1. Does a little “history lesson” on border and walls.

2. It points out that walls that have “edges” allowing people to go around don’t work too well (surprise!); then discussed how this risks the lives of migrants as they seek to cross remote areas anyway.

3. Then it mentions how people are getting in anyway by (you guessed it) getting temporary visa’s and simply staying; and there are tunnels!! We did not know that! :roll:

3. Business Insider:

1. Opinion piece on Trump’s Oval Office presentation.

2. There is no “crisis,” most are coming in legally and staying illegally.

3. Illegal crossing are dropping.

There is no need to address this article, these arguments have been addressed in other threads.

Summation
: IMO? Basically these are all weak arguments crying “it will cost too much to build and maintain; people will get upset over eminent domain and environmental issues; migrants will figure out ways to get in anyway, Mexico is not paying; even that it won’t work unless it does cover the entire border.

I am on record as preferring other methods to prevent illegal immigration without need for a complete "great wall of Trump." However, walls do work and a border wall will do the job it was built to do.
 
Last edited:
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.
So, don't use examples of walls successfully controlling ingress/egress to discuss why Trump's wall would control illegal ingress?


I've mentioned in other threads the idea of a wall being the be-all and end-all of border security is ridiculous. Nor is that the plan. Trump has also asked for more money to hire CBP agents, better holding facilities and additional judges to expedite asylum processing. So patrolling the border would also be increased. And existing technologies such as sensors, drones, etc. are still in the plan.
 
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.

Ask El Chapo if he ever worried about our walls. The man has successfully moved almost a THOUSAND TONS of dope through the US market without ever worrying about our walls.
Nuff said.
 
So, don't use examples of walls successfully controlling ingress/egress to discuss why Trump's wall would control illegal ingress?


I've mentioned in other threads the idea of a wall being the be-all and end-all of border security is ridiculous. Nor is that the plan. Trump has also asked for more money to hire CBP agents, better holding facilities and additional judges to expedite asylum processing. So patrolling the border would also be increased. And existing technologies such as sensors, drones, etc. are still in the plan.

How much of the $5.6 billion is he going to use for non wall related immigration policies?
 
How much of the $5.6 billion is he going to use for non wall related immigration policies?
I don't know the exact breakdown I just know he has requested funding for the items I listed.
 
I am on record as preferring other methods to prevent illegal immigration without need for a complete "great wall of Trump." However, walls do work and a border wall will do the job it was built to do.

That is fine if that is what you want to believe. I think the current wall has done a far better job of keeping illegal immigrants in the country than keeping them out. That is the problem with this "secure the border first" mentality. If you aren't addressing the issues as a whole then you are just creating more problems.

I think the arguments against a wall far outweigh those for one. Even assuming it was 100% effective at keeping people out, the cost to make it effective is in no way justified by its purpose. By the time the eminent domain issues, maintenance costs, and manning are all worked into it, this is probably a project on par with the interstate system in terms of costs for what amounts to a nonproblem.
 
I don't know the exact breakdown I just know he has requested funding for the items I listed.

None of it. He is only interested in the wall. Be doesn't want to hire a single new judge.
 
This section of fence is addressed in the CATO article. The reduction was attributed to the housing market collapse not the fence.

No...the Cato article was making the point there was perhaps more than one cause at work, not that the wall was a false cause.

In addition, the article referenced another potential cause, more border agents, which makes it possible the combination of two causes, wall and more agents, is effective.

And they offered no supporting evidence the collapse of the housing bubble was a cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Border Patrol Makes Its Case For An Expanded 'Border Barrier'

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684037990/border-patrol-makes-its-case-for-an-expanded-border-barrier



We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control.

Rodney Scott, chief border patrol agent, San Diego sector




"I started in the San Diego sector in 1992 and it didn't matter how many agents we lined up," said Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott. "We could not make a measurable impact on the flow [of undocumented immigrants] across the border. It wasn't until we installed barriers along the border that gave us the upper hand that we started to get control."

Forty-six of the 60 miles of border in the San Diego sector are currently protected by some type of barrier. Scott says in the places where he has two levels of fencing he achieves 90 percent operational control.


WALLS/BARRIERS WORK!

When it comes to border fencing and walls, the ONLY opinions I give weight to are those of the BP officers and LEOs who work there, and they tell me that walls WORK. Spare me your analysts and swamp creatures who've never walked our border, protected our border, found dead bodies in the dessert, got rocks thrown at them or otherwise put their lives on the line to protect Americans and have nefarious reasons for their deeply-held denials.

TRUMP'S BORDER WALL MUST BE BUILT, 380 SHERIFFS TELL CONGRESS


https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-bor...dreds-sheriffs-40-states-tell-congress-865813

Hundreds of sheriffs from 40 states have called on Congress to fund President Donald Trump's initiative to build a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

“Without border security and immigration reform, more Americans will continue to be victims of crime. Now is the time to act,” a letter signed by 380 sheriffs said.

"Further delay and inaction on immigration reform will cost more innocent lives, more financial hardships, and an even greater decline in the public trust that is essential to the preservation of our Republic," the letter added.

Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson of Briston County, Massachusetts was the driving force behind the letter; he encouraged Congress to make moves against border and sanctuary policies.

"These sanctuary policies directly undermine and limit cooperation and collaboration between local, state and federal law enforcement, making it harder for America’s sheriffs to protect our citizens and legal residents," he added.

The move was backed by the National Sheriff's Association, with the group's Executive and CEO Jonathan Thompson issued a statement: “Congress’ inaction undermines sheriffs’ ability to protect our citizens. Sheriffs across this country have signed this letter because Congress cannot continue to weaken our efforts to make our communities as safe as possible."
 
This thread is to debate the efficacy of Trump's proposed fence/slats/wall on the US and Mexico border. It is NOT for debating the efficacy of ALL walls. It is for the one, particular wall that Trump is seeking funding to build.

I submit the following articles to support the idea that such a wall would not be very effective and would be poor policy.

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

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-border-crisis-speech-not-fixed-by-wall-shutdown-2019-1

Remember this thread is about Trump's wall...not the Vatican walls, or the Israel wall, or the wall around Obama or Pelosi's house. This is a thread about the arguments of why Trump's wall will or will not work. Truth is some walls are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. This thread is about how sound the arguments are that this specific wall will be effective given the circumstances that pertain just to it.

Red:
What is there to say? There are no soundly compelling arguments to that effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom