Should the U.S. Build a Wall Across the Southern Boarder?

[Billo_Really]

This is one of the most stupid threads I have seen on this message board.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So we build a fat wall on the border. And then they can't get here. So what? You want them to be able to get here? Big fat wall, they can't get here. The problem with that is?...You want them to get here. Why? Just answer the friggin questions. Bet you can't.

Yes I can. Here's the deal the problem isn't the immigrant workers it's the amount of immigrant workers, we have adopted an idea to create a guest worker program, however, we don't have the means to implement such a plan due to the fact that the Mexicans who want to come over here to work won't give a damn about the guest worker program and will cross the border illegally anyways.

So basically we have a good idea: "the guest worker program," but we don't have anyway to enforce it. If we build the wall we will be able to have the guest worker program AND it will actually work.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You implied that building a fence along the Mexican border would keep terrorists out. How is the Canadian border "nowhere near as bad" in this sense? It's WORSE, because it's larger, less populated, and doesn't have armies of redneck vigilantes patrolling it for illegal immigrants. If I was a terrorist I'd cross into Montana or North Dakota, not Texas.

Because the Canadian government is better than the Mexican government at keeping terrorists out of their country in the first place, not to mention the other 20 South American countries that they can get into and move up through Mexico, sh!t Chavez would probably help the terrorists, after all he hates the U.S. and Venezuela is a member of OPEC.

 

[saffron]

No we should not build a huge wall around the southern border. It will only make more enemies for the U.S. What we need is more cracking down on illegal aliens, and illegal drug smuggling by the Federal government. Don't get me going on Mexican illegal aliens. There are so many of them where I live. They make themselves very obvious, and they are not the least bit afraid of being caught once they are across the border. It is sickening to me.

 

[Kandahar]

Because the Canadian government is better than the Mexican government at keeping terrorists out of their country in the first place,

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support this assertion, or are you just talking out of your ass as usual?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Because the Canadian government is better than the Mexican government at keeping terrorists out of their country in the first place,

So I take it you think the Berlin wall should not of come down?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So I take it you think the Berlin wall should not of come down?

That's a totally different scenario the Berlin wall was put up to keep people in like a prison, our wall would be built to keep people out, we have every right to protect our own boarders.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
That's a totally different scenario the Berlin wall was put up to keep people in like a prison, our wall would be built to keep people out, we have every right to protect our own boarders.

What is the inscription under the Statue of Liberty?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No we should not build a huge wall around the southern border. It will only make more enemies for the U.S. What we need is more cracking down on illegal aliens, and illegal drug smuggling by the Federal government. Don't get me going on Mexican illegal aliens. There are so many of them where I live. They make themselves very obvious, and they are not the least bit afraid of being caught once they are across the border. It is sickening to me.

First you say that we should not build a wall and then you say we need to crack down on illegal aliens. I don't understand how you can be against illegal immigration and against keeping them out of the country in the first place.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support this assertion, or are you just talking out of your ass as usual?

Umm well let's see who has a more stable government Mexico or Canada?

And how many countries are above Canada, and how many are below Mexico.

 

[@_girL........]

Should we build a wall across the Mexican border? Frankly I don't see any drawbacks to this proposition. Hay we can even have the illegals build it for us. :lol:

You might as well build a wall around Florida and all of the keys... It wouldn't stop the immigrants from coming in illegally. Plus the public wouldn't support it because of Cubas ways...

 

[Kandahar]

Umm well let's see who has a more stable government Mexico or Canada?

Do you have any evidence that a stable government automatically translates into keeping terrorists out of their country? No?

And how many countries are above Canada, and how many are below Mexico.

Which seems more likely to you:
A) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Toronto and cross the border in Maine or Montana.

B) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Caracas, hitch a ride on dirt roads through rebel-controlled Colombia, and travel his way up through Central America until he reaches Texas.

I'll be generous and limit it to these to options, ignoring the obvious (C) An Islamic terrorist flies into New York City and goes about his business.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Kandahar
Which seems more likely to you:
A) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Toronto and cross the border in Maine or Montana.

B) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Caracas, hitch a ride on dirt roads through rebel-controlled Colombia, and travel his way up through Central America until he reaches Texas.

Your trying to reason with an irrational mind that is afraid of his own shadow.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

But not like the Great Wall of China.

This is the modern age. The wall should look an awful lot like millions and millions of little land mines.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Do you have any evidence that a stable government automatically translates into keeping terrorists out of their country? No?



Which seems more likely to you:
A) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Toronto and cross the border in Maine or Montana.

B) An Islamic terrorist is going to fly into Caracas, hitch a ride on dirt roads through rebel-controlled Colombia, and travel his way up through Central America until he reaches Texas.

I'll be generous and limit it to these to options, ignoring the obvious (C) An Islamic terrorist flies into New York City and goes about his business.

Actually B sounds more likely due to the added security put in place in both Canada and the U.S. after 9-11.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What is the inscription under the Statue of Liberty?

Oh and that means unregulated borders? A nation without borders isn't a nation.

Also, I think you need to flip that plaque over because I'm pretty sure on the back it says: "but for gods sakes don't let people in here who want to blow up this statue."

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Oh and that means unregulated borders? A nation without borders isn't a nation.

Also, I think you need to flip that plaque over because I'm pretty sure on the back it says: "but for gods sakes don't let people in here who want to blow up this statue."

Interesting how we have borders for people and not for trade.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Interesting how we have borders for people and not for trade.

So what is your take? You think we should just let anyone in this country without first going through the proper channels?

 

[Kandahar]

Actually B sounds more likely due to the added security put in place in both Canada and the U.S. after 9-11.

That's absolutely ridiculous. The extremely slight chance of "increased security" which, according to you, supposedly exists at Canadian airports as opposed to Latin American airports, is a risk worth taking. If I was a terrorist I'd rather take my chances with the Canadian airport security guards, than with the combined risk of Venzeulan airport security guards AND the trip through a civil war zone in Colombia AND the extremely tight security at the Panama Canal AND redneck vigilantes shooting at me on the Texas border.

By the way, what "added security" do you believe Canada has put in place to keep terrorists out? This should be entertaining. :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's absolutely ridiculous. The extremely slight chance of "increased security" which, according to you, supposedly exists at Canadian airports as opposed to Latin American airports, is a risk worth taking. If I was a terrorist I'd rather take my chances with the Canadian airport security guards, than with the combined risk of Venzeulan airport security guards AND the trip through a civil war zone in Colombia AND the extremely tight security at the Panama Canal AND redneck vigilantes shooting at me on the Texas border.

By the way, what "added security" do you believe Canada has put in place to keep terrorists out? This should be entertaining. :lol:

For you to think that the Canadian border poses more of a risk than the Mexican border is simply nieve. It's like oomparing the airport security of the U.S. to Mexico it's in the same ballpark.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's something about the Canadian border:

The movement towards emphasizing a broader framework of bi-national cooperation versus focusing on the physical borderline gained impetus in 1999 when Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President Bill Clinton formed a process of consultation labeled the “Canada-U.S. Partnership (CUSP).” The process had as its objective the reinvention of border management to support the seamless passage of legitimate flows of people and goods between the two countries.[11] Progress towards this end was somewhat halting until after September 11. With 40 percent of its GDP tied to trade with the United States[12] , the post-9-11 closing of the border transformed the CUSP agenda into Ottawa’s top priority. The then Canadian foreign minister, John Manley, was dispatched to Washington to meet with the new White House Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. Manley found a sympathetic audience in Ridge who had just stepped down as Governor of Pennsylvania (Canada was that state’s number 1 trade partner.) Together they hammered out a 30 point “Smart Border Action Plan” which they announced on December 10, 2001. The preamble of the declaration declared:


Public Security and economic security are mutually reinforcing. By working together to develop a zone of confidence against terrorist activity, we create a unique opportunity to build a smart border for the 21st century; a border that securely facilitates the free flow of people and commerce; a border that reflects the largest trading relationship in the world.[13]

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
So what is your take? You think we should just let anyone in this country without first going through the proper channels?

Channels are prudent. Walls are ridiculous.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Channels are prudent. Walls are ridiculous.

Why are walls ridiculous, without a physical blockade how can we enforce a guest worker program?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Why are walls ridiculous, without a physical blockade how can we enforce a guest worker program?

Your talking to the wrong guy. I don't believe we have a border problem.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your talking to the wrong guy. I don't believe we have a border problem.

You live in California and you don't think there's a border problem??? Give me a break Billo now you're just trying to p!ss me off.