Test of steel prototype for border wall showed it could be sawed through

[Lursa]

All they needed was a shovel, huh?

Yup, you failed again...but here we go, *incoming!* More Internet bluster from Apdst to boost his self-esteem!

Feel free.

 

[Pedestrian]

Imagine such a symbolic wall collapses when a tunnel beneath it caves in?

Of course but a tunnel is a bit too hi-tech for the right.

 

[Pedestrian]

Israel too. THose things are/were patrolled and surveilled and kept under close oversight.

Armed oversight and have resulted in those trying to breach or go over...being shot down.

 

[JustHanging]

All they needed was a shovel, huh?

Or a ladder. Ladders work real well for going over walls. Been doing it for millennia.

 

[veritas1]

Lessen? So the Berlin Wall "lessened" the need for manpower? The border with North Korea, has lessened the need for manpower?

As for surveillance, how good is that if you are 50 miles away and the nearest mobile unit is 20 minutes away? Only way to have faster response time is if there are more patrols and more "bunkers", which means more manpower.

And regardless it wont stop those 70% of all illegals who have overstayed a visa!

Yes, a more substantial wall will require less manpower than is required now. Any argument that says otherwise is simply silly. The less of a physical obstacle you have against people sneaking in, the more people you need to catch those doing the sneaking. The Berlin wall is a terrible comparison as it was designed to keep its own citizens inside an oppressive country. Similarly, in Korea, you have a situation where two militaries are facing each other over a demilitarized zone. That in no way compares to our situation.

The wall will work. It will lessen overall manpower requirements and it will save billions of dollars by keeping out many, many people who get in now. As for visa overstays, they represent about half the illegal aliens here from what we can tell. Why does building the wall mean we can't do something about them as well? Let's solve both problems.

 

[veritas1]

Or a ladder. Ladders work real well for going over walls. Been doing it for millennia.

OK. Let's build the wall and see how many people get over it with ladders. I can guarantee you it will be a tiny fraction of the number who simply walk in now.

 

[PeteEU]

Yes, a more substantial wall will require less manpower than is required now. Any argument that says otherwise is simply silly. The less of a physical obstacle you have against people sneaking in, the more people you need to catch those doing the sneaking. The Berlin wall is a terrible comparison as it was designed to keep its own citizens inside an oppressive country. Similarly, in Korea, you have a situation where two militaries are facing each other over a demilitarized zone. That in no way compares to our situation.

The wall will work. It will lessen overall manpower requirements and it will save billions of dollars by keeping out many, many people who get in now. As for visa overstays, they represent about half the illegal aliens here from what we can tell. Why does building the wall mean we can't do something about them as well? Let's solve both problems.

Nothing of what you are saying is logical or backed up by evidence.. anywhere. The Korean border is effective because of manpower. The Israeli wall is effective because of manpower and the Berlin wall was effective because of .... MANPOWER.

First off there is already a barrier for a large portion of the border. Could some be replaced by a better barrier.. sure, it needs maintenance but that is already budgeted for.

Secondly those areas where there is no barrier is either on Indian reservations or so inhospitable or inaccessible that it is not really needed. Sure they become weak spots on the border, but most are so far off the beaten track that the illegals have a much higher chance of dying. The only real big problem is the Indian reservations...who refuse to have barrier.

Thirdly, a barrier or wall is a delaying mechanism. It is the manpower on the barrier or behind the barrier that will stop anyone crossing over. By all means build a 4 meter high wall.. we have them in the African enclaves of Spain. Barbed wire and 4+ meters high, and yet they still get breached. If it was not for the manpower on the border, then far far more people would get through.

Fourthly, the Berlin wall is a perfect example. Few people ever got over the border, because the wall delayed people enough for the guards to butcher them. That was effective. The Israeli border is a modern example of being effective because Israel controls both sides of the wall and patrol them 24/7 and kill on sight anyone who gets close the wall.

And finally, as we have seen and know, there is so many ways to get past a barrier/wall. Under and over and unless you patrol the barrier/wall 24/7, it will be breached.

 

[veritas1]

Nothing of what you are saying is logical or backed up by evidence.. anywhere. The Korean border is effective because of manpower. The Israeli wall is effective because of manpower and the Berlin wall was effective because of .... MANPOWER.

First off there is already a barrier for a large portion of the border. Could some be replaced by a better barrier.. sure, it needs maintenance but that is already budgeted for.

Secondly those areas where there is no barrier is either on Indian reservations or so inhospitable or inaccessible that it is not really needed. Sure they become weak spots on the border, but most are so far off the beaten track that the illegals have a much higher chance of dying. The only real big problem is the Indian reservations...who refuse to have barrier.

Thirdly, a barrier or wall is a delaying mechanism. It is the manpower on the barrier or behind the barrier that will stop anyone crossing over. By all means build a 4 meter high wall.. we have them in the African enclaves of Spain. Barbed wire and 4+ meters high, and yet they still get breached. If it was not for the manpower on the border, then far far more people would get through.

Fourthly, the Berlin wall is a perfect example. Few people ever got over the border, because the wall delayed people enough for the guards to butcher them. That was effective. The Israeli border is a modern example of being effective because Israel controls both sides of the wall and patrol them 24/7 and kill on sight anyone who gets close the wall.

And finally, as we have seen and know, there is so many ways to get past a barrier/wall. Under and over and unless you patrol the barrier/wall 24/7, it will be breached.

Do you not understand the differences between East Germany, Korea, Israel and the US-Mexico border? Are we going to shoot people who attempt to come over? Of course not, so offering examples where that DOES happen is a poor comparison. A better one is Israel's border with Egypt where a wall has been extremely effective at keeping out African migrants who had been coming through there prior to the wall. Secondly, it is clear that whatever physical barriers we have now are inadequate. If that were not so, we wouldn't have 12-20 million illegal aliens here. A proper barrier will either keep people out or funnel them to legal ports of entry. That is the objective. Also, of course you can't build a wall and walk away. You will ALWAYS need manpower but you will need less of it then if you do nothing.

 

[PeteEU]

Do you not understand the differences between East Germany, Korea, Israel and the US-Mexico border? Are we going to shoot people who attempt to come over? Of course not, so offering examples where that DOES happen is a poor comparison. A better one is Israel's border with Egypt where a wall has been extremely effective at keeping out African migrants who had been coming through there prior to the wall.

Again we are talking about how effective a wall is. East Germany, Korea, Israel are/were effective due to manpower standing around shooting people.

Do the US want to shoot people? I dunno, some on the right certainly do, but all on the right want to stop the supposed flood of people crossing the border not at official border crossings... and the only way to effectively stop that is by having a massive amount of manpower arresting, or killing said "invaders" when they attempt to cross. Hence the wall is nothing but a delaying mechanism and not something that will stop people from attempting to get over the wall. Only police/military can do that.

Secondly, it is clear that whatever physical barriers we have now are inadequate. If that were not so, we wouldn't have 12-20 million illegal aliens here. A proper barrier will either keep people out or funnel them to legal ports of entry. That is the objective. Also, of course you can't build a wall and walk away. You will ALWAYS need manpower but you will need less of it then if you do nothing.

70+% of illegal aliens are people who overstayed their visa. A wall would not stop them.

Now should the physical barriers be replaced by better ones or maintained? Sure, but the money is already in the budget for that and has been for years. So what is it exactly Trump wants? The border has physical barriers most of its length and the areas it does not, are so remote that it does not matter and is financially stupid to even attempt to build a barrier there.

End of the day, it use to be a "conservative" idea to use money as effectively as possible, and this request for 5.2 billion without any plans is nothing but a political vanity project for a failed president. How about we see actual plans on not only the wall, but where he wants to put this wall before giving him any money? Why the black check?