Why I appose a wall

[independentusa]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

 

[Praxas]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

Neither party, nor the president, wants TRUE solutions to immigration problems. Notice for 2 years under Republican control not ONE TIME did Republicans mention to mandate the use of E-Verify. There is a reason folks and a reason why Trump wants his "symbolic" wall which is inefficient for the price tag instead of REAL immigration reforms to combat illegal immigration.

 

[KevinKohler]

Prosecute business owners who hire illegal workers. Ensure that non legal residents can't get access to social funded benefits.




Problem solved.

 

[Mycroft]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

Did you know that the US used taxpayer money to build a wall in Jordan? It's for the purpose of stopping arms smugglers (not so different than drug smugglers), refugees (not so different than people who illegally cross the border) and Islamic State fighters (not so different that hardened criminals).

It's true. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ow-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out

I wonder if Obama, who supported giving that money to Jordan, and the Dems and Reps in Congress, who voted to give Jordan that money, agree with you that walls are not effective or that the money spent isn't worth it?

Maybe they'll say it's more important to protect Jordan than it is to protect the US?

 

[trixare4kids]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

We're not going to build a wall. Keep up.

Let's move on to more recent times where Trump has shown his willingness to compromise with the obstructing Democrats.
He's agreed to a steel fence/barrier. The costs are minimal compared to the costs of turning the blind eye to what's coming over our border illegally; drugs, cartels, gangs, people with criminal pasts, people who have no regard or respect of the rule of law, and human (child, women) traffickers.

Btw... a steel fence, (see quote below), will seriously help diminish illegal migration over our borders. Of course, we need more boots on the ground, and the latest technology doesn't hurt.

In four Customs and Border Protection sectors where physical barriers have been expanded -- El Paso, Yuma, Tucson, and San Diego -- illegal traffic has dropped by at least 90%.

https://www.borderfacts.com/

 

[tres borrachos]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

I don't oppose or favor the idea of a wall. I don't care about it either way. It's not a national crisis, and I wish we would all stop talking about it.

Trump wants it because he promised his dopey supporters they would get it (and Mexico will pay for it). He should give the US government the $5 (out of the billions and billions and billions he says he has) and then he can get accolades from his fan base and we can move on to more pressing issues.

 

[joko104]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

Your message says you want to eliminate the borders entirely and however many tens or hundreds of millions of impoverished and uneducated people who want to come here to live off our social programs and compete downward on salaries for jobs should be let in.

All the rest are just words explaining why you want to eliminate the United States as a nation and instead make it the world's dumping ground for their country's poor people.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Ya know what, I've come around on a deal for the wall. I have, I'm not joking. I realized something today. A wall really won't work like Trump supporters think it will. But, we could get something big for it in a deal. It's like they are throwing away their chance to do something effective, for Trump's ego. If the wall won't work, what do we care. What would we pay 5 billion for? That's what we demand in exchange for the wall. How bout fixed roads and bridges. He gets a wall, we get new roads.

If Trump and his supporters want to take a net loss, more power to em.

And we throw in a kicker in the bill that Trump and his friends can't submit bids to build the wall. Get Independent contractors. Dozens of smaller businesses to build it. Help the little guy get some jobs.

 

[joko104]

Trump's persuasion failure is not claiming Mexico is paying for the wall by imposing a tax on money sent out of the USA to Mexico, a border crossing fee and a tariff increase on some non-American products coming into the USA. Then he could claim Mexico is paying for the wall - but Democrats want to steal the money for their pet projects instead.

The most persuasive argument Democrats make is Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. Trump could eliminate that claim in a day if he wanted to.

 

[OscarLevant]

Did you know that the US used taxpayer money to build a wall in Jordan? It's for the purpose of stopping arms smugglers (not so different than drug smugglers), refugees (not so different than people who illegally cross the border) and Islamic State fighters (not so different that hardened criminals).

It's true. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ow-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out

I wonder if Obama, who supported giving that money to Jordan, and the Dems and Reps in Congress, who voted to give Jordan that money, agree with you that walls are not effective or that the money spent isn't worth it?

Maybe they'll say it's more important to protect Jordan than it is to protect the US?

The vast majority of drugs in the United States coming through the South are via ports of Entry hidden in cars and trucks a wall will do nothing to stop the flow of drugs

 

[trouble13]

THere are two major reasons why I appose the wall. One deals with the lack of effectiveness of a wall and the other is expense.
The first is that I think not only will the wall be ineffective, it will lead to more people using the coyotes than presently. It will create a more thriving business for these thugs as people will think they need them to get across the new wall/fence/barrier. If you think that this wall in any form can keep people from getting across, you are wrong.
The other problem with the wall is the expense, not only of building and maintaining a wall which those who want entry will continue to destroy sections, but the cost of still providing all of the other means of maintaining our borders. We will spend the 20-whatever billions on the wall and then when it is found that people go over, under and through, we will have to still spend the money on the other means of maintaining our borders that most people believe will actually be effective in keeping out illegals. So we will be paying twice for the same security instead of once, all to satisfy a Trump promise and the people at Fox News and Limbaugh that have forced Trump to turn down plans to keep our government open.

I disagree with your arguments but I salute you articulating your opposition with something other than hating Trump.

1. Effectiviness:
Can you tell me a more effective way to stop a horde of thousands of people demanding entrance?
2. Expense
Having a wall in place reduces the manpower required to adequately police the border
The reduction in traffic crossing the border reduces the burdens on detention centers, processing centers, and the courts
It also reduces the strain on our safety net

When you factor all these things into the equation the walls seems like a good financial investment.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[OscarLevant]

Ya know what, I've come around on a deal for the wall. I have, I'm not joking. I realized something today. A wall really won't work like Trump supporters think it will. But, we could get something big for it in a deal. It's like they are throwing away their chance to do something effective, for Trump's ego. If the wall won't work, what do we care. What would we pay 5 billion for? That's what we demand in exchange for the wall. How bout fixed roads and bridges. He gets a wall, we get new roads.

If Trump and his supporters want to take a net loss, more power to em.

And we throw in a kicker in the bill that Trump and his friends can't submit bids to build the wall. Get Independent contractors. Dozens of smaller businesses to build it. Help the little guy get some jobs.

Pelosi and Schumer are not going to negotiate with hostage-takers.

Open the government first and then they'll deal

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Neither party, nor the president, wants TRUE solutions to immigration problems. Notice for 2 years under Republican control not ONE TIME did Republicans mention to mandate the use of E-Verify. There is a reason folks and a reason why Trump wants his "symbolic" wall which is inefficient for the price tag instead of REAL immigration reforms to combat illegal immigration.

The VERY, VERY business and Corp. friendly GOP has NEVER been serious about shutting down or limiting immigration. Their business donors won't allow it, businesses love immigrants for the cheap labor.

But I give the GOP credit, they've used this issue to rile up their ignorant base for years. And Trump comes along, a BUSINESSMAN who has USED illegal labor, and still does, uses this issue as red meat to keep his base happy.

He's been doing it for 2 years, and still his cult like followers fall for it over and over..

2016...

Donald Trump told the New York Times’ editorial board that his go-to applause line for sleepy crowds is about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!' and they go nuts.”

 

[VanceMack]

So...where were you when THIS happened?



And while its well and good that YOU oppose a wall, do you take into consideration the opinion of the professionals tasked with maintaining border security?

Should we tear down all existing walls?

 

[Mycroft]

Trump's persuasion failure is not claiming Mexico is paying for the wall by imposing a tax on money sent out of the USA to Mexico, a border crossing fee and a tariff increase on some non-American products coming into the USA. Then he could claim Mexico is paying for the wall - but Democrats want to steal the money for their pet projects instead.

The most persuasive argument Democrats make is Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. Trump could eliminate that claim in a day if he wanted to.

Except for the tariff, every method to make Mexico pay for the wall has to be enacted by Congress. They won't do it.

 

[Phys251]

Ya know what, I've come around on a deal for the wall. I have, I'm not joking. I realized something today. A wall really won't work like Trump supporters think it will. But, we could get something big for it in a deal. It's like they are throwing away their chance to do something effective, for Trump's ego. If the wall won't work, what do we care. What would we pay 5 billion for? That's what we demand in exchange for the wall. How bout fixed roads and bridges. He gets a wall, we get new roads.

If Trump and his supporters want to take a net loss, more power to em.

And we throw in a kicker in the bill that Trump and his friends can't submit bids to build the wall. Get Independent contractors. Dozens of smaller businesses to build it. Help the little guy get some jobs.

I'm sure this idea has been batted around on Capitol Hill.

If tRump had half a brain then he'd just let the wall go and push for infrastructure. It's one of the few issues left that enjoys bipartisan support.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Pelosi and Schumer are not going to negotiate with hostage-takers.

Open the government first and then they'll deal

Hey ask any Trump supporter here, I am not on Trump or their side, I consider them all very stupid.

I'm just saying, this could work to our benefit.

 

[Mycroft]

The vast majority of drugs in the United States coming through the South are via ports of Entry hidden in cars and trucks a wall will do nothing to stop the flow of drugs

A wall will reduce manpower requirement along the entire border. That manpower can be shifted to catch more drug smuggling at the ports of entry.

 

[trouble13]

Ya know what, I've come around on a deal for the wall. I have, I'm not joking. I realized something today. A wall really won't work like Trump supporters think it will. But, we could get something big for it in a deal. It's like they are throwing away their chance to do something effective, for Trump's ego. If the wall won't work, what do we care. What would we pay 5 billion for? That's what we demand in exchange for the wall. How bout fixed roads and bridges. He gets a wall, we get new roads.

If Trump and his supporters want to take a net loss, more power to em.

And we throw in a kicker in the bill that Trump and his friends can't submit bids to build the wall. Get Independent contractors. Dozens of smaller businesses to build it. Help the little guy get some jobs.

I'm cool with that and been saying something similar from the begining.

I also have no problem with your kicker provided the same kicker prevents the Democrats and their freinds from profiting from any infrastructure building

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

I'm sure this idea has been batted around on Capitol Hill.

If tRump had half a brain then he'd just let the wall go and push for infrastructure. It's one of the few issues left that enjoys bipartisan support.

Now this is where you misunderstand Trump.

He's not interested in politics. He's interested in protecting the US and Americans. He'll work hard on doing the things that actually matter.

Infrastructure is important, but not as important than Americans working, businesses starting up, thriving and expanding and American citizens being safe.

Furthermore, by reducing the costs that result from illegal drugs and illegal aliens, there will be more money available for infrastructure...without ballooning the national debt.

 

[trouble13]

Pelosi and Schumer are not going to negotiate with hostage-takers.

Open the government first and then they'll deal

Tell that to the poor starving children of gov workers. I'm sure they will be relieved that the party of no isnt going to budge

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lutherf]

The vast majority of drugs in the United States coming through the South are via ports of Entry hidden in cars and trucks a wall will do nothing to stop the flow of drugs

I'm not suggesting that this is the way things actually work but what if you had just TONS of meth, cocaine and heroin you wanted to smuggle into the US. You might try to smuggle the majority of it across checkpoints where the government has all kinds of manpower and technology to detect it OR you might send a bunch of loads across such checkpoints in an effort to overwhelm the available law enforcement resources or....and this is just crazy thinking...you might send a few loads through the checkpoints with the idea that if they get through, great, if they don't, well at least that means moving more law enforcement to those checkpoints which opens the opportunity for you to run a whole lot of small loads across open sections of the border or catapult it across walled sections of the border or drop it in the ocean off the coast. If 25% of the stuff you send across the checkpoints gets busted you're still coming out ahead and you're coming out WAY ahead if the sacrifice of that 25% of the 10% you're sending over means that 90% of the other 90% which is going across open borders gets through.

 

[lwf]

Did you know that the US used taxpayer money to build a wall in Jordan? It's for the purpose of stopping arms smugglers (not so different than drug smugglers), refugees (not so different than people who illegally cross the border) and Islamic State fighters (not so different that hardened criminals).

It's true. https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ow-the-us-wants-to-keep-the-islamic-state-out

I wonder if Obama, who supported giving that money to Jordan, and the Dems and Reps in Congress, who voted to give Jordan that money, agree with you that walls are not effective or that the money spent isn't worth it?

Maybe they'll say it's more important to protect Jordan than it is to protect the US?

From the article:
"The Obama administration is spending close to a half a billion dollars to build a sophisticated electronic fence along Jordan's northern and eastern borders, a wall which US strategic planners hope will stem the flow of refugees and also wall off the increasingly important American base from the disintegration of Syria and Iraq."

"When completed later this decade, the border wall will have a camera-studded high-security fence, plus a network of ground sensors and a set of fixed and mobile surveillance towers that will be able to see and detect activity five miles away on either side of the fence."

Judging by the picture in the article, it is a 10' chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Decked out with cameras and sensors and patrolling guards, I'm sure it will work as advertised. Without any of the latter, it would not work at all.

 

[trouble13]

I'm sure this idea has been batted around on Capitol Hill.

If tRump had half a brain then he'd just let the wall go and push for infrastructure. It's one of the few issues left that enjoys bipartisan support.

The promise to fix infrastructure is what is going to get him re-elected in 2020

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[lwf]

A wall will reduce manpower requirement along the entire border. That manpower can be shifted to catch more drug smuggling at the ports of entry.

This is the Achilles heel of this argument. A wall in no way reduces the manpower requirement. Without human beings present, a wall is not a deterrent to immigrants on foot. They will find the unguarded section of the wall, and they will scale it. With human beings present, a small fence is an equal deterrent to a 50' concrete barrier.