The Wall

thewupk said:
Then why build a wall and assume another country will pay for it? Again it's a giant waste of money that we don't have. There are many others things that we should be looking to fix before this.
Click to expand...

Because Mexico's inability to keep their house in order is the reason we need it.
 
thethe said:
Because Mexico's inability to keep their house in order is the reason we need it.
Click to expand...

And don't forget, it's not just Mexico. They represent only about half of illegals crossing from the South. Others are from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador ...and even more are likely to come from South America given the utterly dire economic straits that region of the world finds itself in.
 
a) how arrogant of Trump to think he has the authority to tell Mexico to get their house in order
and
b) did you not see the statistics on illegal immigration and how and where the great majority of illegals are breaching the border and how it happens?
Pretty simple really and the wall , if it was in fact II was a $25B issue , does very little in solving what ever it is you think you are solving.

c) when one stops and thinks about the wall long term it would be nothing more than a lasting monument to USA arrogance. Wasn't there a reaction about 15 years ago to USA arrogance ?
or a monument to Trumps little fingers. Which ever way you see it

d) when will Trump release his tax returns so we can learn how much he and his family stand to profit from said wall
///////////////////////

This whole notion is idiotic
 
57Brave said:
did you not see the statistics on illegal immigration and how and where the great majority of illegals are breaching the border and how it happens?
Click to expand...

When was the last time our government conducted a comprehensive study on illegal immigration?

But back to bitching about icicle research.
 
Hawk said:
And don't forget, it's not just Mexico. They represent only about half of illegals crossing from the South. Others are from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador ...and even more are likely to come from South America given the utterly dire economic straits that region of the world finds itself in.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm mostly talking about them being able to protect their southern border. It's the wild west there
 
Hawk said:
Whether or not a wall is the best solution to combat land-based immigration from Central and South America is worthy of thoughtful debate, but brainwashedly pretending there isn't a problem with a sizable number of illegals (many of whom are unaccompanied children thanks in part to the curiously revered DACA) crossing our Southern border is rather delusional.
Click to expand...

There is a problem. We have inadequate funds and mechanisms in place, particularly in the case of unaccompanied minors from Central America.

My question was in response to the "imminent threat" language.

DACA only applies to immigrants below a particular age who have resided here continuously since 2007. I think the expansion was supposed to change the date to 2010, but AFAIK that part of it was nullified by court order. I'm not sure why DACA is considered the problem here. The flood of unaccompanied minors in 2013-2014 weren't eligible for DACA, so I'm not sure why you say it was "thanks in part" to DACA.
 
Let's look at great walls in history.

Hadrins, Great Wall of China were built to stop horse bound armies. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. In those 3 cases the symbolism of the walls outlasted the effectivness.

The purpose of this wall ? Not to stop the invading Mongol hordes but to defend us from people that want to pick strawberries.

I dont know when the last study was done . I do know when Georgia went out of their way x years ago to round up illegals, the crops rotted in the fields.

Perhaps the wallis a solution looking for a.problem, but the wall and what the wall will symbolize to the rest of the world is kinda the back asswards solution to whatever problem it is intended to solve.
 
Perhaps the problem the wall intends to solve is the imminent demise of the white male dominated society
 
If the wall is one piece of a rational and humane comprehensive immigration policy (as DACA would be another piece; surprised you disagree, Hawk), that's one thing. I'd like to see some clear evidence that is the case before I'm going to assume it's so. What I see is that the wall is being used as a piece of feel-good emotional theater for folks who think it's some kind of panacea for our common problems.

So we know it's expensive. We know it's divisive, both at home and outside our borders. What's the tangible upside?
 
Julio3000 said:
If the wall is one piece of a rational and humane comprehensive immigration policy (as DACA would be another piece; surprised you disagree, Hawk), that's one thing. I'd like to see some clear evidence that is the case before I'm going to assume it's so. What I see is that the wall is being used as a piece of feel-good emotional theater for folks who think it's some kind of panacea for our common problems.

So we know it's expensive. We know it's divisive, both at home and outside our borders. What's the tangible upside?
Click to expand...

It is a piece in a border security strategy to keep Americans safe. There is a clear tanga be benefit to the wall. I can even believe that this is being disputed.
 
Julio3000 said:
DACA only applies to immigrants below a particular age who have resided here continuously since 2007. I think the expansion was supposed to change the date to 2010, but AFAIK that part of it was nullified by court order. I'm not sure why DACA is considered the problem here. The flood of unaccompanied minors in 2013-2014 weren't eligible for DACA, so I'm not sure why you say it was "thanks in part" to DACA.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's the legalese, but the real question here is perception.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ad2ec039789_story.html?utm_term=.7407708f9252

On some issues, the agents have directly contradicted the Obama administration, which initially cited gang-related violence in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras as the main cause of the crisis.

An internal border patrol memo, leaked to reporters, summarized interviews by agents on May 28 with 230 women and children apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. It concluded that the primary reason for their arrivals in the United States was a perception that they would be permitted to remain in the country under the administration’s policies.

Another leaked memo from deputy border patrol chief Ronald Vitiello on May 30 estimated that more than 90,000 youths would be apprehended at the border this year and 142,000 next year, which are figures the administration had not made public.

“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” that memo said.

---

Do you find that the Obama administration ever landed on a clear message with respect to illegal immigration? One with zero ambiguity that would have avoided this kind of perceptional miscommunication?
 
Hawk said:
Sure, that's the legalese, but the real question here is perception.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ad2ec039789_story.html?utm_term=.7407708f9252

On some issues, the agents have directly contradicted the Obama administration, which initially cited gang-related violence in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras as the main cause of the crisis.

An internal border patrol memo, leaked to reporters, summarized interviews by agents on May 28 with 230 women and children apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. It concluded that the primary reason for their arrivals in the United States was a perception that they would be permitted to remain in the country under the administration’s policies.

Another leaked memo from deputy border patrol chief Ronald Vitiello on May 30 estimated that more than 90,000 youths would be apprehended at the border this year and 142,000 next year, which are figures the administration had not made public.

“If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally enter the U.S., the result will be an even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries,” that memo said.
Click to expand...

That wave of immigration began before DACA, and while mistaken perceptions of US policy must be informing peoples' decisions, it's hard to escape the conclusion that external factors--conditions inside those countries--are at the heart of it. There's pretty solid data to back this up, too.

So, throw the babies out with the bathwater, I guess.

I'm not sure how building a wall is a better solution than working with Mexico to control CA immigration to that country.
 
Julio3000 said:
If the wall is one piece of a rational and humane comprehensive immigration policy (as DACA would be another piece; surprised you disagree, Hawk), that's one thing. I'd like to see some clear evidence that is the case before I'm going to assume it's so. What I see is that the wall is being used as a piece of feel-good emotional theater for folks who think it's some kind of panacea for our common problems.

So we know it's expensive. We know it's divisive, both at home and outside our borders. What's the tangible upside?
Click to expand...

I could get behind a wall if:

A) It was constructed in a fashion that provided clear economic benefit (American jobs, materials, technical wherewithal.)
B) It was constructed quickly and inexpensively ($2B okay, $20B not okay. 3 years okay, 13 years not okay.)
C) It was constructed using sustainable materials so that it could be entirely disassembled and in some way re-purposed when its necessity has expired.

I'd personally rather see the money go toward building a 'digital' wall, for multiple reasons. I think it would be cheaper and stimulate a segment of the economy which could provide a slew of rich benefits in the long-term.

Julio, as for DACA, I agree with the general premise ... just find it to have been employed rather fecklessly.
 
thethe said:
In a perfect world we wouldn't need it. The sutuation in Mexico and central America has necessitated this decision.
Click to expand...

Why would we intentionally do things that we wouldn't do in a "perfect world"

Doing it would take us further from perfect, no?
 
Hawk said:
I could get behind a wall if:

A) It was constructed in a fashion that provided clear economic benefit (American jobs, materials, technical wherewithal.)
B) It was constructed quickly and inexpensively ($2B okay, $20B not okay. 3 years okay, 13 years not okay.)
C) It was constructed using sustainable materials so that it could be entirely disassembled and in some way re-purposed when its necessity has expired.

I'd personally rather see the money go toward building a 'digital' wall, for multiple reasons. I think it would be cheaper and stimulate a segment of the economy which could provide a slew of rich benefits in the long-term.

Julio, as for DACA, I agree with the general premise ... just find it to have been employed rather fecklessly.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all about the idea of putting funds into different, "smarter," if you will, forms of enforcement and deterrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top