Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
Yes, and the next time there's a good chance the wall will stop it. Jim Jordan is correct. Not a bad idea to add tech to make a checkpoint better either. Layer upon layer is the key to success.
Last edited:
I find it absolutely hypocritical and hilarious how both Clinton and Obama gave many speeches each about the importance of stopping illegal immigrants any way possible and the dems supported them. When Republicans get into office it's racist and a horrible idea, poor people just trying to get a better life, because they are not Democrat ideas.
I don't ever recall a Republican ever flipping on immigration wanting to allow them all in because a Democrat said control was a good idea. I'm not saying there aren't R's against immigration control, I'm just not aware of one flip flopping like the liberals.
I don't ever recall a Republican ever flipping on immigration wanting to allow them all in because a Democrat said control was a good idea. I'm not saying there aren't R's against immigration control, I'm just not aware of one flip flopping like the liberals.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Drugs is a poor defense for needing a wall. First, as was already mentioned, drugs cross the border through already existing checkpoints or roads or even by plane. Second, the drug war facilitates much of the violence and disruption in Mexico.
I think it is worth an experiment to decriminalize all drugs (maybe an exception or 2) and see what kind of effect we see in terms of jails, crimes, illegal immigration, and addictions.
If addictions go up, we can always use some of the money spent on the War On Drugs to promote other methods of prevention and rehabilitation.
I think it is worth an experiment to decriminalize all drugs (maybe an exception or 2) and see what kind of effect we see in terms of jails, crimes, illegal immigration, and addictions.
If addictions go up, we can always use some of the money spent on the War On Drugs to promote other methods of prevention and rehabilitation.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
How will a wall stop a truck loaded with cucumbers? You seem to have an aversion to facts.
You meant Gym Jordan....
*sigh* The wall will protect against drugs that are not coming into ports. That's what I was talking about. I was listening to a border patrol guy who was talking about how a lot of drugs are getting through areas with little or no walls. I guess it's Gym to the MSM morons but to normal people it's Jim.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
**sigh**Then don't paste in a tweet that does not relate to a wall into a thread that is an ongoing discussion of a wall. Heck, this information goes against the need for any additional border wall. It would make more sense for Seattle or me to post this tweet and say, "we don't need more wall, we need more thinking outside of the box for things like this instead of more bricks/mortar..."
How does this basic nuance escape you? This is fox and friends level logic.
6721 and I have tried to explain this to you and you seem to miss the point of Jordan's tweet and it does deal with the wall. Do us a favor and crawl back under that rock in Oklahoma where you can fap all day to anti-Trump conspiracies on the MSM and leave the thinking to others.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Bruh...look at the thread title.
Interestingly enough, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is pretty aligned (actually even more strict) with Trump's immigration views.
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition
She's actually closer to Alfred Rosenberg or Richard Spencer than she is to Trump. It just shows that the Left doesn't really have a problem with white supremacy, racism, etc. Those are weapons to be deployed against their enemies when convenient, not true principles to be applied universally.
Admittedly I’m jumping into the fray very late, and because I don’t have the patience to read the previous 525 messages...here goes. I apologize for any redundancy, which is highly likely.
Assuming everyone will agree that countries should control their borders — after all, borders are part of what defines “a country” — why a wall...? Here’s why.
Let’s say that the government allocates one trillion dollars to border security. One trillion. Every resource available is included and “every inch” of the border is monitored 24/7/365. BUT NO WALLS.... The system — drones, electronics, psychics, you name it — is so sophisticated that we are aware of every living thing that crosses the border and when and where it crosses, including humans, dogs, armadillos and even scorpions.
Here’s my question:
Even if we are aware of everything and every person that crosses, without a physical barrier — a wall — how will we stop those crossings? Why can’t someone “just walk over?” After all, no one’s going to stop them, no drone is going to shoot them, and no fence is going the electrocute them. So how do we stop the crossings? We don’t.
Of course, we will know when and where they do cross, but once they cross over, they immediately enjoy some level of protection and they must be afforded due process. Basically, they disappear into our country. So if the most sophisticated monitoring system cannot “stop” illegals from crossing, what is it worth? Not much.
Barriers exist for a reason, to keep people and things out, and to keep people and things in. If they didn’t work, they wouldn’t have been used throughout history, including today. And like I said, sophisticated electronics and drones cannot stop people from just walking over.
It’s too expensive you say? Hmmm. Nancy and the gang wouldn’t go along for basically one reason. They didn’t want to give Trump a win. That’s it. (Well, two reasons. They also want the new voters.)
Think about this: We’re talking about 1/10th of one percent of the budget. We’re talking about ONE PENNY for every TEN DOLLARS the government spends, or should I say “wastes.” One penny.
If that’s too much to “help” (let me emphasize the word HELP) secure our border, then the only logical conclusion I can draw is that either those opposing don’t really want to secure the border, or they are unwilling to accept the reality of a physical border, probably because of their hatred for Donald Trump.
Assuming everyone will agree that countries should control their borders — after all, borders are part of what defines “a country” — why a wall...? Here’s why.
Let’s say that the government allocates one trillion dollars to border security. One trillion. Every resource available is included and “every inch” of the border is monitored 24/7/365. BUT NO WALLS.... The system — drones, electronics, psychics, you name it — is so sophisticated that we are aware of every living thing that crosses the border and when and where it crosses, including humans, dogs, armadillos and even scorpions.
Here’s my question:
Even if we are aware of everything and every person that crosses, without a physical barrier — a wall — how will we stop those crossings? Why can’t someone “just walk over?” After all, no one’s going to stop them, no drone is going to shoot them, and no fence is going the electrocute them. So how do we stop the crossings? We don’t.
Of course, we will know when and where they do cross, but once they cross over, they immediately enjoy some level of protection and they must be afforded due process. Basically, they disappear into our country. So if the most sophisticated monitoring system cannot “stop” illegals from crossing, what is it worth? Not much.
Barriers exist for a reason, to keep people and things out, and to keep people and things in. If they didn’t work, they wouldn’t have been used throughout history, including today. And like I said, sophisticated electronics and drones cannot stop people from just walking over.
It’s too expensive you say? Hmmm. Nancy and the gang wouldn’t go along for basically one reason. They didn’t want to give Trump a win. That’s it. (Well, two reasons. They also want the new voters.)
Think about this: We’re talking about 1/10th of one percent of the budget. We’re talking about ONE PENNY for every TEN DOLLARS the government spends, or should I say “wastes.” One penny.
If that’s too much to “help” (let me emphasize the word HELP) secure our border, then the only logical conclusion I can draw is that either those opposing don’t really want to secure the border, or they are unwilling to accept the reality of a physical border, probably because of their hatred for Donald Trump.
Dukesteer
Nail on head.
Once illegals get in they will not leave.
There are thousands streaming in now with thousands on the way.
The bill Dems have put forth will make it easy for families to swarm in AND for sex traffickers to exploit children. Dems do not care.
Pelosi etc know this and still continue to blast Trump as zenophobic.
I agree with more tech and more bodies to stop drugs at ports of entry
But above all we need an enforceable border .
Nail on head.
Once illegals get in they will not leave.
There are thousands streaming in now with thousands on the way.
The bill Dems have put forth will make it easy for families to swarm in AND for sex traffickers to exploit children. Dems do not care.
Pelosi etc know this and still continue to blast Trump as zenophobic.
I agree with more tech and more bodies to stop drugs at ports of entry
But above all we need an enforceable border .
Duke,
I've argued against the wall countless times since 2016 when this issue was new, so I'm not going to regurgitate it all here. But the brunt of my argument is that it's a bad use of political capital and a diversion from dealing with visa overstays and the demand for illegal immigrant labor, which are bigger parts of the problem.
Having said that, I don't hate the wall like the Left does (for now) and don't think it's overly expensive. Even the $25B figure we first heard about is very low for what would be a long term piece of infrastructure. Furthermore, it's not immoral. That's a stupid argument. We could build a wall, have armed guards with shoot to kill orders for anyone who doesn't use a port of entry, and it wouldn't be immoral. We're a sovereign country and have every right to do that. That doesn't make it a smart idea, but it wouldn't be immoral.
Anyway, welcome to the West Mall. Please keep coming.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That's seems pretty flimsy given we know that the VAAAASSSSTT majority of drugs come in through ports of entry.
BrntOrngStmpeDe
1,000+ Posts
Trump should have a video montage of all the Dems that gave speeches on illegal immigration in the past. Put it on his phone and break it out during the SOTU and say "I've got a little video i'd like you all to watch".
You, nor anyone else, has any idea of the amount of drugs that come through the points of entry or through the vaaaaaassssssst expanse of unguarded border. We only know that most seizures are at check points.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Thoughts and prayers man. They're magic.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I believe a wall is necessary in many places. Mostly populated ones. San Diego, El Paso, etc. would be anarchy without a wall. We may well need some more walls. However, a wall is not necessary in many places and money/time would be better spent on any number of things including technology to apply at points of entry and more funding for dealing with people over staying their visas.
When I'm not a subject matter expert I defer to those who I think are. Will Hurd has spent years in the CIA and as a GOP congressman. 820 miles of the border, roughly 40%, is in his district. He doesn't support "the wall".
Is this an unreasonable position?
When I'm not a subject matter expert I defer to those who I think are. Will Hurd has spent years in the CIA and as a GOP congressman. 820 miles of the border, roughly 40%, is in his district. He doesn't support "the wall".
Is this an unreasonable position?
Bubba, your meth-induced senility is getting worse. You posted this already.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
That was before people were posting news stories of drugs caught at points of entry to justify the wall. Hell, it may have been when he was still candidate Trump as long as this thing is.
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Semifinals • Cotton Bowl
Friday, Jan 10 • 6:30 PM on ESPN
Recent Threads
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 66
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
