Dude, you called me and everybody who believes in the wall a xenophobe. Why should I waste my time with an extremist?
The Liar-in-Chief strikes again
- Thread starter NJlonghorn
- Start date
Dude, you called me and everybody who believes in the wall a xenophobe. Why should I waste my time with an extremist?
Husker
"please start with data showing that a wall is necessary."
Is there any data you would understand?
I know you can't be so obtuse as to not know the many many problems with the constant flood of illegals. Your Heroes , Both Clintons, Schumer Obama, DiFi et al. are on record speaking of the problem AND in most cases calling for a wall/barrier/fence. Some impediment to stop illegals.
"please start with data showing that a wall is necessary."
Is there any data you would understand?
I know you can't be so obtuse as to not know the many many problems with the constant flood of illegals. Your Heroes , Both Clintons, Schumer Obama, DiFi et al. are on record speaking of the problem AND in most cases calling for a wall/barrier/fence. Some impediment to stop illegals.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Shouldn't you first justify the need for a wall before we debate the efficacy of a wall? Go!
Nope. The underlying issue with modern liberals as a whole is that if a fact/data is politically incorrect it's impossible for it to be true to them. The wall is politically incorrect so it's impossible for it to work in the liberal mind.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Why don't you start by actually producing some data first? While droning on about the "liberal mind" and "muh feelings" you have produced zero data. No facts, only anecdotes. Lot's of projecting on this last page.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Let's start with whether a wall is necessary. Bunting your way to 2nd base is rarely effective.
I've played this silly game with you before and I'm not playing. I hope Horns6721 stays away as well.
I don't have stats. I have things I "know." I know (without quotes) Border Patrol agents, ranch owners and other South Texas dwellers who say there is a daily stream across the border. How do they arrive? On foot? Hidden in trucks? I-35 north of Laredo has a major check-point. I don't know how many illegals get through it. So they have to by-pass it. How would they do that? Walk ranch lands? Get picked up at the rendezvous point by the Coyotes? We've read stories of illegals suffocating in the back of large trucks.
I say we need the wall and if it costs $5 Billion then that's not much money at all. The wall would make it tougher but not impossible to cross. It could discourage families. It could funnel them to other points of entry. It would be part of the overall portfolio of deterring illegal entry. I'm not morally moved by the wall. The wall is a response to a provocation. They asked for it.
And yes, the Left was in favor of strong enforcement of our immigration laws. It disgusts me that they have acted so arrogantly about their own hypocrisy. It is a huge problem. To have politicians act so duplicitous and then pretend that only Trump lies is unbelievable.
This is a political war. Their current objections are not credible to me. They are using immigration to create some sort of moral superiority that would indicate only they are fit to rule this country. But don't kid yourself; they do not care about these people. The politicians that speak the loudest are not moving down here to live among them. No they are not. They instead want this to be a feudal society where they are the elites who benevolently allow their subjects to do the jobs most Americans won't do. Then they will go to work on giving them more money from those Americans who won't do that work and crushing any dissent under an avalanche of sanctimony and moral outrage.
I believe that.
I say we need the wall and if it costs $5 Billion then that's not much money at all. The wall would make it tougher but not impossible to cross. It could discourage families. It could funnel them to other points of entry. It would be part of the overall portfolio of deterring illegal entry. I'm not morally moved by the wall. The wall is a response to a provocation. They asked for it.
And yes, the Left was in favor of strong enforcement of our immigration laws. It disgusts me that they have acted so arrogantly about their own hypocrisy. It is a huge problem. To have politicians act so duplicitous and then pretend that only Trump lies is unbelievable.
This is a political war. Their current objections are not credible to me. They are using immigration to create some sort of moral superiority that would indicate only they are fit to rule this country. But don't kid yourself; they do not care about these people. The politicians that speak the loudest are not moving down here to live among them. No they are not. They instead want this to be a feudal society where they are the elites who benevolently allow their subjects to do the jobs most Americans won't do. Then they will go to work on giving them more money from those Americans who won't do that work and crushing any dissent under an avalanche of sanctimony and moral outrage.
I believe that.
Last edited:
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
How long did it take to saw through this wall with a Home Depot saw?
You mean that test piece? That test piece that will now never be incorporated into the real wall?
Who knows how long it took? Who cares? It's good it failed now, don't you think?
Who knows how long it took? Who cares? It's good it failed now, don't you think?
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
I do.
Go ahead. Have fun.
I'll get worked up over government waste and mismanagement if, after the wall is built, it is found this type of inferior material was used.
I'll get worked up over government waste and mismanagement if, after the wall is built, it is found this type of inferior material was used.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
That's American steel and concrete, pal. You would be better served addressing the overall quality of affordable saws at Home Depot.
I35
5,000+ Posts
There is something just not right with the Dems trying to block the wall. Trying to keep the flow of illegals coming across just doesn’t make sense for them. Yes they want those crossing as voters. But that doesn’t help them near as much the black eye they are getting for not caring about our safety as Americans and not to mention the drug flow. It’s just not logical for them to be bigger advocates for Mexican citizens than for our own people (the real citizens) of America. America voted for the person they thought would give us a wall and protect us. There is nothing logical with what the Dems are trying to do. Or is there?
So they like the voters coming across, but I’m starting to think this is much bigger than that? It has to be a personal gain for either themselves or their party to go this far away from logic. There has to be money involved and lots of it. Is it coming from the drug cartel? The Mexico Government? They both can and probably do benefit from the sales they make by bringing there product across the border. So do we have politicians being paid off by the cartel or Mexico Government? I think it’s a strong possibility. Because the Libs don’t give a damn about the people of Mexico. Heck I’m not sure they give a damn about us here in America. I’m not even mentioning just a few short years again that Chuck, Nancy, and Obama were adamant for having a wall. What changed? There’s no other answer or logic to their craziness about this blocking the wall.
So they like the voters coming across, but I’m starting to think this is much bigger than that? It has to be a personal gain for either themselves or their party to go this far away from logic. There has to be money involved and lots of it. Is it coming from the drug cartel? The Mexico Government? They both can and probably do benefit from the sales they make by bringing there product across the border. So do we have politicians being paid off by the cartel or Mexico Government? I think it’s a strong possibility. Because the Libs don’t give a damn about the people of Mexico. Heck I’m not sure they give a damn about us here in America. I’m not even mentioning just a few short years again that Chuck, Nancy, and Obama were adamant for having a wall. What changed? There’s no other answer or logic to their craziness about this blocking the wall.
Oh my God! Longesthorn has discovered that tangible material can be destroyed. Alert the media that we should quit making things.
Look: I'm not against border security and if we take them at their word, neither are Chuck and Nancy. I'm in favor of using physical barriers where they make sense. I just believe the Smart Wall Rep. Will Hurd proposes seems much more fiscally responsible than the monstrosity that Trump dreamed up as a campaign message.
I haven't studied the topography along the southern border. What is this ongoing talk of barriers where it makes sense coming from? I mean, if certain areas have barriers, won't those trying to enter illegally just go where there are no barriers? So, doesn't it make sense to make the entire length a barrier?
What am I missing here? The left says a wall won't work because it will simply be scaled or dug under. They are obviously resourceful in breaking into the US. Too bad they aren't as resourceful at having a good country in Mexico.
Anywho...if they can scale or dig under, why wouldn't they just travel to the unprotected borders and simply cross?
What am I missing here? The left says a wall won't work because it will simply be scaled or dug under. They are obviously resourceful in breaking into the US. Too bad they aren't as resourceful at having a good country in Mexico.
Anywho...if they can scale or dig under, why wouldn't they just travel to the unprotected borders and simply cross?
Yup he did. Yesterday I heard a recording of recent comments by Trump where he stated he didn't promise Mexico would write a check for the wall and that the recent trade deal negotiated with Mexico has provisions that will pay for the wall. If accurate, I accept that is a promise kept.
A credit or an offset is the same as a check.
Longer than it takes to walk across a border area with no barrier.
And now we've added destruction of federal property to the charge. Not that it will be easy to prove.
Good question.
It has been explained a wall is not necessary everywhere along the ~ 1700 ~ mile border from CA to TX. There are areas in AZ, NM & TX that are long distances from towns in Mexico, very arid, isolated or difficult to pass (along Rio Grande in Big Bend area with sheer cliffs, etc.). There won't be significant # people attempting to cross these areas - those that do take extreme risk to do so. Some of these areas can be surveilled / patrolled by electronic means / drones if need be.
A wall is needed in areas along the border where there are US cities / towns, population centers. A long continuous wall where large numbers of people attempt to cross the border. It might go 100's of miles along the border in these areas to detour illegal crossings. This will significantly reduce daily mass and or frequent crossings. Yes, there may be some people that manage to scale a wall or dig under but many of these would be caught due to electronic means or border security patrols or both.
Yes, some could attempt to go around the wall, but it will require them to travel great distances in very arid / remote regions to do so. If they do go around the end of the wall they will still be in arid / remote regions of the US - far from US population centers. End of wall areas can be monitored by electronic means or drones.
Point is the wall or walls will not stop ALL crossings but it will significantly reduce mass numbers of illegal crossings. It will also act as a future deterrent to people thinking about / attempting to illegally cross our border from the south.
Last edited:
I think the entire conversation needs to be reset. Whatever Trump initially said was campaign rhetoric with an underlying basis that is absolute fact: our border is a sieve. We are not going to be deterred by a campaign that is based upon an attack on the literal meaning of a wall (built from sea to shining sea: the Gulf to the Pacific).
We need a portfolio approach (I know I'm repeating myself). The Democrats need to clearly define their solution.
I am just discussing it from the standpoint of someone who has to make a law that impacts everyone on this side. I can't see the rational being that avoiding our official entry points, trespassing upon someone's land, possibly stealing something and assuming the enforcement arm (police, Border Patrol, ICE etc) won't enforce it anyway (I've heard this from some of my South Texas friends but at the same time we are hearing the opposite about ICE; that they are acting like the Gestapo and should be abolished) so anyone can enter our country and do it anyway they like and if they cross your ranch land, well just suck it up and feed them like Jesus would.
Asylum can be requested at the check-points. Of course there are examples of people who are forced to enter at other entry points for a variety of reasons outside of absolute evasion. But I think we all know the business is good for the coyotes and it's not just about asylum.
You know Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. I am taking the legalistic point of view. The wall is just a symbol. It is my opinion the southern border is a joke to those on el otro lado. If you were in charge of a nation of laws how would you structure it? Anyone below the poverty level is welcome? I read somewhere that almost half of Mexico is considered poor. How many more millions can we absorb? Where do we draw the line? The law has to contemplate these things. I guess my CPA side is unable to consider the rhetoric of open borders, we stole the land from the indigenous inhabitants of the US, this is Aztlan, the Liberals who once spoke aggressively about border control are now saying the opposite, we should be moral, etc. I don't know what all that means as a policy. I know what it means on an individual human level. But I'm not going to campaign as a humanitarian and virtue signal to make myself feel good or appear to be a saint.
We need a portfolio approach (I know I'm repeating myself). The Democrats need to clearly define their solution.
I am just discussing it from the standpoint of someone who has to make a law that impacts everyone on this side. I can't see the rational being that avoiding our official entry points, trespassing upon someone's land, possibly stealing something and assuming the enforcement arm (police, Border Patrol, ICE etc) won't enforce it anyway (I've heard this from some of my South Texas friends but at the same time we are hearing the opposite about ICE; that they are acting like the Gestapo and should be abolished) so anyone can enter our country and do it anyway they like and if they cross your ranch land, well just suck it up and feed them like Jesus would.
Asylum can be requested at the check-points. Of course there are examples of people who are forced to enter at other entry points for a variety of reasons outside of absolute evasion. But I think we all know the business is good for the coyotes and it's not just about asylum.
You know Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. I am taking the legalistic point of view. The wall is just a symbol. It is my opinion the southern border is a joke to those on el otro lado. If you were in charge of a nation of laws how would you structure it? Anyone below the poverty level is welcome? I read somewhere that almost half of Mexico is considered poor. How many more millions can we absorb? Where do we draw the line? The law has to contemplate these things. I guess my CPA side is unable to consider the rhetoric of open borders, we stole the land from the indigenous inhabitants of the US, this is Aztlan, the Liberals who once spoke aggressively about border control are now saying the opposite, we should be moral, etc. I don't know what all that means as a policy. I know what it means on an individual human level. But I'm not going to campaign as a humanitarian and virtue signal to make myself feel good or appear to be a saint.
@WorsterMan, thanks. I agree. That is a lucid argument for why the entire border need not be protected by a barrier or wall. Reasonable people can't argue that guarding the majority of the border with a barrier will significantly reduce illegal crossings. It's ludicrous.
Argue against the idea?
I am saying that securing the majority of the border will significantly reduce the illegal crossings and drugs coming across. Anyone who argues against that is being ridiculous, IMHO.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
