The easy way to get the Dems to build the Wall, is to make whispers that Putin is against it.
The easy way to get the Dems to build the Wall, is to make whispers that Putin is against it.
There's been border consternation for at least 8 decades, but indeed the humanitarian issue has exploded has indeed exploded in the last years (2012 the inflection point), particularly after the smugglers realized the USA situation (thx Obama) with non-enforcement. But the humanitarian side of things is certainly not in the sense the media portrays in its anti-Trump narrative. Basically, it's been a power vacuum effect, leaving everyone under control of the most lawless.
As was pointed out, the illegal immigration is actually at a low... the reason being: because it's become so dangerous due to the cartels controlling it. Hint: they are not nice people. Also: they are not in it for political posturing.
The true humanitarian response (2019) would be to secure the border (maybe a wall, maybe not), perhaps even seal it temporarily, and make some attempt to round up the coyote/cartel leagues (instead of Fast and Furious style shenanigans). I doubt they'red ever be political forza for that. Instead, at the other extreme, calling it a non-problem simply ignores the suffering and malaise of those actually affected by it. At least the Dems have some money proposed for "border security", though their open borders factions can't even stomach that. The Paul Ryans of the world (GOP establishment) were effectively squanderers. May their names be forgotten. Trump was wrong to "deal" with them the last time around, that's when he should have been bolder with the "shutdown" theater.
Another reason I don't expect any real solutions, is that the long-term is not going just be "build a wall" but so many other related things (and it's a dynamic issue with changing parameters too), and again there's no political motivation. After all, they're just brown people, even the Dems don't care that much about them (except for votes).
The USA's pathetic, ID-pol-addled excuse for a left continues to embarrass itself with this nonsense. There are few other countries on Earth that let significant numbers of people cross illegally and then just stay, or make no effort to stop or find them. Most of them are in Europe and have learned to regret it over the past few years.
Border control is not racist, it's not fascist, it's just something normal countries do. Try sneaking into Canada and see if you don't get sent back. Unless of course you make an asylum request, forcing them to let you stay while they navigate the Byzantine process of making sure you're a liar. To get there, you'll cross the "slash," a 6 meter gap in the trees that extends the entire length of the longest unguarded border in the world. Every 15 years they go back with saws to maintain that gap. Building a stout fence-type barrier on the southern border would be no more difficult than that.
Is it immoral? Democrats love undocumented immigrants like they love outsourcing to third world countries, as an easily exploited source of cheap labor. Full stop. That's all. It's not virtue, and neither is the idiocy of those who buy their nonsense.
Hindered wrote:
Basically, the drug cartels already control the border for practical purposes.
Of course USA media won't report it, but they've gone off and killed ppl who sneaked across samizdat, instead of paying the 5000 dollar smuggling fee. It's another angle that the "humanitarian" syndrome gets wrong, ofc.
Trenchant analysis.
The turning phrase in the OP's question IMO is "work"... i.e., what makes the wall/barrier "work" or not?
What does that mean? Stop people from coming illegally? Stop people from being abused when being smuggled illegally?
Will the wall really stop the smuggling industry? Alternatively, are there other ways to deter it (besides paying off de facto ransom, as former admins might propose)? Would reducing the current "incentives" (eg easy ID fraud to obtain work and/or benefits, or easy-to-beat asylum law with no repercussions) act to reduce the demand of Mexicans to be smuggled?
Pierre Duton wrote:
How is this trolling? I realize the wall is controversial but I am raising serious points here. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
I haven’t heard any great arguments against the wall so far except the cost, which sounds like a lot, but is really like 1 basis point of the US budget.
It's trolling because you aren't interested in an answer, just stirring sht up. And you act even dumber than you are to try to accomplish this.
I love that you are still trying though
"So the only arguments against it seem to be that it doesn't work very well and costs billions of dollars.......anyone have any REAL reasons?"
lol, what kind of reason are you looking for? that it will shoot laser beams and eradicate the entire human population?
Billions of dollars literally rounds to 0 on the us budget.
Democrats aren't worried that the walls don't work.
They're worried that it will work.
Pierre Douton wrote:
Billions of dollars literally rounds to 0 on the us budget.
right.....so we should just approve everything that cost billions that just might do some amount of good then, right?
the 5 billion he is asking for is 10% of the federal budget for Education.
it is 200% of the budget for the National Parks service.
and that's just the start....the proposed 5 billion would only build about 10% of the wall.
We should quadruple the parks budget... i like parks.....and it's just a rounding error anyways! yay...budgets are easy!
Pierre Douton wrote:
EFan wrote:
It will work. The leftist open borders lobby will say/find anything to prevent it from going up.
The bleeding hearts like to hearken back to the "good ol' days" of Ellis Island style immigration as a way of guiding modern border policy. Ellis Island was not as rosy as movies and books like to portray....Ellis Island turned away ~2% of immigrants. Note these numbers are of people who actually got on the boat and made the journey. The ocean liner companies knew US immigration rules at the time and most screened all would be immigrants before boarding their ships (the companies had to pay for the return journey for anyone turned away at Ellis Island).
Reasons for getting denied entry ranged from having contagious diseases like TB to holding extreme political beliefs (think crazy anarchists, commies etc).
A porous border with a third world country (yes, it is THIRD WORLD) is not a good recipe for success and has caused among other things crime and disease (resurgence in TB which was thought to be almost eradicated in the US 30 years ago).
Totally agree efan. Skilled immigration by people who share our values and speak English: the more the merrier!
Open borders to the third (ahem, “developing”, getting better all the time...) world? Truly foolish.
Why limit ourselves to the English speaking world? We don't have an official language.
nope wrote:
Pierre Douton wrote:
Totally agree efan. Skilled immigration by people who share our values and speak English: the more the merrier!
Open borders to the third (ahem, “developing”, getting better all the time...) world? Truly foolish.
Why limit ourselves to the English speaking world? We don't have an official language.
It's the national language
what the OP is failing to acknowledge, is that when something costs $25 billion, the onus is on the supporters to prove that it is needed, that it will work, and that is the best way to solve a problem. With facts and research.
You don't just get to propose a $25 billion project and justify it by saying.."prove to me that it won't work
I mean , it DOES happen, but thats why we are trillions in debt.
The onus is on you.....
Hardloper wrote:
nope wrote:
Why limit ourselves to the English speaking world? We don't have an official language.
It's the national language
I repeat, we don't have an official national language, but you know that.
ok i guess it is the national language in the same sense that hamburgers are currently the national food.
But that will change eventually, and so might the language.
Mr.Loper
Am i to take it that you support the proposal that we only accept immigrants from English speaking nations?
Hardloper wrote:
It's the national language
Typical Hardloper, take a potshot and then scurries away and refuses to defend his asinine claim.
you fail to understand wrote:
You don't just get to propose a $25 billion project and justify it by saying.."prove to me that it won't work
LMFAO
one question wrote:
Mr.Loper
Am i to take it that you support the proposal that we only accept immigrants from English speaking nations?
English is the national language and a country functions better when everyone can speak the same language. Not controversial statements.
typical, ...failed to answer the question and just repeated the false claim that English is the national language.
Fact: We don't have an official national language. Do you disagree?
Do you think we should only allow immigrants from english speaking nations?
Try answering this time rather than just spinelessly evading.
Hardloper wrote:
one question wrote:
Mr.Loper
Am i to take it that you support the proposal that we only accept immigrants from English speaking nations?
English is the national language and a country functions better when everyone can speak the same language. Not controversial statements.
How many other countries have you lived in long term?
Canada functions better than the US. It has more than one language.
nope wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
English is the national language and a country functions better when everyone can speak the same language. Not controversial statements.
How many other countries have you lived in long term?
Canada functions better than the US. It has more than one language.
Two and I spoke the local language in both cases. Would you expect to live in another country and use only your native language?
49% of people in Quebec voted to secede in 1995.
Hardloper wrote:
nope wrote:
How many other countries have you lived in long term?
Canada functions better than the US. It has more than one language.
Two and I spoke the local language in both cases. Would you expect to live in another country and use only your native language?
49% of people in Quebec voted to secede in 1995.
ha, and yet you still avoid answering my simple questions above.
..going to slink away in silence
lol, so predictable...