Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Jul 28, 2016.

  1. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    We need it all.
    More technology, more agents and more barriers.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  3. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life Good Bye To All The Rest!

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ 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.
     
    • poop poop x 1
  5. OUBubba

    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....
     
  6. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Bubba
    You seem to think that is the only problem. Is THAT the only way drugs get in
    or human traffickers
    or any other drugs
    or any illegals wanting to drain our resources?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    *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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. OUBubba

    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.
     
  9. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Occasionally even the NRO gets it right

     
  11. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Bruh...look at the thread title.
     
  12. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    :lmao:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    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

     
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    They could have saved the time and money and just asked me

     
  16. dukesteer

    dukesteer 5,000+ Posts

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    dukesteer, someone wrote the exact same thing an page 8.

    :smile1:
     
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    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 .
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  21. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'll read up on the statute. I'm pretty skeptical.
     
  23. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    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".
     
  24. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    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.
     
  25. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    So Steny Hoyer who does not think a barrier is the answer was asked what he would say to the families of people killed by illegals . He said of course it is tragic just as it is when someone gets killed by someone they know.
    Clueless azzhole.
     
  26. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Thoughts and prayers man. They're magic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. OUBubba

    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?
     
    • Hot Hot x 1
  28. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Bubba, your meth-induced senility is getting worse. You posted this already.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. OUBubba

    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.
     
  30. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Will Hurd also thinks the border crisis is a myth.
     

Share This Page