View Poll Results: Your objection to the border wall
Financial - it costs too much 6 4.14%
Moral - it's wrong to have a barrier 10 6.90%
Practical - it's not the effective way to secure the border 119 82.07%
I don't object to the wall 10 6.90%
Voters: 145. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:36 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384

Opposition to the wall - moral, financial, practical, or otherwise


I don't see how the objection to the wall can be framed in purely financial terms - although $5 billion sounds like a lot, it is tiny compared to the federal budget (indeed, the government was shut down for 32 days and the federal government normally spends $11 billion a day.)

If one argues on the basis of practicality, then there's more substance to it - the wall would take over a decade to complete, would invite all sorts of vandalism and sabotage, land would have to be purchased from private owners, and it might be best to use drones and additional guards. But I suspect that....for many who oppose the wall, they don't want wall "substitutes" such as additional guards - they want......an open, inviting, border which is physically passable. That would line up with the moral objection - that it is immoral to keep people out who want aid or a better life.

(There's a vote option for people who don't oppose the wall, too, of course)
  #2  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:42 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,406
Here's how to complain in financial terms: it's a waste of money. Bulding a wall is a poor investment. Almost any other investment in border security, if you're determined to spend the money there, would be more useful and have better economic spinoffs. How many border patrol people, sensors and drones could you put in place for $5.7B? A lot.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-25-2019 at 02:44 PM.
  #3  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:45 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,127
All of the above except for the last one.
  #4  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:51 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,406
And financially, what is the benefit? Why should not spending money require financial analysis but actually spending the money is free from that obligation? Ass backwards reasoning, Velocity. Entirely ass backwards.
  #5  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:54 PM
tim-n-va is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,245
$5 billion is not the total cost, that is just this year’s requested increment. In the original budget submission the administration only asked for $1.6 billion which is what the Senate passed before the shutdown. The administration can change its request but that is usually done in writing with supporting documents.
  #6  
Old 01-25-2019, 02:57 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,710
80% "practical," 20% "moral."
  #7  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:02 PM
SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: An antique land
Posts: 7,248
All of the above. Why build something that is immoral, expensive and won't work anyway?
  #8  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:23 PM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,153
All of them and also because you should not reward shutdowns with concessions.
  #9  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:26 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin View Post
All of the above. Why build something that is immoral, expensive and won't work anyway?

Why won't it work? Can you scale a 12-15 foot wall with bars and a 4-foot layer of concrete on top?

Border security to me is a high wall, backed up by drone patrol, and satellite imagery to detect tunnels.

It will surely limit illegal immigration, and the problems attached to it. I've yet to meet any politician who says they are for illegal immigration.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 01-25-2019 at 03:28 PM.
  #10  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:27 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,575
Financial, practical, and moral--but mainly moral. Our immigration policy should let more people come to our nation and become citizens, and our focus should be on streamlining and widening the stream. Build more Statues of Liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
It will surely limit illegal immigration, and the problems attached to it. I've yet to meet any politician who says they are for illegal immigration.
This is the most enormous canard. You can get rid of illegal immigration by getting rid of the immigration, or by making it legal.

The laws against immigration are like 1920s laws against alcohol: they don't work, and it's a dumb idea anyway.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 01-25-2019 at 03:28 PM.
  #11  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:35 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,558
It's a waste of money that would accomplish nothing good, and perhaps more importantly, Trump has made it into a symbol of his own (and his supporters') bigotry and xenophobia. Putting up such a symbol would do very significant long-term damage to America, just as the Berlin Wall served as a symbol of tyranny and communism, focusing efforts against that tyranny that eventually were successful.
  #12  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:48 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Why won't it work? Can you scale a 12-15 foot wall with bars and a 4-foot layer of concrete on top?
With a ladder, sure I can, and I'm not even in the demographic most likely to be those crossing the border illegally (men aged 20-45 or so).

Also remember that building a wall means also building a road behind it for the building/maintenance crews, and that road makes an excellent avenue for me to travel away from the wall on the northern side.

More importantly, most studies now show a majority of illegal immigrants now arriving in this country didn't cross the border on the run anyway; they came in legally, on various sorts of visas, and just never bothered to leave when the visa expired. What is a wall going to do about them?
  #13  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:49 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
You can get rid of illegal immigration by getting rid of the immigration, or by making it legal.
What kind of logic is that? "You can get rid of a crime by making the crime no longer a crime."
  #14  
Old 01-25-2019, 03:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What kind of logic is that? "You can get rid of a crime by making the crime no longer a crime."
If you think the only point of stopping crime is adhering to the law, then perhaps there's no logic to it. But if you think there's a moral element -- that only things that hurt people should be illegal -- then it makes a lot of sense to make legal activities that are not harmful.

There's a lot of nuance to this, of course. But in general, my understanding of the mainstream liberal argument is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working and decent people who would be wonderful American citizens, and would make America stronger and more prosperous were they legal residents or citizens, and thus we should make efforts to make most of those decent and hard-working folks Americans or legal residents.
  #15  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:02 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What kind of logic is that? "You can get rid of a crime by making the crime no longer a crime."
People didn't like the 55 mph speed limit and many violated it. Many were given tickets. Eventually, it was raised to 65 or higher. Less people violate it. Let's just say, people want to drive 65 to 70 m.p.h., and if the law recognized that and allows that, less citations need to be issued.

Let's also say some people want to immigrate to the United States. if the law recognizes that and allows that, they won't be committing a crime.
  #16  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:04 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
With a ladder, sure I can, and I'm not even in the demographic most likely to be those crossing the border illegally (men aged 20-45 or so).

Also remember that building a wall means also building a road behind it for the building/maintenance crews, and that road makes an excellent avenue for me to travel away from the wall on the northern side.

More importantly, most studies now show a majority of illegal immigrants now arriving in this country didn't cross the border on the run anyway; they came in legally, on various sorts of visas, and just never bothered to leave when the visa expired. What is a wall going to do about them?

Okay sure, lift a massive ladder dozens of miles in the heat of the desert. Few could do that. I'd get tired after a 1/8 of a mile, and I'm a big guy in decent shape. Also, good luck jumping off the top of the wall and landing safety on the other side.

Many Mexican's die during the journey, and as I said with drone patrol, it won't be that hard to spot a 16-foot ladder.

The amount of illegal aliens that crossed the border on foot is in the millions. A high wall will severely mitigate the amount of people who can successfully do it.

Its the layered approach for border security with the wall being the first line of defense. I would argue the limitation of illegal drugs alone, and what we spend on them for rehab and such is worth the price of the wall by itself.

Last edited by Ancient Erudite; 01-25-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #17  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:04 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Why won't it work? Can you scale a 12-15 foot wall with bars and a 4-foot layer of concrete on top?
Lindsay Graham was interviewed directly after Trump's cave-in speech today, ironically calling for wall security yet citing that "a 9-month pregnant woman just scaled the wall and passed through this week--so did a group with a ladder."

Yeah, walls are super effective apparently.
  #18  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:06 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
People didn't like the 55 mph speed limit and many violated it. Many were given tickets. Eventually, it was raised to 65 or higher. Less people violate it. Let's just say, people want to drive 65 to 70 m.p.h., and if the law recognized that and allows that, less citations need to be issued.

Let's also say some people want to immigrate to the United States. if the law recognizes that and allows that, they won't be committing a crime.
Yes, but by the speeding analogy, the reason for speed limits is to keep people safe. If a government raises the 55 mph speed limit to 80 mph and then says, "By doing so, we reduced speed-limit violations by 90%," then technically, they've reduced crime, but the roads aren't safer at all - indeed, they're probably all the more dangerous now.

Same goes for those who advocate against illegal-immigration on the basis of "They take our jobs" or "We need fewer brown people in America" or "They're criminals." Now, most of those arguments are racist, BS, ill-founded or some combination of all three. But, if someone opposes Hispanics crossing the border into the United States, full stop, then the argument of "We got rid of illegal immigration by making illegal immigration legal!" holds zero water at all. To them, 10 million Hispanics crossing legally or illegally into America is the same - either way, it's 10 million Hispanics crossing over.
  #19  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:07 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post

The amount of illegal aliens that crossed the border on foot is in the millions.
Cite?

According to factheck.org, it's around 400k

Quote:
How many people are crossing the border illegally?
There’s no official measure of how many people succeed in illegally crossing the border, but authorities use the number of apprehensions to gauge changes in illegal immigration. Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 396,579 in 2018.

The majority of illegal immigrants are either work or visit overstays. Will the wall stop them?
  #20  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:08 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Also, good luck jumping off the top of the wall and landing safety on the other side.
I'd be willing to bet that many of the same stores in Mexico that sell ladders also sell rope.
  #21  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What kind of logic is that? "You can get rid of a crime by making the crime no longer a crime."
Of course it's logical, if the criminalization causes more harm than the crime does. Why on earth would you keep something criminal if by doing so you're doing more harm than the criminals are doing? Is it to save face or something? What kind of logic is THAT?
  #22  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes, but by the speeding analogy, the reason for speed limits is to keep people safe. If a government raises the 55 mph speed limit to 80 mph and then says, "By doing so, we reduced speed-limit violations by 90%," then technically, they've reduced crime, but the roads aren't safer at all - indeed, they're probably all the more dangerous now.

Same goes for those who advocate against illegal-immigration on the basis of "They take our jobs" or "We need fewer brown people in America" or "They're criminals." Now, most of those arguments are racist, BS, ill-founded or some combination of all three. But, if someone opposes Hispanics crossing the border into the United States, full stop, then the argument of "We got rid of illegal immigration by making illegal immigration legal!" holds zero water at all. To them, 10 million Hispanics crossing legally or illegally into America is the same - either way, it's 10 million Hispanics crossing over.
So what's your point? Racist idiots aren't susceptible to rational arguments?
  #23  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:15 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,360
All of the above.

Practical - it won't stop immigration. People can overstay their visas, climb over the wall, tunnel under it, take boats around it, etc. I heard one engineer say that we probably aren't far off from having drones that can carry a human. So soon people will just take drones over a wall.

Plus it could increase flooding, cause environmental damage, etc.

Financial - it'll cost at least 50 billion and need constant repairs.

Moral - the wall is at root a testament to white nationalism. Angry, scared white people want a wall as a metaphorical barrier against the scary brown skinned foreigners. We might as well flush 50 billion down the toilet on confederate statues instead. That is what this wall is, it is an expensive confederate statue. We might as well spend billions building walls around the black ghettos and erecting new confederate statues instead.

Also I don't think immigration is necessarily so bad. They pay more in taxes than they collect in tax revenue, and many just want to work. However they should be covered under labor law so they can't undercut wages.

We need immigration reform, but I'm not sure what that would entail. Probably a mix of technology at the border, visa enforcement, punishing employers and bringing immigrants into being covered by state/federal labor law.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-25-2019 at 04:18 PM.
  #24  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:17 PM
pmwgreen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 442
You need a 4th objection. "There is no proposal" Really, what wall? How long? Where will it go? What are the soil conditions? What are specs for each wall portion? Cost estimates? What about environmental impact? (I know Congress gave a waiver, but that should be revoked.) Who owns the land? How will we get the private land? Eminent domain cases are still ongoing from 2003. I probably would favor a wall in some places, nut the wall isn't going to work with out some kind of monitoring. And monitoring for the areas without a wall. How much? What type? Really this wall thing is just a rally applause line. It's as realistic as the "lock her up" chants that Trump also had at his rallies.

Trump is simply too lazy to do the work. The wall can't happen.
  #25  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,557
You should have made "political" one of your poll choices. There are a number of Democrats that "actually did vote for [physical barriers on the southern border] before [they] voted against it", and ISTM that their opposition is primarily motivated by a desire to deny President Trump another victory.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-25-2019 at 04:20 PM.
  #26  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You should have made "political" one of your poll choices. There are a number of Democrats that "actually did vote for [physical barriers on the southern border] before [they] voted against it", and ISTM that their opposition is primarily motivated by a desire to deny President Trump another victory.
I also support [physical barriers on the southern border] as good things unless [stuff happens] or [they don't work as advertised]. Also, they should [not actually be walls]

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-25-2019 at 04:39 PM.
  #27  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:39 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,102
All of the first three.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
~~~Dom Helder Camara
  #28  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:43 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You should have made "political" one of your poll choices. There are a number of Democrats that "actually did vote for [physical barriers on the southern border] before [they] voted against it", and ISTM that their opposition is primarily motivated by a desire to deny President Trump another victory.
Some barriers make sense. Some are probably recommended by the people who have to protect the border. Trump's wall was a thoughtless political slogan in search of a problem. There's a difference.

And, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with "being motivated by a desire to deny President Trump another [sic] victory." The weaker he appears, the better it is for the long term success of our great nation.
  #29  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I also support [physical barriers on the southern border] as good things unless [stuff happens] or [they don't work as advertised]. Also, they should [not actually be walls]
The politics of it is that Trump's wall has become a symbol of hate. The vast majority of Democratic voters and liberals in general are going to strongly oppose any symbol of hate.
  #30  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:01 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Okay sure, lift a massive ladder dozens of miles in the heat of the desert. Few could do that. I'd get tired after a 1/8 of a mile, and I'm a big guy in decent shape. Also, good luck jumping off the top of the wall and landing safety on the other side.
One ladder, lots of people. For that matter, a rope ladder doesn't weigh nearly as much as an aluminum ladder, and rope ladders are good for getting down the other side as well. (Also, deserts aren't anywhere near as hot at night, and if you build more roads, then the people crossing don't need to spend as long walking, which means fewer die.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Many Mexican's die during the journey, and as I said with drone patrol, it won't be that hard to spot a 16-foot ladder.
Spotting the ladder isn't the problem; intercepting the people who are using the ladder is the problem, and unless you are prepared to call in drone strikes, intercepting them still requires live agents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
The amount of illegal aliens that crossed the border on foot is in the millions. A high wall will severely mitigate the amount of people who can successfully do it.
Cite? There are only around 10 to 11 million illegal aliens in the US (a number that is dropping), and many of them have been here for many years, so I'd like some evidence that large numbers are still successfully crossing that way.

It sounds like you are fighting the last war: lots of Mexicans crossed the southern border in the 1980s and 90s, so we need a wall to stop them. This is 2019, though: shifting demographics in Mexico coupled with rising economic opportunities there means the number of Mexicans illegally present in the U.S. has been declining for years.

The federal Office of Immigration Statistics estimates that perhaps 170,000 people successfully entered the U.S. illegally in 2016 across the southern border. Meanwhile, Homeland Security counted 628,799 visa overstayers that year, NOT even counting those who entered by land, but only those who arrived by air or sea. Compare those two numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Its the layered approach for border security with the wall being the first line of defense. I would argue the limitation of illegal drugs alone, and what we spend on them for rehab and such is worth the price of the wall by itself.
There's no evidence that large quantities of illegal drugs are being walked across the desert in the first place. As the El Chapo trial has shown, the cartels favor smuggling through tunnels in border towns and via hidden compartments in vehicles passing through ports of entry (cocaine packed in cans of jalapeños or tankers of cooking oil, e.g.).

The DEA's 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment, for example, includes these quotes:

Quote:
Mexican [Transnational Criminal Organizations] control the movement of heroin that enters the United States across the [Southwest Border], until it reaches its destination in cities all over the United States. The majority of the flow is through [privately-owned vehicles] entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers, where the heroin is co-mingled with legal goods. --p. 19
and

Quote:
[Privately-owned vehicles] remain the primary method used to smuggle cocaine across the [Southwest Border]. Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB. --p. 52
If you want to stop illegal drugs crossing the southern border, then you want more and better checking of the vehicles passing through the ports of entry rather than a wall.
  #31  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:04 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 604
I would vote for the first three options, if that were possible.

Financial: it's expensive, and there are more important problems to address with that money.

Practical:

Most drugs cross the border via legal shipments of other material. Sometimes they cross the border illegally via ships or boats, airplanes, or tunnels, none of which would be stopped by a wall. Short of cutting off all trade with Mexico, drugs will flow. (They would flow even without this trade, but more slowly, as drugs come in from other countries too.) You're better off developing better scanners and otherwise identifying who might be bringing drugs across the border. Also reducing the number of Americans using drugs, preferably with treatment programs.

Most illegal immigrants don't cross the border illegally. They come to the US legally and then don't leave when they're supposed to. A wall does absolutely nothing to stop that. Some of these illegal immigrants get fraudulent green cards, others work under the table. Perhaps Trump could do something about that. (Especially the latter case. There are American-born people who also work under the table.)

Moral:

Donald Trump is a racist. His intention isn't really to stop illegal immigration or improve immigrant "quality", but to stop immigration of people he doesn't like.

There are moral ways of reducing illegal immigration, or reducing the number of "lottery" winners or family reunification entries, and instead increase the number of people who fit other categories, but these should be based on individual characteristics such as skills, not their country of origin, or their stated or guessed religion.

You could debate the wisdom of the levels of immigration when unemployment is high (right now unemployment is low!), noting employment trends and the declining natural birth rate, but that issue shouldn't be affected by whether the immigrants are of Mexican origin or, say, German or Scottish.
  #32  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:07 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,447
The wall won't cost five billion dollars. That's just a low figure being thrown out there by people who want to get the project launched. Fifty billion is a more realistic figure and that assumes the project is built on budget - and there's no reason to think that will happen. The wall might end up costing us eighty or a hundred billion dollars.

Even if it was just five billion dollars, we should still be asking if it's worth that amount of money. Aren't conservatives supposed to be opposed to useless government spending on principle? From everything I've heard, the wall isn't going to produce benefits that would justify its costs. Even if you focus on just reducing illegal immigration, there are other proposals that would have a greater effect for less money.
  #33  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:07 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
All of the above except for the last one.
Ditto
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #34  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:07 PM
Derleth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Border security to me is a high wall, backed up by drone patrol, and satellite imagery to detect tunnels.
The way to stop illegal immigration is to stop incentivizing it. You do that by imprisoning people who hire illegal immigrants.

Why don't you mention that? Don't you think like that? Was it not in the news programming you consume?

What's wrong with draining the swamp of people who hire illegal immigrants by locking them up, and by them I mean the people who hire illegal immigrants?

Why do you want to spend, spend, spend, as opposed to doing something which will work?

Spend, spend, spend. That's all I get out of wall supporters. Never a hint of actually wanting to solve the problem.

Kind of suspicious, really.
  #35  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes, but by the speeding analogy, the reason for speed limits is to keep people safe. If a government raises the 55 mph speed limit to 80 mph and then says, "By doing so, we reduced speed-limit violations by 90%," then technically, they've reduced crime, but the roads aren't safer at all - indeed, they're probably all the more dangerous now.

Same goes for those who advocate against illegal-immigration on the basis of "They take our jobs" or "We need fewer brown people in America" or "They're criminals." Now, most of those arguments are racist, BS, ill-founded or some combination of all three. But, if someone opposes Hispanics crossing the border into the United States, full stop, then the argument of "We got rid of illegal immigration by making illegal immigration legal!" holds zero water at all. To them, 10 million Hispanics crossing legally or illegally into America is the same - either way, it's 10 million Hispanics crossing over.
As I said, that's the canard. Racists oppose Hispanic immigration because of racism, but they know they can't say that, so instead they say, "You gotta oppose illegal immigration because it's illegal!"

To which I say, "First make the case that it SHOULD be illegal."

Overwhelmingly the laws that undocumented immigrants are breaking are, in my opinion, poorly-written laws. The problem isn't the immigration itself, it's that we're criminalizing harmless, natural, and even desirable human behavior.

The argument that of course we should oppose illegal immigration is predicated on a faulty assumption. First we need to figure out what the laws should be. Poorly-written laws shouldn't be enforced, they should be changed.
  #36  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:38 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's a waste of money that would accomplish nothing good, and perhaps more importantly, Trump has made it into a symbol of his own (and his supporters') bigotry and xenophobia. Putting up such a symbol would do very significant long-term damage to America, just as the Berlin Wall served as a symbol of tyranny and communism, focusing efforts against that tyranny that eventually were successful.
Though I voted practically, my main reason that I don't want it is expressed here, the intention behind it is wrong. It is presented as a lie that is to deter illegal immigration.
  #37  
Old 01-25-2019, 07:39 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The wall won't cost five billion dollars. That's just a low figure being thrown out there by people who want to get the project launched. Fifty billion is a more realistic figure and that assumes the project is built on budget - and there's no reason to think that will happen. The wall might end up costing us eighty or a hundred billion dollars.

...
Mexicans could do it cheaper
  #38  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:46 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,309
All of the answers accept the premise that this is a problem that requires prioritization, I reject that premise.
  #39  
Old 01-25-2019, 08:51 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,706
The first three, and this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmwgreen View Post
You need a 4th objection. "There is no proposal" Really, what wall? How long? Where will it go? What are the soil conditions? What are specs for each wall portion? Cost estimates? What about environmental impact? (I know Congress gave a waiver, but that should be revoked.) Who owns the land? How will we get the private land? Eminent domain cases are still ongoing from 2003. I probably would favor a wall in some places, nut the wall isn't going to work with out some kind of monitoring. And monitoring for the areas without a wall. How much? What type? Really this wall thing is just a rally applause line. It's as realistic as the "lock her up" chants that Trump also had at his rallies.

Trump is simply too lazy to do the work. The wall can't happen.
See also this Facebook post by Amy Patrick, an actual engineer.

Last edited by galen ubal; 01-25-2019 at 08:53 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-25-2019, 09:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Okay sure, lift a massive ladder dozens of miles in the heat of the desert. Few could do that. I'd get tired after a 1/8 of a mile, and I'm a big guy in decent shape. Also, good luck jumping off the top of the wall and landing safety on the other side.

Many Mexican's die during the journey, and as I said with drone patrol, it won't be that hard to spot a 16-foot ladder.

The amount of illegal aliens that crossed the border on foot is in the millions. A high wall will severely mitigate the amount of people who can successfully do it.

Its the layered approach for border security with the wall being the first line of defense. I would argue the limitation of illegal drugs alone, and what we spend on them for rehab and such is worth the price of the wall by itself.
I voted "practical" because there was no option for "it's just plain stupid" and the above example of half-bakery articulates on my behalf several reasons why.
  #41  
Old 01-25-2019, 09:22 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
All of the answers accept the premise that this is a problem that requires prioritization, I reject that premise.
A zillion times, this.
  #42  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:07 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
All of the answers accept the premise that this is a problem that requires prioritization, I reject that premise.
I got in an argument with someone about whether there's an immigration crisis. When I said there wasn't, he was like, "Tell that to the family showing up at the border and unable to get in."

Later I wish I'd told him, stop using bigots' terminology.

If your leader tells you that your nation has a Jewish Problem, by which they mean that Jews control the banks and the media and are ruining life for good Christians like yourself, resist that bullshit. And if you know that Jews in your nation are mistreated and ghettoized and deprived of civil liberties, then do something about that.

But for fuck's sake don't call the problem you're addressing "The Jewish Problem."

For similar reasons you shouldn't call what's happening at the border an "immigration crisis." Call it a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of basic decency, a crisis of rights.

But don't use bigots' terminology. It muddies the conversation.
  #43  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:48 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,706
Here's an unrolled tweet thread by a furloughed government scientist, examining the justification for building the wall.
Hint - she ain't convinced.
  #44  
Old 01-26-2019, 01:36 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,838
Let's build a wall through your hometown, stretch it a thousand miles to the sea in either direction, send some "jackbooted thugs" in to patrol it, insist loudly that we're doing it to protect other Americans hundreds or thousands of miles away, claim that your neighbors & customers are rapists and murderers, and see how enthusiastic you are.

And let's be clear, before Donald Trump started bellowing this, the Clinton Democrats, including Obama, were happy to say all that stuff about Mexicans & do all that stuff to border towns. They just happily assumed white America is a bunch of racist fools, just like DJT does. It's really irritating, to those of us who care about successfully integrating immigrants into society & treating them like normal persons, to have these fake-smart blowhards ratifying xenophobic stereotypes on the advice of campaign advisors exactly like confirmed racist criminal Roger Stone.

Yes, it is morally dubious, because it has bad consequences. Migrants dying in the desert is bad. But the bad is bigger than the wall. All of the anti-immigrant law that came in since 1994 is bad.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 01-26-2019 at 01:40 AM.
  #45  
Old 01-26-2019, 02:38 AM
boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmwgreen View Post
You need a 4th objection. "There is no proposal" Really, what wall? How long? Where will it go? What are the soil conditions? What are specs for each wall portion? Cost estimates? What about environmental impact? (I know Congress gave a waiver, but that should be revoked.) Who owns the land? How will we get the private land? Eminent domain cases are still ongoing from 2003. I probably would favor a wall in some places, nut the wall isn't going to work with out some kind of monitoring. And monitoring for the areas without a wall. How much? What type? Really this wall thing is just a rally applause line. It's as realistic as the "lock her up" chants that Trump also had at his rallies.

Trump is simply too lazy to do the work. The wall can't happen.
Yep. This is one of the most infuriating parts to me. It's his signature proposal and you can't even present a plan. He wants congress to just give him a bunch of money and let him come up with a plan later. He's had years to come up with a plan. He's a proven liar. He's never going to offer a plan, he's just going to drain our treasury.
  #46  
Old 01-26-2019, 05:27 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Why won't it work? Can you scale a 12-15 foot wall with bars and a 4-foot layer of concrete on top?
Yeah. People do it all the time. And even if I couldn't, I'd just ignore the wall and get around it by getting a visa and overstaying it, like most illegal immigrants do.

Nothing about the wall makes sense. There's not even a coherent plan, just a weak applause light for people who don't understand anything about immigration.
  #47  
Old 01-26-2019, 05:38 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,734
Jesus Christ--Why would you leave out the most obvious reason to oppose it?

Because the whole thing is predicated on a bullshit, fabricated notion, solely designed to appeal to the remaining idiots who will keep Trump floating politically?

(as Icarus notes.)

This omission reveals more about the one who designed the poll, than anything.
  #48  
Old 01-26-2019, 05:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,761
Several good reasons were pointed out:
(1) The Wall would cost far more than $6 billion; that's just an installment payment.
(2) Most illegal immigration isn't by cross-border stealth anyway; it's visa overstays, or tourists working illegally (cf. Melania Krauss)
(3) Effective border security involves a variety of measures. Focus on The Wall shows kindergartenerish mentality.

To these should be added
(4) The Wall would be a horrid eye-sore, do environmental and ecological damage, and rob border residents of their property or livelihood. Thus it would be worse than a waste of money. It might be smarter to spend some of the $70 billion breaking windows or digging holes and then filling them back up.
(5) The Trump didn't even want a wall — he thought it was a stupid idea. But his speech handlers tried the idea as a way to keep this attention-deficited man focused on simple memes and Trump warmed to The Wall when he saw how enthusiastically his low-IQ deplorable supporters cheered it.

It is not Opposition to, but Support for The Wall that has become a litmus test for ignorance and hypocrisy.

ETA: No, I didn't vote in the ill-designed poll. I might have checked 1&2&3 if multiple answers were permitted.

Last edited by septimus; 01-26-2019 at 06:00 AM.
  #49  
Old 01-26-2019, 06:12 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
Lindsay Graham was interviewed directly after Trump's cave-in speech today, ironically calling for wall security yet citing that "a 9-month pregnant woman just scaled the wall and passed through this week--so did a group with a ladder."

Yeah, walls are super effective apparently.
That must have been the very old and short wall. This is a new design that is much higher and harder to scale. Apples and Oranges.
  #50  
Old 01-26-2019, 06:20 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
That must have been the very old and short wall. This is a new design that is much higher and harder to scale. Apples and Oranges.
Can you show me the design? I must have missed it. Like, I've seen super rough schematics (which did not stand up to scrutiny), but no real plans for what the wall should look like, let alone environmental assessments, construction plans for the rest of the border, and...

...Jesus, it's almost like this is a buzzword that isn't actually supposed to mean anything.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017