There is a great deal of opposition to the wall being built on the border, but I would like to ask what the alternative is, then:
As I understand it, the border between the USA and Mexico has a varied number of features; in some places a metal fence, in some other places…nothing? Some signs?
Do the folks who oppose the wall want just the status quo - some places fenced, some places not?
What features should the border between the USA and Mexico *ideally *feature? (That is, within the US government’s power to install, not the Mexican government’s power.) Should there be a dotted line saying “This is the border?” There presumably needs to be something to delineate the boundary. Welcome signs? A fence, but not a big wall?
Depends on the goal, really. If it’s to prevent irregular immigration we’d be better served with fewer - and better enforced - visas. That combined with an end to the ability to wire money to Latin America would remove ability and incentive to come here to work without going through channels.
I don’t think any additional physical barrier is a good idea. Better to allow people to cross over, work, and take the money back to their families. Or help the Mexican government create jobs in their own country. I’d rather send the money to Mexico to improve their infrastructure and create jobs in Mexico than build a wall.
Nothing wrong with a wall, it also serves to keep smuggled good and drugs out of the USA and gun from going into Mexico.
We have a partial wall now and it needs upgrading and refurbishment.
If Trump had left it at that- that the wall needs to be upgraded, refurbish and even extended, then it would not be a issue. It would be a budget problem.
But his claim about building a super wall across the entire border and that Mexico would pay for it was extreme- not to mention doubtful and extremely expensive.
But seriously, it does your side no good to blatantly ignore the differences between the two borders. Canada is at about the same standard of living and is not a land bridge to a boatload of countries, many of which produce economic and violence fleeing refugees. You can’t just vaguely imply racism and be done with it.
So, Rick Perry thinks the wall is nonsense, right? Rick Perry, governor of Texas, hardly a liberal, right?
What does Texas do now? They have border patrols, satellite images, the whole thing. If you wanted to have literally 0 migration, some more funding to that would work for a ridiculously small fraction of a real, physical wall.
There’s not really a lot of call for that, since the supposed ill effects of Mexican immigration are greatly overstated, Mexico is a fairly big client of US products, and they aren’t even in a particularly bad shape economy-wise lately. But if that’s what you wanted, it’s not that hard.
Shaved mountains and boundary markers. CGP Grey has a couple of YouTube videos about that border. In mountainous areas, there are boundary markers and the trees have been removed for a certain distance on either side of them. So there’s a treeless corridor maintained between the US and Canada. Sort of an anti-wall.
Speaking as a moderately liberal person, I would want no physical changes whatsoever to the border, because physical changes cost money to make and money to maintain far in excess of any predictable gains. I would not be opposed to funneling a little extra money to organizations that pursue drug traffickers and gun runners, though.
If money wasn’t an object, I would want the entire border to be replaced with a twenty feet deep/wide moat filled with rubber duckies. Mostly for fun, partly to slow down and confuse trucks of contraband, and also to see what would happen if the Atlantic and Pacific were connected by a lockless river full of duckies. (So, again, for fun.)
One poster thought the solution was to stop the ability to send money back to Mexico, and the other thought sending money back to Mexico should be encouraged. I’m not sure where your confusion rests.
Well, I guess I was confused because you used the word “mismatch”. It’s two different people who expressed opposing opinions. They weren’t mismatched until you matched them. And the first person wasn’t necessarily advocating the position - just saying what he thought was the best plan for that particular “goal”.
