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?
So what’s your point? Racist idiots aren’t susceptible to rational arguments?
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.
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.
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]
All of the first three.
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.
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.
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.)
**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.
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.
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:
and
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.
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.
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.
Ditto
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.
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.
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.
Mexicans could do it cheaper 
All of the answers accept the premise that this is a problem that requires prioritization, I reject that premise.
The first three, and this:
See also this Facebook post by Amy Patrick, an actual engineer.
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.