A zillion times, this.
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.
Here’s an unrolled tweet thread by a furloughed government scientist, examining the justification for building the wall.
Hint - she ain’t convinced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I saw this post before noticing who posted it, and thought: “Mildly clever and cute. Elucidator, maybe?”
Then, I realized: Oh. You’re serious. Okay, then… moving on…
Those are very good reasons. However, they are reasons, and support for Trump and his ideas is not based on reason. It’s based on fear. Trump knows this, it’s why he made up stories about asylum seekers carrying leprosy and smallpox. His base is craven and ignorant, so he appeals to their cowardice and ignorance.
Do you think a woman or child can get over a 16-foot wall with a rope? It would take a young man in shape to do this. Scaling a wall with is not easy. You are severely understating the terrain of the desert and the distance. A high wall alone would cut the numbers of those who can cross in in half, and that’s being conservative.
On the ladder there is a new video of people being caught trying to use one.
This is where the drone patrol comes in. And of course we have border control agent on vehicles.
That number is likely much higher. If you think very few of the 10-11 million got here by walking across the border, its because the journey to cross is a dangerous one. I have seen border control agents reporting many seeing dead people near our border due to dehydration or exhaustion. Since there is no source on how people illegally crossed, you can’t site one either. Common logic says many went over the very low and outdated fence.
More like since Trump the number has gone down. Once his wall is up, in the areas they are most likely to try and cross, the number will go down even further.
100% correct. We’ll see if Democrats can agree with you here.
No, not more like since Trump. Illegal immigration to the US was dropping long before your Nazi-loving rapist came along. Your claims are not supported by the facts.
“Common logic?” “Likely?”. Look, we’ve already given you (AncientErudite) the facts, but you’re not listening. No, we can’t have perfect statistics for these sorts of things (desert crossings), but we have good, fact-based estimates of the numbers and proportions involved, and you’re wrong.
You’re also wrong about the timing. The big-picture trend is that undocumented immigration peaked 17 years ago. And, this is the ONE issue where the Obama administration was as hard-line as Bush — actually, MORE hard-line, in several important ways (not even counting how Bush was moving toward major pro-immigrant reforms when 9-11 hit. I literally mean “when” — he was scheduled to meet with Mexico’s Pres. Fox that very week). It’s the ONE thing Obama consistently did to appease the Republican legislators, but of course they gave him nothing in return.
And, you’re wrong about what the Democrats would support. EVERYTHING I’ve read for months now clearly indicates that an overwhelming majority of Democrats DO support a reasonable increase in funding for things such as improved border vehicle inspections.
Okay, got anything else that needs shooting down?
Wait, this sounds familiar. It’s sort of like the non-existent health care plan republicans had a decade to work on.
I’m tired of their sorry ass grousing. Their complete inability to put forth alternatives, and mostly, their acceptance and cheering for morons like Trump and his corrupt administration.
Maybe not by the standards of lazy-fat Americans who have grown soft and weak and too whiny to do the hard jobs that a determined wall-climber is willing (indeed eager) to do for a chance at a better life.
Frankly, you should let anyone who can climb a 16-foot wall in, and then balance it by kicking out a native-born American who cannot. The national standards will rise accordingly.
I saw a Facebook post today pointing out how the people who believe a wall will make crossing the border impossible are the same people who think there’s no point in having gun control because criminals will always figure out a way to evade the law.
And the crime rate will drop.
Yes, I do. I already said I could, and I’m female. My neighbor was doing some tree-trimming a few weeks ago; she’s 70-something and was 30 feet up in the tree with her chainsaw. We’re not all delicate flowers.
Evidence? Cite? Anything other than your bare and unsupported assertion?
I didn’t say that everybody would be able to use one, just as everyone is not able to make it across the border now. However, you’re going to need some evidence to prove that the people currently fit enough to trek across the desert are not fit enough to climb a ladder. (You do realize, don’t you, that the Sonoran Desert is not perfectly flat and smooth sand; these folks are already climbing through rocky hills and in and out of canyons and arroyos.)
A drone patrol doesn’t catch anybody. It just tells you that somebody is there to be caught. You still need to get an agent there in time to catch them before that person gets away.
I cited the report on how many got away earlier. That report is based in part on evidence (sensor activations, cameras, etc.) of people crossing the border where the agents did not get there in time. That suggests that funding more agents in more vehicles would be a worthy use of money, instead of building more roads for the people crossing to get away faster.
Cite for the number being much higher?
Meanwhile, you’re making two contradictory arguments here, without noticing the apparent contradiction: the border is incredibly dangerous NOW, with lots of people dying, yet the border is incredibly easy to cross. Which is it?
And yes, I already cited the federal estimate on how many illegally crossed the border in 2016; did you bother even to glance at it?
No, the number has been going down for a number of years, largely driven by changes in both the Mexican and American economies. Most of the Mexicans coming across were looking for jobs; now, increasingly, they can find good paying jobs at home. In the 1980s and especially the 90s, immigration surged as the elimination of the corn subsidy and the implementation of NAFTA drove several million Mexican small-scale farmers out of business. Since then, however, Mexican industrial production has surged; they now have the world’s sixth-largest electronics industry, for example. When the choice is working in a factory in Monterrey or Tijuana versus a difficult and dangerous (and expensive!) border crossing, the incentive to cross the border is far less than when the choice was crossing the border or trying to survive unemployment.
Increasingly, immigration on the southern border is being fueled primarily by people fleeing war and violence farther south, in Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras, many of whom have asylum claims to make.