Apparently the real number is about 2000 arrested a day, and some additional number snuck through. Your estimate of “3000 Mexicans a day” is probably not as far off as you think, ~10 million illegal immigrants total got in somehow. Though of course they aren’t all Mexicans, plenty of central american countries are much worse than Mexico.
I don’t think the wall is effective either, but the numbers are large and it is a problem. It’s just the wrong solution. The solution is to stop the jobs going to illegal immigrants. They would leave on their own (well, probably turn themselves in and ask for transport) if they couldn’t easily get a job and be paid to live in America far more than they could earn in their home countries.
Also fixing the job problem would be far more effective than a wall. Even if a wall stopped a million immigrants a year, if you could knock out 5 million jobs for illegals the first year, you’ve cut the problem in half. Your problem would quickly become funding for getting them back to their home countries and a humanitarian crisis for their families and children in the U.S. they can no longer support.
What are the areas of greatest need? What’s there right now? How will the wall help in those areas?
See, the problem is you want us to pretend like he hasn’t been talking about “a wall” or “the wall” for the last 3 years, but we have eyes and earballs. He wanted $25B for the wall, singular, and was even going to get that in exchange for DACA in February but womp womp. Even at the beginning of December he was still asking for $25B, except he was phrasing it as a “border security package which included a wall.” Still singular, wall. In fact, Trump has never talked about “walls” plural, even in the dozen or so times since the shutdown was imminent and he dropped his demand down to $5.6B.
Sorry HD, I’m not buying it. Trump wants a big beautiful wall along the entire border like he’s claimed all along, and $5.6B is just going to be the start of the project. He will always want more because Hannity will always tell him he wants more. The good news is that he could clear this all up real easily by releasing a detailed plan of where these “areas of greatest need” are, why the $25B he was previously asking for is no longer necessary, how the areas of greatest need would benefit from a wall, whose land he’s going to have to take to build it there, and why someone with a portable oxyacetylene torch wouldn’t just make quick work of a few of the steel slats and cause constant financial and security headache. I’m sure that’s what tonight’s 8 minute oval office address is going to include, right?
No shit? Considering that about 25% of the border already has a physical barrier of some sort, color me shocked that 89% of the respondents agree with an existing strategy.
I don’t know, nor do I see how it’s relevant to a discussion about the $5B “wall”. You complained earlier that my source for ‘walls work’ wasn’t a real BP agent. If we use real BP agents as a source, then your complaint is … what? That you imagine they’re racist?
You’ve said many times on this board that you hold a degree of distrust for police. I don’t recall the specific reason for distrust, but I think I get where you’re comjng from, in that the measure of success for police can sometimes boil down to how many people they arrest, rather than the larger and more difficult question of whether they have served justice.
So if I reported to you that 89% of police support some law enforcement technique, do you feel obligated to support that technique? Or would you stop to consider whether the response is reflective of a bias that may be widespread within that profession?
I thought the discussion of the $5 billion “wall” was pretty much completed - it’s a stupid idea based on a crazy promise repeated by a con artist and bought into by rubes.
(extra dots because that’s what the smart people do, they’re called eclipses.)
Direct contact does not necessarily impart expertise. The average grunt on D-Day could not meaningfully discuss the logistics of Omaha Beach. And you need to allow for more range of choice than “no problemo” and zombie apocalypse.
Heard his campaign speech tonight, happy to report a nothingburger. Thanks, Universe!
Look, there is a big difference between what we have now- which is primarily a fence system designed for drug interdiction, and which could indeed use some most money to improve and maintain- and Trump’s idea of a “wall” which would be a useless waste of money, and whose primary function is racism.
The Dems have supported the first kind, they even agreed to it. And yes, that sort of fence system does also act to slow illegal immigration.
We are not asking for open borders. Slowing the flow of illegal drugs is a laudable idea.
No, but I wouldn’t make one of my main points of criticism that the non-LEO proponent didn’t have enough real police experience, which is analogous to where you (and steronz) went awry.
The purpose of that speech wasn’t to sway minds. The purpose of that speech was to raise funds for his reelection campaign.
Before the speech the President’s people sent out a letter to his campaign supporters saying that he desperately needed their monetary support within the next few hours for the purpose of The Wall, then right after the speech another letter went out to those that didn’t chip in. The money gathered actually went to his reelection campaign.
Slowing the flow of illegal aliens would be a laudable idea. Will a 1600 mile wall do that? Is it cost effective? If you say it is, what proof do you have of that idea?
Not really. I like having cheap produce. But if it also slows drugs, then I am Ok with it.
The wall, from sea to sea- as promulgated by Trump, is indeed a immoral idea. It would be a giant waste of taxpayer funds and a ecological nightmare and is only there to fuel racist hatreds= immoral idea. *That *is what Pelosi was talking about. Not just your backyard fence, or what we already have. *The *Wall. Context, dude, context. jesusfuckingkeeerist.