I doubt that you would be so cavalier about eminent domain destroying houses if it were your home being destroyed.
Monarch butterflies are near extinction, even though it hasn’t received much press covfefe. There’s a sanctuary for them, which happens to be right on the border. So let’s bulldoze it and build a wall there.
Dang critters–let 'em move somewhere else if they don’t like the wall. Why do monarch butterflies hate America?
We’re a democratic republic, not a monarchy.
All functional walls ever do one thing, slow people down, hopefully enough to catch them or whatever your intention is.
Same for castles, same for houses, same for military bases and FOBs.
The Berlin Wall worked because the wall made the patrols and guns effective. It wouldn’t have worked if it were merely patrols and guns.
If you look at current border fence sections they are much the same as pre fourth gen Berlin Wall.
Fence, razor wire,. No man’s land, another fence.
Yes it was only 90 miles long but ut also went up essentially overnight in it’s early versions.
Of course slapping up a wall and abandoning it is innefective. You have to patrol it too.
These days that could consist of mostly monitored cameras, but it would make it very easy to slow people down enough to catch them.
Whether or not a wall is a solution, idk it’s beyond me really. I’m not in touch with the immigration
system enough to know.
Im not saying anything about it being right or wrong, just that the history of it’s successful use is well documented. Rarely does anyone really win.
So we’re still hewing to “The Berlin Wall was awesome” as an argumentative position, then.
Hell, idk its even beneficial to stop or slow immigration or whether it should be more encouraged, I just know that physical barriers slow people down and let you secure an area far more effectively.
Idk about awesome, but extremely effective for certain.
As most defended walls have been throughout oh, all of recorded history.
Walls work, or we simply wouldn’t use them.
The system behind defending a wall is really about it’s only weakness, barring you know, flight and very heavy weaponry.
The entire Lower Rio Grande is intensely biodiverse, home to seventeen endangered species. Nature tourism is a large driver of the area economy.
Turns out it’s richer and more accessible than I knew. I think I’ll plan a trip.
Out of genuine curiousity, what impact would a wall have on monarch butterfly migration if any?
I get this sanctuary is more like land or trees or what have you that they likely rest in so I could see the impact there. Anything beyond that though?
I mean my immediate thought is no, but maybe I’m overlooking something there.
By “most defended” you of course mean “heavily manned by thousands of people willing to murder people for trespassing”.
If you don’t have that, you don’t have an effective border wall.
Of course, there’s one other huge problem with this moronic border wall concept - its a Maginot Line. Which is to say it’s a big fancy wall that doesn’t stop anything because it’s easy to go around it.
Not just over the water - though that’s also a problem the Berlin wall didn’t face. The route which most illegals use to gain entry to american soil is overstaying their visas. No wall can possibly stop or even slightly impede that - even a wall that’s gloriously steeped in murder, tyranny, and millions of dollars of ongoing expense.
Read the cite.
It doesn’t say, other than the volume of butterfly’s not living there would be proportionate to the amount of acreage in the swath that would cross through it.
Most defended walls as in the majority of.
And having to travel to the coast to attempt to take a water route is quite an impediment.
And no it doesn’t take people willing to kill on site.
It takes people in this case to go aprehend anyone attempting to cross it. The more elaborate, the longer they have to go catch them. Physical barriers cut down tremendously on the amount of manpower required to secure an area. Imagine trying to keep a prison under control In an open field.
Whether a wall is an effective tool or not is not a question in my mind.
My question is how pertinent is doing the job?
What are the pros and cons of having a defended southern border?
Agreed, it does absolutely nothing to prevent overstaying a visa, which I imagine it takes at least some sort of background check to get in the first place, so at least people who overstay a visa are likely not any more dangerous than the general population.
I think an easier employer sponsorship program like the guy brought up about Spain is probably a good tool.
I believe we thrive on immigrants who come here to work.
“Mister Trump, don’t build this wall!”
Lol, mr. Gorbetrump 
When you say “defended southern border” I can’t help but read that as “defended from actual threats”. Which means that to me what you’re asking is, “What are the odds that Mexico will send its national military as an attacking/invading force?”
I’m thinking the odds of that are low, but who knows? Maybe Trump’ll nuke them or something.
Literally every reliable source I’ve heard (which doesn’t include racist cockwaffles) has informed me that illegal aliens are, consistently, less dangerous than the general population. This would be because if they get arrested the consequences are much harsher, simply because losing your life and home is a tragedy, and losing it for your entire family is worse. Illegal immigrants, by and large, are on their best behavior.
If we were actually worried about the immigrants being dangerous we’d close off all legal immigration and then try to encourage them all to come here illegally, as an oppressed and dehumanized underclass. Of course nobody in any position of power is actually worried about immigrants being dangerous - no matter what they say to the contrary.
I think that america is absolutely reliant on immigrants from Mexico. Our agriculture industry has always been dependent on cheap manpower, and it has never been able to draw that manpower from its longtime residents.
That first part quite exaggerated, I’m unconvinced there’s a threat is what I’m trying to say.
The rest makes sense.
I’d say if anything I lean well towards making legal immigration easier.
As the wall goes, idk… But my main point here is if you’re against it, I think the best argument might be it’s just not needed.
Environmental might be a good argument, but I haven’t seen any stronger arguments than the usual ones against any kind of development on that front.
Not an effective tool is a very poor argument IMO.
Like alcohol for instance though, if the government wants to control it, best bet is make it accessible and create enforcement at the same time.
So assuming we want to have some kind of immigration control how do we best enforce and how do we best give access are the questions I would be asking.
America is reliant on cheap labor in general, not just from Mexico, but that’s another point I tried to make clear in another thread.