Shut her down boys, shut her down.

[Hatin Since 87]

It's a waste of money. Most illegals come here legally. An unmanned, unmonitored wall (cause CBP doesn't have nearly enough manpower), is nothing more than a speedbump on your way to gaining entry into the United States. The money would be better spent aggressively prosecuting people that entice, and hire illegals.

I agree with your stance on punishing the employers of illegal immigrants. That would de-incentivize the desire to come to America illegally. But... without a wall it is pointless. Yes, people here on a visa overstay their visit, but at least we have an idea of who those people are. Allowing open boarders allows anybody to come across freely, and by doing so there is no way to tell who has come across. A wall is very much needed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree with your stance on punishing the employers of illegal immigrants. That would de-incentivize the desire to come to America illegally. But... without a wall it is pointless. Yes, people here on a visa overstay their visit, but at least we have an idea of who those people are. Allowing open boarders allows anybody to come across freely, and by doing so there is no way to tell who has come across. A wall is very much needed.

Disagreeing with having a wall does not default to agreeing with open borders. MMP mentioned better staffing for CBP. I think thats a good idea. We have drones in the mid-East that fly round the clock, let's get some of those, too. There is better tech than a wall, that would be more efficient.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Disagreeing with having a wall does not default to agreeing with open borders. MMP mentioned better staffing for CBP. I think thats a good idea. We have drones in the mid-East that fly round the clock, let's get some of those, too. There is better tech than a wall, that would be more efficient.

I agree with all of that actually, but a wall is a one time expense. Those drones and CBP staff is a continuous fee. I don’t think there is going to be a sure way to completely stop illegal immigration, but a wall would be a huge deterrent when combined with punishing employers who hire them.

 

[2A_Tom]

Disagreeing with having a wall does not default to agreeing with open borders. MMP mentioned better staffing for CBP. I think thats a good idea. We have drones in the mid-East that fly round the clock, let's get some of those, too. There is better tech than a wall, that would be more efficient.

Wall, a help tp CBP and a one time cost + maintenance part of border security.

Extra CBP an ongoing cost forever, not to mention they want a border wall to help them.

Drones an ongoing cost for drones, maintenance, fuel, 3 shifts of operators, + + +, and what could go wrong.

Wow, surveillance drones in America, that is a great idea! What could go wrong?

Your reply: They are already here.

I repeat, what could go wrong?

 

[KG1]

I wonder how many CBP people on the front lines think that a properly constructed strategic border barrier would'nt help them?

 

[PaulF]

D'Accord

The call for a perfect or for a 'more' perfect solution is actually a call for delay in addressing the problem. Cost benefit analysis is simply another canard. Politicians who are willing to waste billions and do irreparable harm to our economy just to virtue signal on 'climate change' are not interested in efficiency, they're interested in pandering

If a simple engineering challenge like building a wall sets the stage for this level of battle, what chance do we think structural changes in birthright citizenship or deterring drug importation or guest worker programs have of surviving or being enacted? In light of a rational analysis of the chances of that, Paul, what would you expect the likely outcome to be? And by advocating not doing something possible because (IYO) it would be a waste of money, are you not advocating for the outcome of doing nothing?

Additionally, do I detect the old 'legalize it' mantra embedded in your point about defunding the cartels? I'm not sure I can envision you advocating government action to further discourage the use of drugs. Do people really think of this fight solely as more leverage to get their weed, rather than something existential to the survival of America as we know and/or envision it?

So, there's a bit I want to unpack in your response that I think speaks to how large a problem we actually face with this issue (and, potentially, others broadly).

I don't see how calling for an evidence-based response is a delay tactic, per se. I can see how it might be used that way, but I think that assumes a level of cynicism in the process. You and I (I think) honestly disagree on the potential benefits of a border wall. I'm not against the border wall because you are a political opponent of mine, I am against the wall because I think there are more effective options available to us. We don't just need to do something...we need to do the right thing...or more likely, a comprehensive set of things.

I don't think the right thing is necessarily going to be easy to identify or implement, and I think that speaks to your second set of points. Nobody is arguing that the US lacks the engineering ability to build a border wall. Informed people have differing views about the effects of the wall, and i think that is the argument that is holding up the process. I'm not sure we need structural changes to birthright citizenship, I'm not convinced enforcement action can have much effect on the flow of drugs, and guest worker reform is a monumental task of itself...these are all valid conversations that need to be worked through to determine the actual needs involved with this issue. Before we can agree on a solution, we have to agree on the problem. I don't think that you and I have gotten through that yet, and I think that holds true in the broader conversation, too.

Im certainly not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating taking a clear-headed and reasoned approach to issues where they can be identified. We can take action at the border. We can take action against visa overstays. We can take action to change the supply/demand dynamic of the drug and human trafficking trades. Five billion dollars builds a little bit of wall, or it hires a bunch of people...people that can easily be repositioned to face a dynamic threat. I am for using the money in the most effective way, and I don't think we have necessarily identified that yet.

Is the war on drugs the sole reason I'm opposed to the wall? No. Do I think it is one of the larger contributing factors to this mess? Yes...but there are several others that require attention as well, and some that take more priority (in my opinion).

Something existential for the survival of America as we know and/or envision it? "We" are an awfully big group, with awfully disparate views. Your vision of America may be disgusting to other people, and their's disgusting to you...but everybody has a right to advocate for their own desired outcome.

I forgot to address the “private prisons” nonsense. C’m Man. That’s ideological rhetoric. They had prison overcrowding long before we had privatized prisons. We had a drug war long befor that too. Private prisons did not create the current situation. It’s the other way around. You have your cause/effect backwards it seems.

I do have an ideological issue with private prisons, but this goes beyond that.

This isn't zero-sum. Sure, overcrowded prisons and the war on drugs both existed before our current set of issues, but that ignores the damage being done currently by the private prison industry. We now have a powerful commercial lobby that actively seeks to incarcerate an ever greater portion of our population, and I don't think it can be sincerely argued that has no negative effect on the greater equation.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

The Gov't spends 40 billion(low estimate) a year on foreign aid,and probably half of that going to 3rd world corrupt gov'ts. Trump is pushing a wall for the U.S. and everyone is concerned about being good stewards with our money.This is comical.

 

[indyjs]

I am all for private prisons. Put them in other countries (venezuela) and pay them to house the foreign nationals that are currently in our prisons. If we find them back in our country, all aid cut off. Now we have room for the border jumpers

 

[BugI02]

So, there's a bit I want to unpack in your response that I think speaks to how large a problem we actually face with this issue (and, potentially, others broadly).

I don't see how calling for an evidence-based response is a delay tactic, per se. I can see how it might be used that way, but I think that assumes a level of cynicism in the process. You and I (I think) honestly disagree on the potential benefits of a border wall. I'm not against the border wall because you are a political opponent of mine, I am against the wall because I think there are more effective options available to us. We don't just need to do something...we need to do the right thing...or more likely, a comprehensive set of things.

I don't think the right thing is necessarily going to be easy to identify or implement, and I think that speaks to your second set of points. Nobody is arguing that the US lacks the engineering ability to build a border wall. Informed people have differing views about the effects of the wall, and i think that is the argument that is holding up the process. I'm not sure we need structural changes to birthright citizenship, I'm not convinced enforcement action can have much effect on the flow of drugs, and guest worker reform is a monumental task of itself...these are all valid conversations that need to be worked through to determine the actual needs involved with this issue. Before we can agree on a solution, we have to agree on the problem. I don't think that you and I have gotten through that yet, and I think that holds true in the broader conversation, too.

Im certainly not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating taking a clear-headed and reasoned approach to issues where they can be identified. We can take action at the border. We can take action against visa overstays. We can take action to change the supply/demand dynamic of the drug and human trafficking trades. Five billion dollars builds a little bit of wall, or it hires a bunch of people...people that can easily be repositioned to face a dynamic threat. I am for using the money in the most effective way, and I don't think we have necessarily identified that yet.

Is the war on drugs the sole reason I'm opposed to the wall? No. Do I think it is one of the larger contributing factors to this mess? Yes...but there are several others that require attention as well, and some that take more priority (in my opinion).

Something existential for the survival of America as we know and/or envision it? "We" are an awfully big group, with awfully disparate views. Your vision of America may be disgusting to other people, and their's disgusting to you...but everybody has a right to advocate for their own desired outcome.




I do have an ideological issue with private prisons, but this goes beyond that.

This isn't zero-sum. Sure, overcrowded prisons and the war on drugs both existed before our current set of issues, but that ignores the damage being done currently by the private prison industry. We now have a powerful commercial lobby that actively seeks to incarcerate an ever greater portion of our population, and I don't think it can be sincerely argued that has no negative effect on the greater equation.

Paul, I can't tell the difference between what you propose and setting up a 'blue ribbon' committee to study the problem, both result in nothing being done now and maybe not ever

Perhaps you can see what I'm getting at if we take a hypothetical about budgeting. If the president (doesn't have to be Trump, necessarily) had the ability cut the annual budget 10% across the board, perhaps via a line item veto; I would argue that what he can do right now he should do right now - begin tackling the problem ASAP. To me, your argument is like someone saying we should not use the line item veto (which would be within that president's power) and instead pursue a balanced budget amendment. Knowing that such a solution to the problem would require enormously complex changes, including amending the constitution, and the ability to effect the indicated changes is far from certain - the practical result of advocating such a path is indistinguishable from doing nothing, and there are many people in politics who would advocate such a course because it would seem like they were doing something while things would not need to change at all. That is how calling for further study can be a de facto delaying tactic

This very idea is why I quoted these gentlemen earlier. They knew how the paralysis of optimization functions

'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough' - Sergey Gorshkov


"Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." - Sir Robert Watson-Watt

 

[mmpsteve]

The Gov't spends 40 billion(low estimate) a year on foreign aid,and probably half of that going to 3rd world corrupt gov'ts. Trump is pushing a wall for the U.S. and everyone is concerned about being good stewards with our money.This is comical.

I've seen a lot of garbage on this thread, so I'll spell it out; Is there anybody, I'll say it again; ANY SINGLE BODY, that does not believe, with our advanced technology, that we cannot curtail physical encroachment of our borders, given the desire to do so? I've seen a lot of fiscal mumbojumbo, but we are the most advanced technology in the world. We can see an ant banging another ant from 200 miles out in space. I propose spending just a couple billions on A10 Warthogs to end this fiasco. Wanna come at us, then pay the price. And now it's time for the Wild Turkey. God Bless you all, and Happy Holidays.

.

 

[flightsimmer]

I saw on the news last night where a couple of Chinese nationals flew over the Mexican boarder in an ultralight aircraft and they were apprehended.
Now why would they have to do that and for what reason, the news report didn't say because it was too early in the investigation.
Maybe they were probing our air defence system, you suppose?

 

[flightsimmer]

A thought occurred to me last night, what if President Trump doesn't sign anymore legislation involving money for the next two years, or, maybe none at all?
Maybe then we might get bipartisan action to override him.

 

[PaulF]

Paul, I can't tell the difference between what you propose and setting up a 'blue ribbon' committee to study the problem, both result in nothing being done now and maybe not ever

Perhaps you can see what I'm getting at if we take a hypothetical about budgeting. If the president (doesn't have to be Trump, necessarily) had the ability cut the annual budget 10% across the board, perhaps via a line item veto; I would argue that what he can do right now he should do right now - begin tackling the problem ASAP. To me, your argument is like someone saying we should not use the line item veto (which would be within that president's power) and instead pursue a balanced budget amendment. Knowing that such a solution to the problem would require enormously complex changes, including amending the constitution, and the ability to effect the indicated changes is far from certain - the practical result of advocating such a path is indistinguishable from doing nothing, and there are many people in politics who would advocate such a course because it would seem like they were doing something while things would not need to change at all. That is how calling for further study can be a de facto delaying tactic

This very idea is why I quoted these gentlemen earlier. They knew how the paralysis of optimization functions

'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough' - Sergey Gorshkov


"Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." - Sir Robert Watson-Watt

First, I don't disagree with your assessment. I was only trying in my own way to highlight how big the problem really is...regardless were we stand politically.

But, to carry out our discussion a bit further, it appears to me that sets us up into a catch 22, or a snake eating its own tail.

Is it better to take some action now, without studying the potential effects...

...or...


Is it better to study the situation now, possibly missing the window in which action might have been effective?

If that's an accurate summary of the situation, I think it's clear that I'd prefer a government that studies a problem even if it results in missing its opportunity to act. It looks to me like you might feel it is better in this scenario to allow the government to take action immediately and assess the outcome along the way, even if that action ultimately proves to be reckless or counter-productive in the long run.

I'm not looking to solve this issue between us, and I'm not looking to argue you into submission, but I want to make it clear that I understand your position and that I don't think it's unreasonable...I just don't view things that way myself.

 

[BugI02]

First, I don't disagree with you, I was only trying to highlight how big the problem really is...regardless were we stand politically.

But, to carry out our discussion a bit further, it appears to me that sets us up into a catch 22, or a snake eating its own tail.

Is it better to take some action now, without studying the potential effects...

...or...


Is it better to study the situation now, possibly missing the window in which action might have been effective?

If that's an accurate summary of the situation, I think it's clear that I'd prefer a government that studies a problem even if it results in missing its opportunity to act. It looks to me like you might feel it is better in this scenario to allow the government to take action immediately and assess the outcome along the way, even if that action ultimately proves to be reckless or counter-productive in the long run.

I'm not looking to solve this issue between us, and I'm not looking to argue you into submission, but I want to make it clear that I understand your position and that I don't think it's unreasonable...I just don't view things that way myself.

I also can appreciate your point of view, but I think you present a bit of a false choice. The fact that we haven't studied a particular wall in this particular circumstance does not imply the question of a wall has not been studied. There have been a number of prototype wall designs studied recently so information on their potential effectiveness is available. There is data available from allies such as Israel on real world experience with a wall controlling immigration and smuggling and there is some data available from the initial attempts to place a wall along stretches of the border from San Diego in 1990 to the Secure Fence Act in 2006. I believe we have enough data to proceed in a non-reckless, productive manner.

 

[mmpsteve]

So, there's a bit I want to unpack in your response that I think speaks to how large a problem we actually face with this issue (and, potentially, others broadly).

I don't see how calling for an evidence-based response is a delay tactic, per se. I can see how it might be used that way, but I think that assumes a level of cynicism in the process. You and I (I think) honestly disagree on the potential benefits of a border wall. I'm not against the border wall because you are a political opponent of mine, I am against the wall because I think there are more effective options available to us. We don't just need to do something...we need to do the right thing...or more likely, a comprehensive set of things.

I don't think the right thing is necessarily going to be easy to identify or implement, and I think that speaks to your second set of points. Nobody is arguing that the US lacks the engineering ability to build a border wall. Informed people have differing views about the effects of the wall, and i think that is the argument that is holding up the process. I'm not sure we need structural changes to birthright citizenship, I'm not convinced enforcement action can have much effect on the flow of drugs, and guest worker reform is a monumental task of itself...these are all valid conversations that need to be worked through to determine the actual needs involved with this issue. Before we can agree on a solution, we have to agree on the problem. I don't think that you and I have gotten through that yet, and I think that holds true in the broader conversation, too.

Im certainly not advocating doing nothing. I'm advocating taking a clear-headed and reasoned approach to issues where they can be identified. We can take action at the border. We can take action against visa overstays. We can take action to change the supply/demand dynamic of the drug and human trafficking trades. Five billion dollars builds a little bit of wall, or it hires a bunch of people...people that can easily be repositioned to face a dynamic threat. I am for using the money in the most effective way, and I don't think we have necessarily identified that yet.

Is the war on drugs the sole reason I'm opposed to the wall? No. Do I think it is one of the larger contributing factors to this mess? Yes...but there are several others that require attention as well, and some that take more priority (in my opinion).

Something existential for the survival of America as we know and/or envision it? "We" are an awfully big group, with awfully disparate views. Your vision of America may be disgusting to other people, and their's disgusting to you...but everybody has a right to advocate for their own desired outcome.




I do have an ideological issue with private prisons, but this goes beyond that.

This isn't zero-sum. Sure, overcrowded prisons and the war on drugs both existed before our current set of issues, but that ignores the damage being done currently by the private prison industry. We now have a powerful commercial lobby that actively seeks to incarcerate an ever greater portion of our population, and I don't think it can be sincerely argued that has no negative effect on the greater equation.

Paul, you have some reasoned responses. I can tell you're an intelligent person, but; 1. Wrongly, many are argueing that the US lacks the engineering ability to build AN EFFECTIVE BORDER WALL. 2. the evidence would indicate, and most conservatives would support, that we need structural changes to birthright citizenship. Flopping across the border to deliver your baby to guarantee US citizenship goes against any moral belief held by most Americans I know. 3. Yes. We need to agree to stem the flow of illegals, before we can talk about how best to deal with the various issues. That is what Trump was elected on; stop the flow, then talk about the rest.

.

.

 

[bwframe]

...ANY SINGLE BODY, that does not believe, with our advanced technology, that we cannot curtail physical encroachment of our borders, given the desire to do so? I've seen a lot of fiscal mumbojumbo, but we are the most advanced technology in the world. We can see an ant banging another ant from 200 miles out in space. I propose spending just a couple billions on A10 Warthogs to end this fiasco...

That all works great until the open border crowd gets back into office. Then it's over with a stroke of the pen/flip of a switch...

.........................



The reason a big beautiful wall is so important is two-fold. First it's a big beautiful message to all who think they don't need to follow the law to enter our country, a message that will last. Second, it will be time consuming and point to the obvious neglect if the libs get elected and let the big beautiful wall go to hell.

Third (bonus point,) once it is built, the big beautiful wall will do its job and everyone on America will wonder why we let the loons talk us out of this for so many years.

Fourth, (nuther bonus point,) after the big beautiful wall is built it will set a precedence. It will be as hard for the big beautiful wall to be tore down as it was for us to build it.

Again the big beautiful wall is as much a lasting psychological barrier as it is a physical one.



.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That all works great until the open border crowd gets back into office. Then it's over with a stroke of the pen/flip of a switch...

.........................



The reason a big beautiful wall is so important is two-fold. First it's a big beautiful message to all who think they don't need to follow the law to enter our country, a message that will last. Second, it will be time consuming and point to the obvious neglect if the libs get elected and let the big beautiful wall go to hell.

Third (bonus point,) once it is built, the big beautiful wall will do its job and everyone on America will wonder why we let the loons talk us out of this for so many years.

Fourth, (nuther bonus point,) after the big beautiful wall is built it will set a precedence. It will be as hard for the big beautiful wall to be tore down as it was for us to build it.

Again the big beautiful wall is as much a lasting psychological barrier as it is a physical one.



.

.."Back into office?" When was the open borders crowd ever in office?

 

[mmpsteve]

.."Back into office?" When was the open borders crowd ever in office?

Surely you jest ... And assuming you do jest, I'm starting to understand why some speak so highly of you.

But to each their own; I'm having a Turkey shot in your honor. Merry Christmas , Sir.

.

 

[2A_Tom]

And others do not bother responding most of the time.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

.."Back into office?" When was the open borders crowd ever in office?

I think you're splitting hairs. Several Dems (in office) are for abolishing ICE, which in effect would open our borders by removing the teeth from immigration law.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html