The Wall: poll

[jamil]

Thee open boarders voters, if they're serious, are quite foolish. A welfare state cannot have open boarders and not implode. The result of which won't resemble anything like a democratic republic.

 

[bwframe]

How different is this audience than the national audience?

Of course when you get into the sanctuary city crowd, where the news (and polls) is generated then you get a different story. No mention of the fact that a lot of that same crowd is supported by the bulk of us tax payers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How different is this audience than the national audience?

Of course when you get into the sanctuary city crowd, where the news (and polls) is generated then you get a different story. No mention of the fact that a lot of that same crowd is supported by the bulk of us tax payers.

at 87% wanting a wall, I'd say VERY different.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I understand that some people don't want to give up the land for the wall, there are stories all the time of ranches that border Mexico or nearby people are terrified and frequently threatened or assaulted. This would go along way towards improving that.

 

[churchmouse]

Thee open boarders voters, if they're serious, are quite foolish. A welfare state cannot have open boarders and not implode. The result of which won't resemble anything like a democratic republic.

In serious conversation with some of the snowflakes you mention I am beginning to believe this is the goal they have in mind.
I can not wrap my head around that at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I understand that some people don't want to give up the land for the wall, there are stories all the time of ranches that border Mexico or nearby people are terrified and frequently threatened or assaulted. This would go along way towards improving that.

Yeah, and they were big proponents of the wall, until some of them were told that it bisect their property... then not so much. I personally think that if the govt wants to run a wall through your property, they kinda need to ask first. If you they don't agree, then you have to put it on the "official border."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It turned out exactly the way I thought it would. I'm more surprised that 4 people voted for open borders.

Kut (knows the audience)

It doesn't take a Phd in sociology to predict how this might turn out. I would guess that if there were an INNGOs (non gun owners), the results would have skewed a similar amount towards 'no wall' type results. We have a number of libertarians, so I'm surprised there aren't a few more that clicked for open boarders -- as that's one of their schticks.

 

[Thor]

More border enforcement...I don't care if it's a wall or not. More internal enforcement, if you're here illegally identity fraud is just the start and you need to go to where your identity isn't a fraud.

 

[KLB]

so it's ok to take land from people for interstates and like and not to secure the boarder?

Excellent question. I am mostly opposed to the use of eminent domain, so mostly I would say no.

At least an interstate would be benefit travel and can bring benefits to those near one.

 

[KLB]

More border enforcement...I don't care if it's a wall or not. More internal enforcement, if you're here illegally identity fraud is just the start and you need to go to where your identity isn't a fraud.

How would that enforcement take place? More checkpoints or just booting out those we find?

 

[KLB]

I don't disagree entirely but i don't see too many pieces of property small enough to be severly impacted. True there are some but for the larger ones (ranches, farms, whatever) the reduction in losses/damage could be offset by the loss of land. I would also be willing bet that most don't use the land very close to the border anyway.

Which part of the border are you referring to? I bet that those along the Rio Grande use it all the time for access to water.

 

[KLB]

I think strategic uses are beneficial but you can't stop those determined to come in. Instead, if we minimize (and eliminate, if possible) the perceived rewards for them risking their lives to get here and make it easier to do it legally, a wall will become less and less necessary.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GodFearinGunTotin again.

This is the best answer for the problem.

 

[edporch]

Going back to the Reagan Administration when there was an agreement for a one time amnesty coupled with securing the border.

The amnesty was implemented, but the border has yet to be secured.

It's high time the border is secured and we have control over who's coming into this country, NO MATTER their race, ethnicity or country of origin.

 

[Thor]

How would that enforcement take place? More checkpoints or just booting out those we find?

Yes. E-verify, investigate duplicate SocSec #'s, if we just start enforcing (and we have finally) existing law it will sort itself out. Add some more border security surveillance, terrestrial or airborne, there are a lot of things we can and should do to protect the country from illegal entry, much of it quicker to implement than building a physical wall.

To start with when a middle aged person is pulled over and found to be driving having never received a license...at least ask ICE the question.

 

[Twangbanger]

It's a great album. I went back and listened to it all the way through this summer, when my kid suddenly got interested in Pink Floyd

 

[Libertarian01]

well. Okay. So how many ****s to you give? Maybe you can go with that one.

It's not that I give or don't give a couple of ****s, it's just that I don't know a good answer to this one. I do give a ***t.

As others have said, and even I have argued in the past, the issue isn't the border so much as the welfare state that WE have created. But even if I go with that being a the heavy end of the issue, the fact remains that every nation has a responsibility to secure its own borders.

With that in mind the purpose of the wall is to secure our borders against mostly Latino's entering our country illegally to get jobs illegally and use the welfare state. But I don't know how much the wall will really do to accomplish this mission. All a foreigner has to do is take a boat from Mexico to Texas. Or legally fly into Canada to Vancouver or Winnipeg or Toronto and cross illegally from the north. Or just buy a plane ticket legally to Indianapolis as a tourist and not go home. What stops that?

At the same time we have to start somewhere and the southern border, while huge, is still our smallest and easiest to block. And we do have to start somewhere. When we look at our unfunded liabilities, or national debt, our skyrocketing cost of health care, etc we DO need to limit all excess costs and liabilities. I just don't know if the wall would be a good ROI on this issue.

Thus, I abstain.

Regards,

Doug

 

[bwframe]

...Kut (knows the audience)

How different is this audience than the national audience? ...

at 87% wanting a wall, I'd say VERY different.

But you have a well documented bias, as well a record of exaggeration (87%???). Maybe what you'd say is VERY different from that of middle America?

------------------------

The 80%ish figure may be a bit skewed with mostly an absence of anti-gunners in this forum. However, looking at the polling figures that we've had pushed down our throats for recent years that have been proven wrong, well...

 

[Kutnupe14]

But you have a well documented bias, as well a record of exaggeration (87%???). Maybe what you'd say is VERY different from that of middle America?

Lol, wut? I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, nor how whatever biases I may have discount what was stated earlier. It's pretty much common sense.

 

[indiucky]

Lol, wut? I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, nor how whatever biases I may have.

Zima, Latin women, and thongs.....You are very open about your biases Kut....Quit playing innocent....

 

[Kutnupe14]

Zima (with jolly ranchers), shapely Latin women, and sequined thongs.....You are very open about your biases Kut....Quit playing innocent....

clarified. lol