Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think there is a rational point of forgoing to wall construction and use those funds it simply invest in more boarder patrol and end up with a similar net effect at less cost? I think it's entirely possible seeing as how you have to increase the patrols even with the wall
Border Patrol agents want the wall. They say it would be effective. (Head Of Border Patrol Union Weighs In On Trump's Wall Plans : NPR) When the agency tasked with securing our borders tells you the resources and tools they need to effectively perform their tasks, you should listen to them. This administration is not going to be stalled or sidetracked by political correctness.
Border Patrol agents want the wall. They say it would be effective. (Head Of Border Patrol Union Weighs In On Trump's Wall Plans : NPR) When the agency tasked with securing our borders tells you the resources and tools they need to effectively perform their tasks, you should listen to them. This administration is not going to be stalled or sidetracked by political correctness.
You failed to address the question I asked
Do you even read the articles you link or do you just google a topic and copy/paste?
Quote:
JUDD: I don't think it's going to be - well, OK, it's going to be a lot more secure. But what we're talking about is we're talking about a wall in strategic locations. We're not talking about a great wall of the United States. We're not talking about a continuous wall from California down to Texas. We're talking about a wall in strategic locations which then helps the Border Patrol agents do their job better.
So now that you read what the man said are you okay with a wall in some areas? Or are you not going to listen to him? He goes on to say that he doesn't have specifics but suggest doubling the area that has walls from 15% of the boarder to 30%
3 out of 4 jobs lost in the last 20 years are due to automation & companies demanding more output from less employees, not illegals
Obama deported more than 2 million illegals, much more than any president before him, a fact acknowledged by Trump during the campaign.
Illegal immigrant numbers from Mexico have been falling since 2009
Engineers at MIT did a detailed breakdown of estimated wall costs, they estimate $27-40 billion. Mexico won't pay for it anymore than Americans will pay for Canada's national healthcare, we will pay through taxes or higher debt through bonds & higher costs on everything imported from our 3rd largest trading partner to cover fees & tariffs.
Mexico won't pay for the wall any more than Iraq paid for its war - "...oil revenues will pay for the war" - repeated by Bush/Cheney many times. The costs of the wars + their tax cut led to the Great Recession which reverberated worldwide & resulted here in massive job & home losses. Trump has also run on a platform of massive tax cuts for individuals & corporations while espousing this gigantic project, defense dept increased spending & a major national infrastructure overhaul. As in 2004 these numbers don't add up.
Do you even read the articles you link or do you just google a topic and copy/paste?
So now that you read what the man said are you okay with a wall in some areas? Or are you not going to listen to him? He goes on to say that he doesn't have specifics but suggest doubling the area that has walls from 15% of the boarder to 30%
Your question was answered. You asked if a better use of the money would be to just increase border patrol resources to gain a similar net effect. And the answer was in providing links to Border Patrol saying they needed the wall so the answer is clearly no. Border Patrol doesn't think simply adding agents will achive a similar net effect. Since the wall allows you to better leverage your manpower it actually saves money over just adding more agents.
If you have seen interviews with Trump, he said it might be fences in some places. Quit trying to stir up the pot and create a division and a diversion. The wall is getting built. As DHS sec said, it will be built in the most needed places first.
3 out of 4 jobs lost in the last 20 years are due to automation & companies demanding more output from less employees, not illegals
Obama deported more than 2 million illegals, much more than any president before him, a fact acknowledged by Trump during the campaign.
Illegal immigrant numbers from Mexico have been falling since 2009
Engineers at MIT did a detailed breakdown of estimated wall costs, they estimate $27-40 billion. Mexico won't pay for it anymore than Americans will pay for Canada's national healthcare, we will pay through taxes or higher debt through bonds & higher costs on everything imported from our 3rd largest trading partner to cover fees & tariffs.
Mexico won't pay for the wall any more than Iraq paid for its war - "...oil revenues will pay for the war" - repeated by Bush/Cheney many times. The costs of the wars + their tax cut led to the Great Recession which reverberated worldwide & resulted here in massive job & home losses. Trump has also run on a platform of massive tax cuts for individuals & corporations while espousing this gigantic project, defense dept increased spending & a major national infrastructure overhaul. As in 2004 these numbers don't add up.
Your question was answered. You asked if a better use of the money would be to just increase border patrol resources to gain a similar net effect. And the answer was in providing links to Border Patrol saying they needed the wall so the answer is clearly no. Border Patrol doesn't think simply adding agents will achive a similar net effect. Since the wall allows you to better leverage your manpower it actually saves money over just adding more agents.
If you have seen interviews with Trump, he said it might be fences in some places. Quit trying to stir up the pot and create a division and a diversion. The wall is getting built. As DHS sec said, it will be built in the most needed places first.
You didn't read the article. You didn't address my question either so your ability to debate is seriously coming into question. The union leader said they needed to double the existing fencing/wall to about 30% of the total boarder not a wall that covers the entire run. You need to read your sources before you use them to make an argument
You didn't read the article. You didn't address my question either so your ability to debate is seriously coming into question. The union leader said they needed to double the existing fencing/wall to about 30% of the total boarder not a wall that covers the entire run. You need to read your sources before you use them to make an argument
You're the one that didn't read for comprehension. He siad that is what he is thinking but he does not know the specifics. This isn't the guy in charge of building the wall. You realize that, right?
What do you think abou this statements that it's "going to be very effective" and allow agents to "do their job better"?
Where did I ever say anything about the wall covering the entire run or being a certain height? That's a strawman argument manufactured by you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
