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.
But if there was one, maybe we should do that instead?
This single sentence isn't some deep "we'll do what we have to do" thought. It's a cop out to avoid having a discussion. The issue of illegal immigration is a complex problem; the idea that a complex problem has a simple solution is rather silly. Let's think about this, 60% of illegal immigrants cross a border illegally, while another 40% cross legally, and overstay a visa. Even if the wall stops the entire 60%, which there's no reason to believe that it would, what of the 40%? And Trump can say he's going to deport 11 million people, but that's just kind of unrealistic. It's like wanting to get rid of guns or asking for another great lake. It's a fantasy that is just for too unlikely to come true.
Now, because points like this are often met with this idiotic criticism: so you're saying we should do nothing? And of course, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying maybe we should look for most cost effective solutions that can reasonably be attained and lead to overall better conditions for the future. This is not Donald Trump's plan. And frankly, I don't think it's Hillary's either, but at least hers is possible even if it's not a great plan going forward.
It would be more cost effective to declare war on Mexico if they don't stop their invading hordes from entering our country.
This is a foreign invasion by a hostile foreign neighbor. They should stop their aggression towards our nation or be retaliated against as harshly as possible.
Good God...
No. That would not be more cost effective. We'd ruin our trade relations with them, go into further debt, and have a military conflict happen on our border, which hasn't happened in an extremely long time, and the last time it happened, weapons of war were a lot less destructive. This would not be more cost effective than a wall.
And the idea that this is a hostile take over is equally stupid. Do you really think the Mexican government isn't stopping illegal immigration because they hate us? I mean, they may not like us, but isn't it more likely that they just don't know how to stop it. They can barely handle their own problems. Do you sincerely expect them to bend over backwards to fix one of ours? Think about what you're saying, possibly for the first time in your life. You're asking Mexico to put us first. Ignoring the fact that your selfish, why should they do that?
But if there was one, maybe we should do that instead?
This single sentence isn't some deep "we'll do what we have to do" thought. It's a cop out to avoid having a discussion. The issue of illegal immigration is a complex problem; the idea that a complex problem has a simple solution is rather silly. Let's think about this, 60% of illegal immigrants cross a border illegally, while another 40% cross legally, and overstay a visa. Even if the wall stops the entire 60%, which there's no reason to believe that it would, what of the 40%? And Trump can say he's going to deport 11 million people, but that's just kind of unrealistic. It's like wanting to get rid of guns or asking for another great lake. It's a fantasy that is just for too unlikely to come true.
Now, because points like this are often met with this idiotic criticism: so you're saying we should do nothing? And of course, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying maybe we should look for most cost effective solutions that can reasonably be attained and lead to overall better conditions for the future. This is not Donald Trump's plan. And frankly, I don't think it's Hillary's either, but at least hers is possible even if it's not a great plan going forward.
We have immigration laws that are not being enforced. Politicians get to make the choice of enforcing them.
Since a border wall won't have an up or down button, politicians can't choose whether or not to use it.
If our laws were being enforced, I wouldn't be calling for any walls; however, since our government CHOOSES to turn a blind eye, I want something that can't be ignored.
We have immigration laws that are not being enforced. Politicians get to make the choice of enforcing them.
Since a border wall won't have an up or down button, politicians can't choose whether or not to use it.
If our laws were being enforced, I wouldn't be calling for any walls; however, since our government CHOOSES to turn a blind eye, I want something that can't be ignored.
But isn't a better solution to just demand that the laws be enforced? That's possible and wouldn't actually cost that much, at least not for the public.
Interestingly enough, I was talking to my dad (a conservative) about various political issues not too long ago. He said he hates Trump. He thinks he's a joke for about the same reason most others do so I won't get into that. But he also sort of gets why people got there. They're sick of Republicans who say one thing, then do another. So is he. But he thinks the solution is to just expect more of them, not elect someone who has absolutely no credibility in this field.
Now, a point he made about another issue I think would apply here. He was saying that everyone wants to make new national laws for literally everything, when that might not be the smarted decision. He was talking about the housing crisis that is alive and well in New York and New Jersey and how people form those states want national laws, but California did enough to their housing problem on their own. Why make the federal government bigger when that's not the solution that will work best.
So, same principle, why expend the energy on a wall when there are already systems in place designed to prevent illegal immigration? Why make new laws when we already have them? And how can someone running as a conservative reconcile supporting these things with also representing a party that at least claims to believe in small government and fixing the debt problem? The wall will be expensive, will likely take time (and due to inflation, most likely exceed the initial expected cost after a few years), require maintenance, and require something that is almost criminally under talked about: eminent domain. The government does not have the right to build on every part of the border. There are things already on it. People's homes and businesses will have to be forcibly purchased by the government or the wall will have to not be on the border, neither of which people are going to accept, especially those who believe in small government and conservative values because neither of those two things come close to representing those values.
But isn't a better solution to just demand that the laws be enforced? That's possible and wouldn't actually cost that much, at least not for the public.
We've been demanding it for decades, and we've been ignored for decades.
BTW, I think Trump is a joke and I'm not voting for him. I agree with a few things he says, but I'm not convinced he agrees with anything he says.
Will he be better than Hildabeast? Probably, but just because being punched in the nose three times is better than being punched in the nose five times doesn't mean I'll run out and ask for three punches.
Once they enforce the laws, I'll stop calling for a wall.
We were promised they'd enforce immigration laws when they gave immunity to the illegals during Reagans administration, and did they make good on it? NO!!!
Interestingly enough, I was talking to my dad (a conservative) about various political issues not too long ago. He said he hates Trump. He thinks he's a joke for about the same reason most others do so I won't get into that. But he also sort of gets why people got there. They're sick of Republicans who say one thing, then do another. So is he. But he thinks the solution is to just expect more of them, not elect someone who has absolutely no credibility in this field.
.
This is the ultimate in continuing with the same crap and expecting a different result.
Expect more of them?
Good God!
Get rid of them. ALL of them. Both Rs and Ds. They are a truly worthless bunch who are in it for the money. It's part of their indoctrination upon first being elected: Play or we cut off your state's funding.
I thought everybody knew that. I was wrong.
GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND START OVER!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Anybody who argues that fence is about privacy has never actually seen it.
That fence is about security - keeping people out.
Exactly. It's about protecting what's important to him.
Those who don't want to protect America just plain don't consider America important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
BTW, I think Trump is a joke and I'm not voting for him. I agree with a few things he says, but I'm not convinced he agrees with anything he says.
Unfortunately, voting for Trump is the only way to keep Hideous Hillary out.
We've been demanding it for decades, and we've been ignored for decades.
BTW, I think Trump is a joke and I'm not voting for him. I agree with a few things he says, but I'm not convinced he agrees with anything he says.
Will he be better than Hildabeast? Probably, but just because being punched in the nose three times is better than being punched in the nose five times doesn't mean I'll run out and ask for three punches.
Once they enforce the laws, I'll stop calling for a wall.
We were promised they'd enforce immigration laws when they gave immunity to the illegals during Reagans administration, and did they make good on it? NO!!!
So you main argument for the wall is that current immigration laws are not being enforced.
So for the moment let's ignore the problems associated with building a wall. Such as
Exorbinant cost
Amount of time to contruct it
Roads that need to be built before the wall can be constructed. These roads would need to be secured or you are making entry easier.
Yet studied environmental impacts to things like farmland
Economic impact to land use and water access.
The wall covers four states. This would again be a situation of the Feds dictating to the states.
Use of eminent domain.
The amount of steel and concrete needed and what that would mean to all other construction in the U.S.
Now, let's say the wall is built. It will be useless with out security. That means cameras or satellites plus boots on the ground. Then there is on-going repair of the wall. This is in the desert that experiences terrific temperature variances. So if the government ignores current immigration laws, as you say, then what stops then from funding the ongoing maintenance of the wall to make it effective?
So you main argument for the wall is that current immigration laws are not being enforced.
So for the moment let's ignore the problems associated with building a wall. Such as
Exorbinant cost
Amount of time to contruct it
Roads that need to be built before the wall can be constructed. These roads would need to be secured or you are making entry easier.
Yet studied environmental impacts to things like farmland
Economic impact to land use and water access.
The wall covers four states. This would again be a situation of the Feds dictating to the states.
Use of eminent domain.
The amount of steel and concrete needed and what that would mean to all other construction in the U.S.
Now, let's say the wall is built. It will be useless with out security. That means cameras or satellites plus boots on the ground. Then there is on-going repair of the wall. This is in the desert that experiences terrific temperature variances. So if the government ignores current immigration laws, as you say, then what stops then from funding the ongoing maintenance of the wall to make it effective?
This is very easy.
Yes, a wall needs to be built because it's the only form of illegal immigration control that can't be ignored by our government.
We don't need a wall across the entire border. We just need it in the areas which are easy to get to population and/or transportation quickly.
Areas that require a day or more of hiking to get out of the "wilderness" only require a few helicopter passes to find crossers and direct border control to the location.
As far as building costs, much of that will be offset by the costs we pay for all the money spent on illegals.
As far as maintenance costs and boots on the ground, close foreign military bases and use that maintenance money and those troops.
Yeah, it really is that simple.
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.
