Aside from The Wall, how can anyone rationally oppose the major tenets of Trump's border security recommendations? (deported, 9/11)
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.
I disagree. The property rights of the landowners in Texas, the damage to communities takes precedence, and the myth of terrorists pouring across from Mexico is a bunch of bunk.
Name a single government project that came in close to budget. If they're saying the wall is going to be $25B, you know the bill is going to be at least double if not more. Especially once all the grifters making the damn thing start sucking at that teat. I still say anything that can be completely defeated by a ladder is a poor investment.
Nothing should take presidence over our national security without it we have nothing. The damage to communities via illegal immigration is much higher than anything else you might claim. I never said that terrorists were pouring over our southern border but according to the former FBI Director those from known terrorist countries have been sneaking in here right along with Mexicans.
So what if it's not close to budget? What price do you want to put on our national and economic security? We waste billions on useless wars protecting other countries on their soil. Seems more important to protect our own borders. How many times do I have to repeat that there has been no evidence that anyone was able to climb over the good double walls before you stop repeating yourself?
I'm done with your nonsense. Kindly ignore my posts and stop replying to me. Thanks.
What is a fact is that most border patrol agents - the folks on the ground with firsthand experience - are in favor of a wall and say that it will help them do their job more effectively. But you know better than they do about illegals crossing the border, right?
What you don't get is the wall is not intended to be an impenetrable barrier but an impediment that will discourage and/or slow down the crossings to allow border patrol to respond. It will be 20-25 feet high so it would take a significant ladder and then you have to get down without a ladder. Now given enough time and desperation even a prego might make their way up a three-story ladder and rappel down but the wall will have cameras so as soon as a ladder is spotted being leaned up against the wall, agents are on their way.
But the real reason we want a wall is because politics goes in cycles and there will eventually be a Democrat for President and "enforcement of existing laws" and beefing up of border agents can be suspended on a whim but a physical wall would remain.
The poster you are replying doesn't give a damn about the facts. That's the way these anti-wall people are. Note the reference to the "Trump cult" by these anti-wall people? That's kind of a tell all, isn't it? They weren't so outraged when congress passed the Secure Fence Act which was signed by Obama, Hillary and Joe Biden also. But because it's Trump that wants it built now suddenly they are outraged and use every lame excuse in the book not to build it.
If you're relying on cameras for ultimate enforcement against prehistoric technology, why not just put cameras and motion sensors and send the cavalry, why do you need the wall?
Because it significantly slows them down and allows time for agents to respond. Without a wall, a group of 50 can run up to a mile past the border and disappear into the terrain. With a wall, they have to climb and rappel down (this isn't like climbing over your 4' backyard fence) one at a time (or did they bring 50 25' ladders?).
Bottom line - agents on the border say that a wall would be effective and a powerful tool to assist them in border enforcement. Look, if a professional auto mechanic said that he needed a certain tool to more quickly and effectively repair cars, who are you as an accountant to argue with him?
If you're relying on cameras for ultimate enforcement against prehistoric technology, why not just put cameras and motion sensors and send the cavalry, why do you need the wall?
You really think we have the manpower to do that? If you think that, then you live in a fantasy world.
A few years back, our daughter and son-in-law went to a job fair held by the BP. The agent they talked to didn't mince words. If they were hired, they would be on the graveyard shift and be the only agent around for 70 miles. If they needed backup, it wouldn't be coming anytime soon.
And, yet once again --- when Bill Clinton was president, he had a wall built on the San Diego/Tijuana border. That wall has drastically cut down on illegal crossings and crime.
I have to wonder about the agenda of those who vehemently oppose a wall on the border. My guess is that such people want open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.
Of course, historically, most 'terrorists' that have inflicted harm on the United States have not come from the South of our border, but through airports. Witness, of course, those individuals (mainly Saudi) that came through a small airport to carry out the 911 attacks.
Of course, historically, most 'terrorists' that have inflicted harm on the United States have not come from the South of our border, but through airports. Witness, of course, those individuals (mainly Saudi) that came through a small airport to carry out the 911 attacks.
The article cites knowledgeable people that think this a bad idea. I tend to agree, although I am open to the other side of the argument.
The 9-11 terrorists came here on visas and their method of arrival is irrelevant. It can't be ignored that the FBI Director has said that those from known terrorist countries have snuck right in along with Mexicans via our southern border. Terrorists will use any method to get into our country and since our southern border is so porous that 11 million illegals managed to breach it that says a lot, doesn't it?
Yes, if the story is true (however it is CNN ) that is disturbing that screening might we eliminated at smaller airports. WTH is the TSA thinking?
Of course, historically, most 'terrorists' that have inflicted harm on the United States have not come from the South of our border, but through airports. Witness, of course, those individuals (mainly Saudi) that came through a small airport to carry out the 911 attacks.
The article cites knowledgeable people that think this a bad idea. I tend to agree, although I am open to the other side of the argument.
I have somewhere between 5 and 6 million miles on commercial airliners mostly before 9/11.
If the FAA would allow non TSA flights i know where I and every other knowledgeable flier would be.
And it would not be on the TSA side of the airport.
The rub is that the whole security apparatus vastly decreases the utility of the airplane. For instance we could do upstate NY to mid Manhattan in something like 2 hours door to door. Now 4 or 5 hours.
Less of a big deal on long hauls...but still we routinely made connections at Ohare in less than a half hour. They were not bookable but worked 75 or 80% of the time and you could often catch an upgrade on the long leg to LA.
So if you left it to the travelers TSA would go away...
I have a similar question for Trump's cult members. How can you support kidnapping young children away from their mothers and locking them up in cages and still call yourself human?
Yes, if the story is true (however it is CNN ) that is disturbing that screening might we eliminated at smaller airports. WTH is the TSA thinking?
We can agree to disagree on other topics, but on this we're aligned. It's the TSA clearly demonstrating that all their checks are is security theatre. Repeated investigations and testing by the IG has found ridiculous failure rates. There HAS to be a better way.
On a recent trans-pacific flight out last month, everyone was pre-check. Why? Big line. So no normal "security" checks, just push everyone through the scanner, and move on. Like so many things it's like we have to be seen to be doing something, even if it's expensive and worthless, just so there's action.
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.
