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.
Read for Comprehension. It would keep a high percentage of illegal entrants out, as it did last month in Tijuana. Democrats have no grounds to be talking about effective use of taxpayer money.
A wall did not keep them out because there is no wall.
Notice that I said deterred. Deterrence is the best defense. The best way to defend the border is to not have the border attacked. The majority of the migrants did not attempt to rush the border. The 1000 that did was a test run. If we had shown any weakness or reluctance or inability to stop them, we would have had 6000 rushing the border over the next week. By repelling the vast majority of them even if it meant using tear gas, we sent a loud message to all the migrants that we have the ability and will to stop them. By having a strong wall as a deterrent, I think there will be fewer people trying to illegally cross.
I agree with you about deterrence, but a wall is a stupid expensive substitute for mandatory e-verify and prison sentences for employers who hire illegals.
When that number is in the hundreds of thousands, yes.
Thing is, we know how many overstay because we have records of entry and no records of departures, but we don't really know how many illegally enter. It is an estimate extrapolated from number of apprehensions.
And how many will just find an alternative way in? How many highly motivated immigrants will defeat a wall?
Walls have never worked to keep people from crossing borders. This one wouldn't either. Fortunately, it will never be built.
I agree with you about deterrence, but a wall is a stupid expensive substitute for mandatory e-verify and prison sentences for employers who hire illegals.
How effective is this new border wall? On Sunday, when a violent mob of 1,000 people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the wall to be very effective.
Absolute numbers are more relevant to you because you don't want to admit the validity of my argument, but your opinion does not make it true.
Your argument has no validity. In determining whether a policy attracts illegals you count the number of illegals not the ratio of illegals to residents. It's like asking who has the best beaches. You judge by where more beachgoers visit. You don't say the beach that attracts the most visitors is not the most attractive because it's in a more populated area.
You might as well calculate number of illegals per square mile.
I think Americans should be allowed to contribute to a fund to pay for a portion of the wall or barrier. "A gift from Americans to the US."
Better still have businesses sponsor sections and use it for advertising.
Great idea!
Put big billboards on the Mexican side.
"Immigration Lawyers for hire. Habla Espanola"
"Fake Visa applications done right"
"Why crawl through the desert when you can fly in luxury to any city in America. Money back guarantee."
"Fly to Canada, step across, no problem, senior."
If you put the signs on the American side, only Texas cattle will see it and they don't buy anything."
Well...a shutdown means that nearly 390,000 federal employees will not receive their final paycheck before Christmas. I hope Trump calls each one of them personally to apologize.
And bigger picture, it just goes to show how broken our country is. There are 326,000,000 people in the United States, and the federal government and all the politicians that work for it work for us.
And yet they, both democrats and republicans, can't compromise and try their hardest to meet in the middle on issues in order to keep the gov't open for us (the people).
And how many will just find an alternative way in? How many highly motivated immigrants will defeat a wall?
Walls have never worked to keep people from crossing borders. This one wouldn't either. Fortunately, it will never be built.
I worked at Yuma sector back in 2007 just right before Bush Jr sent National Guard as part of Operation Jump Start to put partial fence/wall/vehicle barriers on the southern border. Back then we apprehended 50-100 illegal crossers each day. Once the fence/wall/vehicle barriers were put up, the number of illegal crossers went down to half a dozen each day in Yuma.
The fence or wall is not to make illegal crossing obsolete, but to minimize illegal crossing to a manageable number. There are only 20,000 BP agents patrolling 2000+ miles of land and water way (just think about this there are 40,000 NYPD cops in the city of New York and there are only 20k BP patrolling 2000+ miles of land and waterway). The fence or wall funnels illegal crossers to one or two geographical area so CBP can concentrate their manpower and resources in those areas
Read for Comprehension. It would keep a high percentage of illegal entrants out, as it did last month in Tijuana.
Democrats have no grounds to be talking about effective use of taxpayer money.
I have also posted several links proving that the good walls do keep out a "high" percentage of illegal aliens not just some, as "you know who" is claiming. Where one section is built it kept out 90% of illegals trying to enter. But let's face it keeping out illegal aliens isn't what they want and that's why they object to the wall with their lame arguments and lies. It has nothing to do with that these walls supposedly don't work or that they are supposedly too expensive. I have to laugh at their transparencies and their silly attempt to mask them.
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.