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.
It shouldn't have been amended though. What we ended up with was only 30 miles of the good walls and the rest was breachable fencing and that's my point. So essentially the tax payer ended up with something inferior and that is what Trump is trying to fix. I don't understand the objection since the initial promise was broken and we ended up not getting what really deters illegal entry. The objection by the Border Patrol was that a solid barrier couldn't be seen through. Now that we have the steel slatted see through design that shouldn't be an issue anymore. In fact that is what the Border Patrol wants now.
As for those who don't want a barrier on their properties then they can just deal with the illegal trespassers, drug mules and criminals funneling right through their properties. They'll be crying for a wall in no time.
Look it's not really my role to defend ranchers on the Border. I'm just pointing out they exist. There are layers of complexity. You are right that they are less than enchanted with the drug mules and criminals. But they cry for having CBP at their fingertips. And more enforcement. Not a wall. Their point of view prevailed back in 2007. And while Congressional Republicans remain silent, I would not underestimate their continued support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
What has Trump changed his mind about that didn't make sense? Humans often change their minds on many things because they found a better way of doing things, etc. Is that a bad thing? Whatever the cost of these steel barriers they certainly aren't going to cost what illegal aliens cost us in one single year alone.
I was speaking generically. Trump's hardly a process-oriented kind of guy. No doubt Democrats politicize this but the Trump-trust factor has to be pretty low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
Or maybe he wants CBP to get what they need at particular places not a fixed design forced on them.
Sure - and I agree that's a plus. For that was the point of amending the Fence Act of 2006. Congress stipulated one design (double fencing) that was found to not always be practical. The amendment gave greater authority to the Executive Branch (Homeland Security).
Look I'm not on the border. For all I know additional fencing (particularly in urban areas) may well be called for. Flexibility is all to the plus. But there was a history to all this when Trump got himself on the campaign trail a few years back. Instead of looking to current legislation ... examining various issues ... establishing a position that fit into some defensible framework - he instead went off on walling the entire border in and having Mexico pay for it.
Immigration policy (beyond border security) is/was a subject of great contention. And if trying to figure out where fencing need be placed is complex, that's a cakewalk compared to examining whether or not this country needs immigration.
If there are to be modifications to our current immigration policy (which about everyone from progressives to those who oppose all immigration agree are needed) there must be greater control over the border. That that was/is a precursor to addressing immigration policy led (in part) towards bipartisan consensus and the 2006 Act.
By choosing extremist positions (with the government shutdown etc. and more threats daily) Trump is without a doubt taking House Democrats to where they will exercise the power of the purse to clip his wings legislatively. So they (along with Shumer etc.) will (and are) asking for plans, justifications and not now writing blank checks. None of this is ideal.
Trump's tried to walk back his statements that he really did not mean that Mexico could pay for it literally (which itself is yet another falsehood) ... but he's not able to walk around the Constitution. No one pretends that Trump has a clue about Congress. There really do need to be deals.
I agree on that. He needs to get DHS to draw up a construction sequencing plan specifying what sections need barriers or enhanced barriers, what kinds of barriers in the section. My bet is that such plans exist somewhere but they don't want the details nitpicked to death.
Well, Shumer has not seen a plan (December 2018) - and wants one.
Quote:
There's no plan to build it. The president asked for $5 billion, sent us no plans; where it would be, how much it would cost, each part, what it would be made of?
In a report issued in August 2018, GAO reported that CBP had not assessed the costs to build a wall. CBP had taken a look at Trump's design prototypes and prioritized locations for a future wall but stopped there. There's been no analysis of the costs to place the barriers with topography and land acquisition major issues. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-614
Trump signed an executive order in January 2017 calling for for a comprehensive study to be done within 180 days. Well after the due date, USA Today reported that the Trump Administration never publicly released or was even known to have completed the study. https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall...nce/605855001/
So ... Mexico is not to pay for the wall. Trump can't work with Democrats. This morning the NYT had an article that Trump's considering diverting disaster funds within Homeland Security.
Two years into his Presidency he's raiding piggy banks to fund what he seemingly cannot plan?
It is pretty easy to get up on some platform and chant ... wall ... wall. Real life just doesn't work like that. Admittedly, I'm appalled. For sure, the Democrats shouldn't play politics around border security. But Trump pretty much gave them a gun and dared them to shoot.
I know this is meant to be facetious, but, serious question, how do you think those tunnels were constructed?
"Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies discovered a highly sophisticated underground tunnel—featuring a rail system and solar-powered lighting—running underneath the border between Mexico and California."
Those were probably backed with a lot of money, and who has all the money in mexico?
We are talking about mom and her 2 young kids trekking who knows how man miles through the sand and heat....to get to a wall, then cut through it or climb over it with a grappling hook all the while totting her 2 children....
Look it's not really my role to defend ranchers on the Border. I'm just pointing out they exist. There are layers of complexity. You are right that they are less than enchanted with the drug mules and criminals. But they cry for having CBP at their fingertips. And more enforcement. Not a wall. Their point of view prevailed back in 2007. And while Congressional Republicans remain silent, I would not underestimate their continued support.
I was speaking generically. Trump's hardly a process-oriented kind of guy. No doubt Democrats politicize this but the Trump-trust factor has to be pretty low.
Sure - and I agree that's a plus. For that was the point of amending the Fence Act of 2006. Congress stipulated one design (double fencing) that was found to not always be practical. The amendment gave greater authority to the Executive Branch (Homeland Security).
Look I'm not on the border. For all I know additional fencing (particularly in urban areas) may well be called for. Flexibility is all to the plus. But there was a history to all this when Trump got himself on the campaign trail a few years back. Instead of looking to current legislation ... examining various issues ... establishing a position that fit into some defensible framework - he instead went off on walling the entire border in and having Mexico pay for it.
Immigration policy (beyond border security) is/was a subject of great contention. And if trying to figure out where fencing need be placed is complex, that's a cakewalk compared to examining whether or not this country needs immigration.
If there are to be modifications to our current immigration policy (which about everyone from progressives to those who oppose all immigration agree are needed) there must be greater control over the border. That that was/is a precursor to addressing immigration policy led (in part) towards bipartisan consensus and the 2006 Act.
By choosing extremist positions (with the government shutdown etc. and more threats daily) Trump is without a doubt taking House Democrats to where they will exercise the power of the purse to clip his wings legislatively. So they (along with Shumer etc.) will (and are) asking for plans, justifications and not now writing blank checks. None of this is ideal.
Trump's tried to walk back his statements that he really did not mean that Mexico could pay for it literally (which itself is yet another falsehood) ... but he's not able to walk around the Constitution. No one pretends that Trump has a clue about Congress. There really do need to be deals.
This pretty much sums up where I am on a border wall. If there was a concrete plan, with specific designs, accompanied by feasibility and cost-benefit studies that compared the cost of the wall with other technologically feasible possibilities, I would be better positioned to consider whether the wall as proposed is a good idea. Right now, all I have seen is the typical Trump - demanding funding but without a detailed plan to back it up. How can the so-called fiscal conservatives be ok with throwing $25-30 billion at a vague proposal like this?
If it's a bollard type fence you have no need for a ladder, you cut out a piece in the middle and climb through. And no generator or electrical equipment is needed if you use a 60v concrete saw. Nice try though
Again, these people cannot buy a bottle of water and you want them to buy this piece of equipment?
This tweet seems to foreshadow current events. It features a tv show from 1958 with a character with the last name of Trump trying to con the citizens into building a wall to protect them. He ultimately gets arrested.
Is this the same idiot that said...there is nothing going on here...not a thing, not an illegal anywhere in sight.....as he is standing next to a wall....yea, defiantly LMAO....
Those were probably backed with a lot of money, and who has all the money in mexico?
We are talking about mom and her 2 young kids trekking who knows how man miles through the sand and heat....to get to a wall, then cut through it or climb over it with a grappling hook all the while totting her 2 children....
Sure I can see how that is something a fool might believe.
Truly a marvel to behold, and oh so sad...
Nice to see there are people like you, comments like yours that demonstrate not all Americans are dumb struck by Trump to the point of massaging every Trump stupidity into some other stupidity that somehow makes Trump's stupidities more acceptable to them.
Now the wall that Trump said Mexico would pay for, "easily," is some new version altogether of what Trump promised ALL of us, complete with a new way to interpret plain English and a new Trumpian version of accounting. Just unbelievable!
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.
