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.
He was a d!ck and a crook in the 90’s when I first grew to loathe him.
Nothing has changed.
And I wouldn’t follow any orders from that lying sack of monkey crap no matter the cost. I’m not a born blind sucker.
But you did vote for Hillary. Or did you not vote at all? Either way you have no business calling those who didn't vote like you "blind suckers". I am so thankful that Hillary isn't our president
Well, if you decided to build a wall out of platinum instead of wood so you could keep the neighbor kids off your lawn, you’re gonna raise some eyebrows.
Yes, walls are useful. No, they aren’t effective enough to spend over a decade and tens of billions to build one.
When we're talking about protecting our southern border, then, yes, it's worth the money
According to you, we should build a cheap, wooden wall at the border? In that case, it won't be effective---never mind last very long.
Once again, the wall that Bill Clinton had built at the San Diego/Tijuana border has drastically cut down on crime and illegal crossings. Why do anti-wall people have such a hard time grasping that fact?
I just don't think that's the case. There is a misunderstanding. It is not that the rest of the border areas outside Trump's 700 miles are impossible to "navigate." It's just that they are not suitable for a wall for various topographical or economic or logistical reasons. And that's true even of some portion inside the 700 miles - hence the dispute.
For example, the Rio Grande is at times so low that migrants can wade across it. But it that sufficient reason to disrupt the extensive private footage along the river?
This is not an either-or situation, although that's how Trump chose to popularize it. I object less to the wall (for all I know there may well be a case for additional fencingin certain locales) than to the process.
Whether we like it or not there will always be some number of illegal immigrants. The issue is at what cost should various counter-measures be taken. These costs involve not only direct constructions but downstream impact. To my knowledge, Trump has not made his case for additional fencing. At least not in the form of doing the actual work, the cost-benefit analyses. And presented them to Congress to justify funding etc.
We have a system that relies on checks-and-balances, one of which is that Congress approves funding. Heavens knows that doesn't always result in the best-possible outcomes but it - with Congressional oversight - is what we have. Trump even though President cannot degrade that system.
The wall bill was actually passed back in 2006. Don't you think that the congress that passed it already had considered the costs, logistics, etc. of it? Why do you need something specifically from Trump then?
When we're talking about protecting our southern border, then, yes, it's worth the money
According to you, we should build a cheap, wooden wall at the border? In that case, it won't be effective---never mind last very long.
Once again, the wall that Bill Clinton had built at the San Diego/Tijuana border has drastically cut down on crime and illegal crossings. Why do anti-wall people have such a hard time grasping that fact?
Not at all what I was saying.
We don’t need a continuous wall.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
No one ever said that there will be a continuous wall from San Diego to Brownsville. Many parts of the border are impossible to navigate, so no wall is necessary in those areas.
The wall bill was actually passed back in 2006. Don't you think that the congress that passed it already had considered the costs, logistics, etc. of it? Why do you need something specifically from Trump then?
Quote:
And almost as soon as it passed it was amended by Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican amending the law to read: "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.
As far as the "plans" for the Secure Fence Act, I sure don't see any in the bill, but it wasn't even fully funded at the time, Congress set aside 1.4 billion for the fencing. The bill simply refers to 'secure fencing' and mentions areas where it's needed. I don't see anything about costs, logistics etc though.
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.
Do you really want to make America safe?
