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.
If I was king, and I had that data, I would provide it. But I'm not sure Trump would even if he had it sitting on the shelf in the room they were meeting. I can sorta see the point of view that he might not want to get caught up in whack-a-mole, where if he complies with that request or answers that question it will not change their viewpoint one bit and will only invite more requests and questions.
Dems in Congress don't really care about the specific plans. It's an obstructionist tactic. Since when have Dems ever been so concerned about inefficient spending or needed cost-benefit analysis before funding their big projects? I don't see their request to see specific plans as legitimate, or that they will even accept any plans or studies showing it worthwhile (i.e. "I reject your facts"). If Pelosi doesn't want to hear what DHS Secretary Nielsen has to say then why would she care about any studies she presented?
Well, I'm not a Democrat nor am I in Congress, but if Trump provided a legitimate, independent study that showed the wall was feasible, cost-effective, and was the most cost-efficient way to address the issue of illegal immigration, I would support it.
I don't know what "facts" DHS Secretary Nielsen was presenting at the meeting, but around that time the Administration was throwing out a lot of purported "facts" that were misleading, if not outright lies, concerning DHS encounters with special interest persons, drugs, and suspected terrorists. If Secretary Nielsen was touting the influx of thousands of terrorists via the Southern border as claimed by Dick Durbin (who described Neilsen's claims saying "It was preposterous"), I don't blame her for rejecting them. Notably, the "terrorists" claim purportedly touted by Nielsen and rejected by Pelosi at the meeting was blown up by Chris Wallace on Fox News on live TV a day or so later and was later walked back by KellyAnne Conway as being untrue.
Tell all of that to trump. He is the one who claimed the illegal immigrants have "unbelievable vehicles." Call trump out on that, not me.
Nope. You own your ridiculous statement regarding illegals. You know darn well that the average illegal doesn't have such vehicles. If you are so obsessed with Trump's statement, then send him a tweet
Well, I'm not a Democrat nor am I in Congress, but if Trump provided a legitimate, independent study that showed the wall was feasible, cost-effective, and was the most cost-efficient way to address the issue of illegal immigration, I would support it.
Maybe so, I think you'd be in a narrow minority. And "independent study" is getting to be extremely hard these days as every group seems to have a bias. I reject your requirement of "most cost efficient" as there are multiple problems with multiple solutions that need to be implemented concurrently.
The reality is that while we may so this solution or that solution would be better, that is not the choice on the table. We are not looking at two proposals - the wall or e-verify - and need to pick one. We are looking at the option of wall, or no wall.
I believe you have stated that you support spending for "border security" using agents and technology. By your above requirements, where are the studies and specific details for that?
If the only option is a wall that we don't know what it will be made of or how much it will cost and no wall, the choice is pretty clear.
When a kid throws a fit because he wants you to give him $5K for a car so he can drive to Cancun over spring break but he doesn't know what kind of or condition of car we're talking about here, how much the total cost will be, what the insurance will run, how far it is to Cancun... the responsible adults in the room say to come back when you have a better plan.
If the only option is a wall that we don't know what it will be made of or how much it will cost and no wall, the choice is pretty clear.
When a kid throws a fit because he wants you to give him $5K for a car so he can drive to Cancun over spring break but he doesn't know what kind of or condition of car we're talking about here, how much the total cost will be, what the insurance will run, how far it is to Cancun... the responsible adults in the room say to come back when you have a better plan.
The wall has been documented to work, in one place, up to 90% reduction....
Quote:
The Bottom Line: Walls Work. When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens from crossing our borders, border walls have proven to be extremely effective. Border security relies on a combination of border infrastructure, technology, personnel and partnerships with law enforcement at the state, local, tribal, and federal level. For example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent. In San Diego, we saw on Sunday that dilapidated, decades-old barriers are not sufficient for today’s threat and need to be removed so new – up to 30 foot wall sections can be completed.
Maybe so, I think you'd be in a narrow minority. And "independent study" is getting to be extremely hard these days as every group seems to have a bias. I reject your requirement of "most cost efficient" as there are multiple problems with multiple solutions that need to be implemented concurrently.
The reality is that while we may so this solution or that solution would be better, that is not the choice on the table. We are not looking at two proposals - the wall or e-verify - and need to pick one. We are looking at the option of wall, or no wall.
I believe you have stated that you support spending for "border security" using agents and technology. By your above requirements, where are the studies and specific details for that?
Well without specifics about the wall whether it will work or how much it will cost, I am against throwing $5.7 billion at it. Trump's position would be much improved if presented a specific plan and could say "I had an independent study done and the wall will cost X, it will work to stop Y number of illegals entering the country, and save Z amount of money." Instead we are given half-truths about terrorists stopped by DHS and drug-related deaths, neither of which would be affected by the wall one way or another.
I wouldn't give my kids $50,000 to invest without knowing anything specific about the investment other than vagaries. Similarly, I don't want the government to invest my tax dollars in the vague concept of a wall that, on its face, seem like it won't be all that effective.
Well without specifics about the wall whether it will work or how much it will cost, I am against throwing $5.7 billion at it. Trump's position would be much improved if presented a specific plan and could say "I had an independent study done and the wall will cost X, it will work to stop Y number of illegals entering the country, and save Z amount of money." Instead we are given half-truths about terrorists stopped by DHS and drug-related deaths, neither of which would be affected by the wall one way or another.
I wouldn't give my kids $50,000 to invest without knowing anything specific about the investment other than vagaries. Similarly, I don't want the government to invest my tax dollars in the vague concept of a wall that, on its face, seem like it won't be all that effective.
Maybe so but more likely imo is that if Trump presented such a study we would just see organized propaganda alleging the study wasn't really independent because one of the researchers had a grandson that used to work for Trump, or that it didn't say specifically what kind of concrete or who would be the manufacturer, or that it only looked at 20' and 25' walls and overlooked 22' walls.
On what are you basing your opinion that "it won't be all that effective"? The actual stats where substantial barriers have been erected all show that illegal apprehensions are way down. Do you have any case examples where a wall was actually built and it was shown statistically to be ineffective?
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.
Pubs: govt shutdown is the only arrow in their quiver
