unixknight Posted January 16, 2019 Author Report Posted January 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott said: It is if the wall is to be effective. An effective wall would likely cost at least $100 billion and would probably be a lot more than that. Are you talking about a wall that would stretch across the entire U.S./Mexico border with no gaps? Quote
anatess2 Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Scott said: Here's another problem with the wall. It would take a a lot of Eminent Domain. The government would have to take a lot of property from private citizens to build the wall. I wonder how many conservatives have thought this issue through? If the wall is built, thousands of private citizens are going to have their land taken away (though they will be compensated). I work do highway engineering and like a highway, I can promise you that you can't build the wall without taking people's property away. Now THIS is why some Republicans are on a wait-and-see flight pattern on the issue of a barrier. This is a valid concern. And here is Trump Admin's actions on it. They have done the research and the initial negotiations but they are going to face opposition on this from the environmental groups such as this butterly organization. Quote
Guest Scott Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 19 minutes ago, anatess2 said: You have a funny way of using majority. The Center of Migration Studies report estimated visa overstays in 2014 accounted for 42 percent of the illegal immigrant population. So... because ONLY 58% of migrants jump the border, then there's no point in stopping them. So... what's your magic number? 60%? 80%? 99%? before you think a barrier will be worth it? P.S. Just so the Southern border is put into context... 47% of that 58% number comes from just 2 of the border states - Texas and California. Estimates differ, but here's what the website you link to says about the wall. It's right here:http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/This report speaks to another reason to question the necessity and value of a 2,000-mile wall: It does not reflect the reality of how the large majority of persons now become undocumented. It finds that two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas. So maybe we can agree that the majority of those that have recently come to this country illegally are those who are overstaying their work visas. Would you agree? Quote
Guest Scott Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, unixknight said: Are you talking about a wall that would stretch across the entire U.S./Mexico border with no gaps? Yes, but excluding the Rio Grand. Trump says the wall along the southern border will be impregnable. There is no way it can be done for what Trump or others are claiming it can be done for. I promise you this. Quote
Tyme Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 I think it's stupid for dems to fight over the wall. A main reason Trump won was promising that wall. They would gain more politically by agreeing to the wall. The problem is according to their calculation they gain more by preventing Trump from keeping his promise. They're now backed into a corner they can't get out of. It seems whichever party acquiesces will look weak and their base will be upset. The dems are now going to look weak on border security in '20. Them looking weak on border security is partially what caused them to lose in '16. That makes me wonder how this shutdown is ever going to end. It seems one of the parties is going to have to give up something big. That big 'thing' will have to be something the opposite party doesn't agree with. The problem is figuring out what that big piece of legislation each party could give up. I really don't see the dems backing down. They have no out in this political fight. It seems Trump has the only out by declaring a national emergency. Then when it gets shot down in the courts he can say he tried. In addition, he could get another one of his promises fulfilled by opening the government without the wall. It seems like a win-win for Trump. Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 Just now, Tyme said: That makes me wonder how this shutdown is ever going to end. A wise and witty man posted this on his FB page a few days ago: Quote
askandanswer Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Godless said: They oppose the wall because the wall is stupid. They don't oppose tighter border security. The wall is simply one specific aspect of securing the border, and it's one that many people (including some on the right) think is a waste of money that could be used to open more border patrol stations and hire more agents. Does anyone know how effective the border wall that Israel recently built when it comes to keeping out Palestinians, and how much it cost per kilometer? ANd how valid would that be as a comparison for what Trump would like to do? Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, askandanswer said: Does anyone know how effective the border wall that Israel recently built when it comes to keeping out Palestinians, and how much it cost per kilometer? ANd how valid would that be as a comparison for what Trump would like to do? There is a HUGE difference between Palestinians who want to blow up Jews for the crime of going out for a pizza and the average Latin American worker who just wants to better himself and his family. Quote
anatess2 Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, Scott said: Estimates differ, but here's what the website you link to says about the wall. It's right here:http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/This report speaks to another reason to question the necessity and value of a 2,000-mile wall: It does not reflect the reality of how the large majority of persons now become undocumented. It finds that two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas. So maybe we can agree that the majority of those that have recently come to this country illegally are those who are overstaying their work visas. Would you agree? 2/3 of those who arrived in ONE YEAR. It doesn't speak for any other years. The fact remains that 58% of illegal immigrants AS OF 2014 (that's all illegal immigrants that are entered the country from all the past years combined) are border jumpers. And it doesn't account for the fact that numbers swell when some organization whip up migrant caravans. So, my question still remain. What is your magic number for declaring a barrier necessary? 60%? 80%? 90%? Or Never? Quote
estradling75 Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Tyme said: That makes me wonder how this shutdown is ever going to end. It seems one of the parties is going to have to give up something big. That big 'thing' will have to be something the opposite party doesn't agree with. The problem is figuring out what that big piece of legislation each party could give up. I really don't see the dems backing down. They have no out in this political fight. It seems Trump has the only out by declaring a national emergency. Then when it gets shot down in the courts he can say he tried. In addition, he could get another one of his promises fulfilled by opening the government without the wall. It seems like a win-win for Trump. And I think the IDEA that someone has to lose BIG is the problem. Trump wants the wall. He is making that big and clear (it is important to his base). The wise thing would be for the Democrats to find something they want (that is important to their base) and go to the negotiating table. This has a making for a classic win win... But the Democratic leadership is showing no signs of having a plan or agenda to help their base.. All they have is STOP Trump. They need a much better plan then that or they lose again. Quote
Tyme Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 I can guarantee this fight isn't based on principles for either side. Can we agree to that? Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, estradling75 said: They need a much better plan then that or they lose again. Actually, they have a good chance of winning in 2020. The blunt truth is that while Trump won, it was Hillary who lost. If the democrats run anyone better than her in 2020, they'll win in a rout. Them taking back the house was a harbinger of things to come. Quote
askandanswer Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, MormonGator said: There is a HUGE difference between Palestinians who want to blow up Jews for the crime of going out for a pizza and the average Latin American worker who just wants to better himself and his family. My query wasn't about the need for a wall, or the activities or the nature of those who the wall is supposed to stop - it was about the effectiveness of a wall in stopping people considered to be undesirable. Quote
unixknight Posted January 16, 2019 Author Report Posted January 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, Scott said: Yes, but excluding the Rio Grand. Trump says the wall along the southern border will be impregnable. There is no way it can be done for what Trump or others are claiming it can be done for. I promise you this. Well, the $5.7B isn't meant to cover that entire length. It's meant to go up in places designated by the Border Patrol. It would still have large gaps (which presumably would have to be filled in later, if the completed sections are effective.) And it's a Government program. of COURSE it's going to run over budget. In other news, water is still wet. The point here is that Trump's only hope for re-election in 2020 is to at least get it underway. NightSG 1 Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, askandanswer said: My query wasn't about the need for a wall, or the activities or the nature of those who the wall is supposed to stop - it was about the effectiveness of a wall in stopping people considered to be undesirable. Right, and my response was that you can't compare the two issues. Completely different. Quote
Tyme Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Actually, they have a good chance of winning in 2020. The blunt truth is that while Trump won, it was Hillary who lost. If the democrats run anyone better than her in 2020, they'll win in a rout. Them taking back the house was a harbinger of things to come. The problem was that everyone underestimated Trump in '16. I'd be careful doing that again. Quote
Guest Scott Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, anatess2 said: What is your magic number for declaring a barrier necessary? 60%? 80%? 90%? Or Never? I didn't say a barrier wasn't necessary, I said that an effective wall that Trump is promising would be a lot more expensive than he say it is. There are plenty of "barriers" that can be used to help curb illegal immigration. I already mentioned one big one (going after companies that hire illegal immigrants). More border patrol can be used as well, as well as fences. Obviously those would also not be 100% effective. How's this? If Trump can build an effective border wall along the southern for $5.7 Billion, then he has my blessing. I can tell you though, that it can't be done. Maybe the Democrats should just let him have his $5.7 billion and let Trump take the blame when it is proven ineffective, or at least not to be impregnable. Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 Just now, Tyme said: The problem was that everyone underestimated Trump in '16. I'd be careful doing that again. True, but the problem is also that the democrats ran Hillary Clinton, the most hated nominee in history. Both by her own party and the opposing side. Quote
Guest Godless Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, MormonGator said: A wise and witty man posted this on his FB page a few days ago: You jest (and I laughed, truly), but we could be on the verge of an actual national security crisis if the TSA gets spread too thin. Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 Just now, Godless said: You jest (and I laughed, truly), but we could be on the verge of an actual national security crisis if the TSA gets spread too thin. Sounds to me like we need to privatize the TSA. Quote
unixknight Posted January 16, 2019 Author Report Posted January 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Godless said: You jest (and I laughed, truly), but we could be on the verge of an actual national security crisis if the TSA gets spread too thin. The TSA is security theater. It's actually the least effective mechanism we have for stopping terrorists. Terrorist attacks are foiled by the FBI and the CIA, not the TSA. Midwest LDS and NightSG 2 Quote
unixknight Posted January 16, 2019 Author Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: Sounds to me like we need to privatize get rid of the TSA. Fixed that for ya. NightSG 1 Quote
Tyme Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, unixknight said: The TSA is security theater. It's actually the least effective mechanism we have for stopping terrorists. Terrorist attacks are foiled by the FBI and the CIA, not the TSA. Not really. If there was no tsa people would be able to bring their lotion on board. unixknight 1 Quote
Guest MormonGator Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, unixknight said: The TSA is security theater. It's actually the least effective mechanism we have for stopping terrorists. Terrorist attacks are foiled by the FBI and the CIA, not the TSA. PREACH. And they aren't foiled very well by the FBI or the CIA either, but anyway. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted January 16, 2019 Report Posted January 16, 2019 Around 77 nations have walls of varying span, construction, and purpose. We think of the now-defunct Berlin Wall, and the tourist attraction Great Wall of China, and of course the ongoing wall issues between Israel and the West Bank. But if we're going to be serious about talking walls, we should at least be familiar with these too: India's wall between them and Bangladesh - 1,700-mile barbed wire fence to curb immigration and smuggling, and block migrants India's 450-mile barrier with Pakistan — militarized, to keep out militants. Northern Ireland built 'peace walls' in 1969. As stuff improves, there are plans to demolish all of it by 2023. France has a mile-long wall at Calais, funded by the UK, put there to prevent migrants from accessing the Channel Tunnel that connects Britain to continental Europe. Morocco has a 1,700-mile sand wall, fortified and surrounded by millions of land mines, built in 1975 between it and Western Sahara. Spain has 20-foot high concrete barriers to wall off Spanish-administered Melilla and Ceuta, against African migrants. Saudi Arabia built a 550-mile-long wall with Iraq in 2014, to keep out Islamic State militants. Turkey has a wall/buffer zone running between the part of Nicosia run by Turkey, and the part run by Greece. It happens, people. For good reasons. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.