I'm seeing a lot of criticism from the Left that a wall is ineffective, and that is why they oppose the wall (they don't oppose it because they can't afford to give Trump a political victory, it is just that walls don't work). So, should Trump do something more effective than a wall to stop illegal immigration? I'm directing this question at the Left.
Another criticism is Conor's: A wall is racist. That leads to another question: Should we tear down the wall we already have? Again, that is a question for the Left.
Because the Don is going there on Thursday.
(no message)
Anyone who walks across gets finger printed, a flu shot and a one way ticket to San Francisco or Los Angeles.
(no message)
(no message)
Not on those who don't.
I suspect that there are very competent plans on how to improve border security.
I suspect that prior presidents have considered it, and realize that security on the southern border just wasn't a big enough problem to worry about.
chirping about the wall's cost is mere politics for Dems.
(no message)
That's the scale of what we're talking about.
Put another way, it's what the federal government spends every 12 hours.
With 1% of the federal budget we'd have enough left over to build a wall spanning the northern border as well.
Now I'd love it if Congress went through the $4T federal budget finding places to cut, there are surely many totalling way more than $5B, but it's disingenuous to say it's about the money.
It's disingenuous to allow a president to spend billions of dollars on a whimsical idea that everyone thinks is silly.
Do you think we should really be spending any more money for helmets for the military either? Where’s the evidence they help?
your statement is false. Deep down, even you recognize that a wall would be beneficial in certain areas, thus you choose to take Trump literally.
And btw, Obama bypassed congress in the past by EO to fund projects he believed in. Trump hasn’t (yet) done th3 same. Perhaps he doesn’t want to cross that bridge, but more likely, this whole shut down is about finally breaking the Dems after years of them using govt shutdown threats to blackmail the GOP.
(no message)
Ann Coulter. Before that he had agreed to the spending packages without the 5.7 billion to keep the govt open.
Let's balance the budget without a wall. Compromise!
(no message)
I think we both know that would prove nothing...and it would especially prove nothing to the antitrumpers who don't care if we stop immigrants, but how dare we stop them with a wall which is racist. It didn't prove that health care reform was a good idea. It won't prove that the wall is a good idea.
We are in silly land. The wall is symbolic of one thing only: a Trump victory, or a Trump loss. The Dems can't let him get that victory. Trump has to have it. It has nothing to do with racism, or stopping illegal immigrants. It has everything to do with politics.
Trump can make a deal with him...
(no message)
"I'm right"
"Do you have proof?"
"No, but if I did, you wouldn't believe it any way. Ipso Fatso, I'm right!"
Glad I could put that to bed for you.
Obama trotted out an MIT expert for healthcare, and in the end, he was caught on tape admitting that he was putting one over on the American people. That was an MIT guy full of partisan shit. I knew that the anti-trumpers would disregard any expert Trump provides, so my point stands. then again, if they all accept Obama's guy as an expert, then maybe you are right...and therefore walls do work.
Because you don't like us and wouldn't believe us anyway. So please find for my client and award him 5 billion dollars without any evidence. Thank you.
But, there are two points here:
1) Should a person proposing something have the burden of making the case for that proposal? Of course. You know I agree with you. This is the point you are pushing, and we agree.
2) Will Trump presenting an expert change any anti-trumper's mind? Of course not. Sure, it checks a box. But, they will just accuse him of being as biased as the expert that Obama trumped up (pun intended) for health care reform. This was my point. Surely we agree on that as well?
In this case, I think it is basic common sense that a wall would be a component in border security. You wouldn't require an expert to testify under oath that locking your front door is a component of home security, would you? Can't the fact finder just take "judicial notice" of that fact? It seems silly for you to ask for an expert about the effectiveness of something as simple as a wall. Do we need someone from MIT to testify under oath for that?
And, I will say it again: effectiveness is measured at the margins. This isn't a binary issue. There are always people on the edge about making the illegal crossing, and any impediment will eliminate those people who were on the edge. And, there are always people who will bring wall scaling equipment with them.
By the way, I know you are a lawyer. I think the testifying expert is the biggest abused feature of our court system. Each side can always get an expert to say what they want. Why not just let the attorneys argue the freakin' case, and let the jury decide? Why force the parties to engage in the farce that our "expert witness" system has become? We know it drives up cost, but I'm not sure it makes the outcome of the cases any more just. Justice becomes more expensive, but the likelihood of a just ruling is not necessarily increased...again, because you can get an expert to say anything.
(no message)
(no message)
Fundamentally because of party politics, eliminate the parties and this problem goes away.
Perhaps the most viable option is to increase the number of parties, rather than eliminate them altogether. That way, each party would have less power.
But, that would require a parliamentary system of selecting the president, not a direct election. Or, some type of alternative voting scheme, where we rank candidates instead of picking just one. Not sure even that would work.
Don't vote for major party candidates.
If we had 3 or 4 it would be much better, but ultimately I would prefer independents.
Broad brushes.
(no message)
What is a waste of money is a wall in very remote parts of the border. Tearing down the existing wall is also a waste of money.
(no message)
Double border patrol and INS and immigration judges.
Change the law: If anyone is caught on US soil and determined to be here illegally, whether from illegal crossing of the border, overstaying VISA, disobeying terms of VISA or green card or temporary work permit, missing court date for asylum determination, if they are arrested for any reason immediately place them in a detention center. Give them a hearing within 14 days to determine their country of origin and whether they have previously been deported:
If they were arrested for a felony, hold them no bail, give them a speedy trial, if convicted make them serve their sentence and then immediately deport them. If not convicted immediately deport them.
If they have previously been deported, give then 2 years in a Federal Pen and then deport them. If they have previously been deported twice make the sentence 25 years.
Anyone caught employing persons who are in the country illegally shall be subject to penalties up to a million $$ fine, 5 years in prison, or both.
You can stop the non-determined individual at the system perimeter in both cases.
But, you can't stop a determined individual at the system perimeter. Instead, you watch for activity in the system that shows the illegal behavior, and then take action.
Stopping illegal immigration is good. Building Trump a monument to himself is not a good use of dollars.
Is a 2000 mile wall practical? I don't think so.
Are walls in general effective to stop people? Yes...and we should be able to agree on that.
So, building walls at commonly used crossing points, or to form choke points, would be an effective use of tax payer dollars.
I agree that building the wall as a monument for Trump is not a legitimate basis to support the wall. But, opposing a useful wall as a component of border security because the Left cannot allow a political victory to Trump is not a legitimate basis to oppose the wall.
What is our goal? Once we know that, then we can ask - what is the most effective way to implement that goal.
I suspect zero illegal immigration is impossible.
I suspect 10,000,000 new illegals per year is unsustainable.
So what is sustainable? What is the most effective way to get to that number (or are we already there?)
A lot of illegal immigration will be stopped by changing the mindset of the would be illegal immigrant. Wall too high? Payoff too low once they get here? Many factors will go into it.
The wall is just one factor. The wall will physically turn some back because it is a physical obstacle. We've already seen that happen, and we don't need an expert to testify about the commonly observed fact. But perhaps more importantly, the wall will stop some people from making the journey in the first place. They know about the wall, so they will not come, perhaps because of the wall itself as a physical obstacle, but perhaps more likely because spending that money on the wall indicates that the US is serious about this issue, and therefore the US will likely take other actions as well when they get there. The wall is a big billboard which effectively says, "Don't try it. It's not worth it."
But I think the most effective thing is what Clinton did, which is pursue companies that employ illegal immigrants.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)