What kind of fence is Trump proposing? I haven't seen the design.
And yet here you are poo pooing the idea when you are ignorant of the specifics. Figures.
And who said he was proposing a fence?
Please let me know what kind of fence he's proposing that can't be climbed over with a ladder or ropes or tunneled under with shovels, or a hole blown in it with the same kind of explosives used at OK city. This fence will mostly be in the middle of nowhere, and so those wanting over or under will have plenty of time to throw a rope over, use a ladder, or dig.
As you were already told such methods are rendered void by sensors. Yet here you are still arguing them. Figures.
It wasn't intimidating to the 300 people per day crossing the wall in the story I cited, up from 150 per day. The women didn't seem intimidated in the 18 seconds it took them. And I keep pointing out that if you have the manpower all along a 2000 mile border to react to tripping a sensor, then you really don't need a wall - the people are the limiting factor.
And again;
"If someone was proposing the same exact type of single fence that the girls climbed over you would have a point, but since no one is you have none."
And stop trying to baffle folks with bs. A wall and even a fence is always a source of intimidation regardless if it doesn't intimidate everyone.
And it is likely that you would see more crossing without it because it is a factor.
Sheesh, walls make sense in populated areas, and in areas of high traffic.
Enough said, and until you can show what Trump wants to do in these stretches you have nothing to argue.
And if someone else is effectively paying for it, it doesn't matter what it costs.
They are moronic in the middle of nowhere, which is most of the 2,000 mile border, where it would be a massive waste of resources to staff at levels that could effectively react to sensors, not to mention the cost to install and maintain the sensors, etc.
No. It is your opinion which is moronic.
Preventing illegal entry is not a waste.
And as a wall is an intimidation and impediment factor it is useful, especially if someone else is effectively paying for it.
And in those areas, you've still not answered my question why a wall improves on the ability to detect people crossing.
What? The wall improves the ability to detect? WTF?
1. You never asked such a question.
2. Nor does anyone need to answer such a silly question.
You say the wall is 'intimidating' but unless it's a very high tech actual wall then it's just....not.
Every obstacle has an intimidation factor to it regardless if it doesn't intimidate everyone, just as manpower has an intimidation factor to it even if it doesn't intimidate everyone.
A combination of these things is even better than just one.
You say it but can't quite show me how the existing wall slowed anyone down
This isn't something I need to show you for you to understand that it does.
- old people, pregnant women, kids, all seemed to have no trouble getting over.
You haven't shown any old people or really pregnant people going over a wall.
What you did was provide was a persons recollection of what he thinks he saw concerning a fence, not an actual wall, and two US girls shimming to the top of a fence without actually going over.
And since it appears you were not paying attention, those pregnant women were hoisted by others.
And in all those cases, if it were an actual wall with sensors they would have been detected on their approach and would have been delayed by the wall allowing response teams to capture them.
What you're really doing is pointing out that if we fully militarize the entire border, and a wall is part of it, then we can effectively prevent crossings. I agree.
Wrong. Not once have I suggested such in this thread.
