• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are you shoving this wall down our throats?

Captain Adverse said:
However, whenever I see an argument against the wall that starts with "There is no evidence it will be effective" I have to laugh at this fallacious point.

The fact is we are literally surrounded by walls in our everyday lives, and they prove their effectiveness by preventing and/or channeling access to whatever space is being walled in.

Of course no wall is going to be 100% effective as a stand alone defense. If there is something inside worth it to someone breaking in for, then the wall/barrier will also need dedicated defenses.

In normal life it would be security guards, police, soldiers, automated systems, or in the case of a homeowner that person themselves.

So arguing that no wall is 100% effective is disingenuous. Walls work as they are designed to, and if well defended then they work even better.

As for why one would want a wall along the borderline? For the same reasons any wall has been built, to prevent anyone not allowed from entering the premises without permission.
Click to expand...

All that typing and the only thing you managed was to make a bunch of assertions without a stitch of evidence to support it. Congratulations, it's hard to write that much without actually saying anything.

Please provide a reputable study showing that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall is a cost effective strategy to limit illegal immigration and/or limit the drug trade. Also what will the yearly maintenance cost be for this wall?

LOL, IMO we both know the "stable genius" businessman couldn't write a business plan for the wall if he was paid a billion dollars to do it. There is no plan, nobody has a clue what's going on, and you're asking for $5b as an homage to your cult leader.
 
Last edited:
Amelia said:
Trump was elected on saying the wall would be built but with a promise that taxpayers would not have to pay for it.

Now he is blackmailing us and saying that government will be shut down if we don't pay for the wall that he said we wouldn't have to pay for.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's put his cult into a rather uncomfortable position of either admitting that Trump flimflammed them, or delude themselves and pretend Trump never promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suspect the self delusion will continue for at least a few more months.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Israel's wall is 440 miles. The U.S. Mexican border is 2500 miles, and the logistics, not to mention the cost are a nightmare. You can't compare the two.

Why don't we just fine the piss out of employers and jail them if they hire illegals? We could even make money from it! You know the KISS principal!
Click to expand...

There is no proposal for a barrier the entire border. There currently is 653 miles of border barrier - basically steel walls or steel slat fence. The Trump wall would increase this to no more than 900 miles. Well over half of the border has prohibitive physical barriers or barren distance obstacles. Democrats - and specifically Pelosi and Schumer voted for the 653 miles of the current border walls, giving speeches how critical this was to the USA - which also is what President Obama gave speeches for. .
 
Grim17 said:
Click to expand...

At one time I could have agreed with you. But now that the USA has elected a blatantly racist POTUS like Trump, possible racism inherent in his actions has to be examined.

But this is not the thread to do this in, if you would like to start a thread on that topic, I would be happy to join it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Unless you plan on fining people no matter what then simply fining employers is not going to work. Right now the only way an employer gets fined is if it can be proven that they knowingly hired an illegal. Which is the right thing to do since illegal aliens use illegal documents that the employer may not know is illegal but they do look legit. I'm all for increasing that fine. I have also advocated for prison time and loss of business license. But proven that they have knowingly hired an illegal alien is not as easy as it sounds. Unless you have documents/evidence or witnesses proving it then it's next to impossible.

But simply fining employers is not enough. Especially when you have sanctuary cities an states obstructing investigations by refusing to cooperate. A lot needs to be done to make it to where life in the US for a person here illegally is simply not worth it. Such work is going to take time. Lots of it. Especially with how partisan and greedy our politicians are. In the mean time, a wall will help.

In order to slow illegal immigration down to a trickle (with or without a wall) things are going to have to be done that many simply do not want to happen.

1: Birthright citizenship for those here illegally HAS to end. This can be done either through an amendment or through interpreting the 14th Amendment citizenship clause the way it was originally meant to be interpreted. Which is as applying only to those here legally and not of ambassadorial status. As the author of the 14th Amendment argued for. This can still be done as the Ark case was about someone who was born here while his parents were here legally. It never actually addressed those here illegally. No other country allows birth right citizenship for those illegally in their borders that I know of.

2: As you have already suggested, fine the hell out of employers that hire illegal aliens. Keep the "knowingly hired" bit though as an illegal using fake documents or stolen identities is not the employers fault. Additionally loss of business license, liquidation of business assets to pay for the fine, and prison time.

3: Institute mandatory e-verify for everything from employment, to buying a car, to getting a bank account, sending money another country, renting/buying a place to live, and getting a license to start/run a business.

4: Require every school to report any child that is not in the US legally and/or their parents/guardians. Being as SCOTUS ruled such a violation of the Constitution an amendment may be needed.

Do you see any of those as being easy to implement? Or not taking lots of time to implement? I sure don't. Which means in the mean time....a wall to help. A wall can eventually be torn down when it is no longer needed. But until such time as its not needed its better than what we currently have.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the thread was to see evidence that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall will be an effective strategy to limit illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade.

After much typing, I see you do say a wall will help. Do you have any studies from reputable sources to support your claims, or are you just pulling this "fact" out of thin air?
 
JustHanging said:
The purpose of the thread was to see evidence that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall will be an effective strategy to limit illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade.

After much typing, I see you do say a wall will help. Do you have any studies from reputable sources to support your claims, or are you just pulling this "fact" out of thin air?
Click to expand...

In that case the tittle was completely botched.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Keeping his word on a promise that people clearly cared about and thus formed part of the foundation for why we voted for him, which created a mandate.
Click to expand...

Right, the promise was Mexico was going to pay for a wall along the entire length of the USA/Mexico border. Personally, I thought he was flimflamming his base, what with Trump's long history conning people, but the base believed him. Remember them chanting in unison at every Trump rally? "Build the wall! Build the wall!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!"

Now it turns out we were correct, and that you demonstrated extremely poor judgement letting a long time, well known, conman like Trump flimflam you. SMH.

Please explain why would we should trust your judgement now, after you so recently demonstrated you have terrible judgement, particularly in regards to Trump?
 
JustHanging said:
Yes, he's put his cult into a rather uncomfortable position of either admitting that Trump flimflammed them, or delude themselves and pretend Trump never promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suspect the self delusion will continue for at least a few more months.
Click to expand...


They have another version ... they say they knew all along that Mexico wouldn't pay for the way so they knew Trump's promises were invalid all along ... yet they have the gall to say he has a mandate for the opposite of what he promised. Some of them are quite brazen in acknowledging the lies yet demanding the rest of the country fall in line with Trump's blackmail.

Fortunately they are a minority. So hopefully the legislators who represent the majority will stand their ground.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
In that case the tittle was completely botched.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you gotta watch that. That's how Trump managed to flimflam you and his base so easily. Remember "Build the Wall!" and "Who will pay for it?" "MEXICO!"

LOL, you just accepted the "title" there too so to speak, didn't you? He sure flimflammed you easily didn't he?


Anyways, if you read the OP, here is the last paragraph:

Here is your chance. Produce a coherent, rational, and evidence-based argument for this wall. Not the emotional tripe, but something actually based in fact. Convert some people to your cause since you seem to believe the wall is a worthy project.
 
JustHanging said:
Right, the promise was Mexico was going to pay for a wall along the entire length of the USA/Mexico border. Personally, I thought he was flimflamming his base, what with Trump's long history conning people, but the base believed him. Remember them chanting in unison at every Trump rally? "Build the wall! Build the wall!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!" "Who's going to pay for it?" "MEXICO!"

Now it turns out we were correct, and that you demonstrated extremely poor judgement letting a long time, well known, conman like Trump flimflam you. SMH.

Please explain why would we should trust your judgement now, after you so recently demonstrated you have terrible judgement?
Click to expand...

The main thing was that we would build a wall, that we would build a big wall, who paid for it was less important. We should make Mexico pay for the wall, they can easily do that by charging Mexican products coming into the country, stuff that we want to discourage anyways....But first we need to build the thing.

The fact that you are desperately trying to make this about me tells me that you understand that your argument is weak, thus you reach for a diversion.
 
Amelia said:
They have another version ... they say they knew all along that Mexico wouldn't pay for the way so they knew Trump's promises were invalid all along ... yet they have the gall to say he has a mandate for the opposite of what he promised. Some of them are quite brazen in acknowledging the lies yet demanding the rest of the country fall in line with Trump's blackmail.

Fortunately they are a minority. So hopefully the legislators who represent the majority will stand their ground.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "I'm not a gullible fool, I allowed myself to get flimflammed" strategy eh?

And we're supposed to accept their judgement, after they so recently displayed a complete lack of judgement and bought into a know flimflam man's lies (or displayed a complete lack of judgement by supporting someone who is a known flimflam man and is lying to the American people).

Either way they have displayed that they have terrible judgement, and that we should not trust it.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Israel's wall is 440 miles. The U.S. Mexican border is 2500 miles, and the logistics, not to mention the cost are a nightmare. You can't compare the two.

Why don't we just fine the piss out of employers and jail them if they hire illegals? We could even make money from it! You know the KISS principal!
Click to expand...


Red:
There's an idea I can get with. The current penalty structure -- largely civil rather than criminal, and not pricey enough to affect the value proposition of hiring illegals -- combined with folks' reticence to report firms that violate the laws and Congress having appropriated nothing remotely like enough to enable comprehensive enforcement (i.e., enough auditors/examiners to make the likelihood of getting caught having hired unauthorized workers fairly high). And there's no way that such changes in the approach to enforcing extant laws proscribing the employment of undocumented immigrants can or would cost $10B, which, for perspective's sake, is just shy of the total budget of the IRS.



Suggested changes to 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens:
  • Eliminate the "good faith" compliance section and leave decisions of that nature to judges and juries
    • This can be removed because in this digital age, there's really no excuse for an employer not to be able to accurately, using positive verification methods, verify an applicant's employment status. I mean, really. I can go online and enter my mother's information and obtain all her and Dad's (now deceased) information, and their records were created long before anything was digital, yet somehow it's in those databases, which means someone transferred it there from ages old hard-copy documents. My "stuff" is no different.
  • Increase the penalties, make executives, firms and mid-level managers subject to the penalties, and create a tier structure for penalties.
    • Increase --> The value of the civil penalty should be one that makes it unprofitable to be caught using unauthorized workers.
    • Personal liability shared up the management hierarchy to the top --> If a C-level person and the HR manager and the other managers in between can each be held financially accountable for hiring unauthorized workers, one can be sure that the firm at which those folks work will do what it takes to find a way to confirm that each and every employee is authorized to work there.
    • Tier structure --> The point of the penalty isn't to drive a violator out of business, but rather to make sure they feel material financial pain if they get caught as violators. Accordingly, it doesn't make sense to fine a small firm the same sum one'd fine a multibillion dollar firm, nor does it make sense to fine, say, an HR manager or clerk as much as one'd fine an operations EVP or COO/CFO. To mete out pain while not destroying the firm, financial civil penalties need to be matched to the violating organization's/individual's earnings. For instance, the penalty might be defined as 5% of the present value (as of the day judgement/verdict is rendered) of the firm's/person's gross annual earnings/compensation as of some measurement date.
  • Criminalize all violations after the first one and make any criminal violation felonious with a mandatory and inescapable minimum sentence of one year.
  • Convert the statue to one of strict liability where the government needs to show that a defendant (1) engaged an unauthorized worker to do work for money. (Unauthorized workers' volunteering would not be illegal.)
Impacts of the above changes:
  • Word will get out to illegal immigrants that nobody is going to hire them. They won't come if they know they have no prospect of being hired to work.
    • The US is a horrible place to be and have no source of income.
    • One can stay where one is an be unemployed; there's neither need nor point in traveling anywhere to do that...unless one has a legitimate reason to seek asylum.
  • Nobody wants a felony "rap sheet" for failing to perform administrative due diligence.
  • Nobody wants to pay a material sum of money as a fine for failing to perform administrative due diligence.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The main thing was that we would build a wall, that we would build a big wall, who paid for it was less important.
Click to expand...

Oh what a bunch of nonsense. Trump flimflammed you. At least be a man and admit it instead of pretending it didn't happen.

Honestly your attempt to wiggle out of Trump humiliating you puts you in a worse light, because it means you knowingly supported a long time flimflam man who was deceiving the American people. What kind of a person who cared one iota for their country would do that?

We should make Mexico pay for the wall, they can easily do that by charging Mexican products coming into the country, stuff that we want to discourage anyways....But first we need to build the thing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The costs will be passed on to the American people. Trump flimflammed you, he humiliated you. At least stop it now, don't let him keep humiliating you.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The main thing was that we would build a wall, that we would build a big wall, who paid for it was less important. ....
Click to expand...


Easy for you to say it's not important, or "less important". But very arbitrary on your part and you are speaking for yourself and at most a small segment of the rest of the country.

He promised we wouldn't have to pay for it. Now he's saying that he will keep our government shut down until we fork over the money that he promised we wouldn't have to spend. He is not making the case and bringing the majority on board with his new plans. He is depriving Americans of government services to try to pressure us into paying for what he said we wouldn't have to pay for.

That is dishonorable and I hope our legislators do not cave.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
There's an idea I can get with. The current penalty structure -- largely civil rather than criminal, and not pricey enough to affect the value proposition of hiring illegals -- combined with folks' reticence to report firms that violate the laws and Congress having appropriated nothing remotely like enough to enable comprehensive enforcement (i.e., enough auditors/examiners to make the likelihood of getting caught having hired unauthorized workers fairly high). And there's no way that such changes in the approach to enforcing extant laws proscribing the employment of undocumented immigrants can or would cost $10B, which, for perspective's sake, is just shy of the total budget of the IRS.



Suggested changes to 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens:
  • Eliminate the "good faith" compliance section and leave decisions of that nature to judges and juries
    • This can be removed because in this digital age, there's really no excuse for an employer not to be able to accurately, using positive verification methods, verify an applicant's employment status. I mean, really. I can go online and enter my mother's information and obtain all her and Dad's (now deceased) information, and their records were created long before anything was digital, yet somehow it's in those databases, which means someone transferred it there from ages old hard-copy documents. My "stuff" is no different.
  • Increase the penalties, make executives, firms and mid-level managers subject to the penalties, and create a tier structure for penalties.
    • Increase --> The value of the civil penalty should be one that makes it unprofitable to be caught using unauthorized workers.
    • Personal liability shared up the management hierarchy to the top --> If a C-level person and the HR manager and the other managers in between can each be held financially accountable for hiring unauthorized workers, one can be sure that the firm at which those folks work will do what it takes to find a way to confirm that each and every employee is authorized to work there.
    • Tier structure --> The point of the penalty isn't to drive a violator out of business, but rather to make sure they feel material financial pain if they get caught as violators. Accordingly, it doesn't make sense to fine a small firm the same sum one'd fine a multibillion dollar firm, nor does it make sense to fine, say, an HR manager or clerk as much as one'd fine an operations EVP or COO/CFO. To mete out pain while not destroying the firm, financial civil penalties need to be matched to the violating organization's/individual's earnings. For instance, the penalty might be defined as 5% of the present value (as of the day judgement/verdict is rendered) of the firm's/person's gross annual earnings/compensation as of some measurement date.
  • Criminalize all violations after the first one and make any criminal violation felonious with a mandatory and inescapable minimum sentence of one year.
  • Convert the statue to one of strict liability where the government needs to show that a defendant (1) engaged an unauthorized worker to do work for money. (Unauthorized workers' volunteering would not be illegal.)
Impacts of the above changes:
  • Word will get out to illegal immigrants that nobody is going to hire them. They won't come if they know they have no prospect of being hired to work.
    • The US is a horrible place to be and have no source of income.
    • One can stay where one is an be unemployed; there's neither need nor point in traveling anywhere to do that...unless one has a legitimate reason to seek asylum.
  • Nobody wants a felony "rap sheet" for failing to perform administrative due diligence.
  • Nobody wants to pay a material sum of money as a fine for failing to perform administrative due diligence.
Click to expand...

I agree. Any time they really want to stop illegal immigration they can start handing out penalties to the people who hire illegals, such that hiring the illegals has a negative effect on profits.

But of course that would negatively affect Trump and his buddies, so that's never going to happen. Instead it's the distraction of "Build the Wall!"
 
JustHanging said:
Ah, the old "I'm not a gullible fool, I allowed myself to get flimflammed" strategy eh?

And we're supposed to accept their judgement, after they so recently displayed a complete lack of judgement and bought into a know flimflam man's lies (or displayed a complete lack of judgement by supporting someone who is a known flimflam man and is lying to the American people).

Either way they have displayed that they have terrible judgement, and that we should not trust it.
Click to expand...


Nailed it!
 
CriticalThought said:
Most Americans do not see a need for a border wall. There is no evidence it will be effective. There is little justification for the building and maintenance of such a structure. The fencing and security that currently exist have enjoyed strong bipartisan support. But Trump supporters seem dead set on forcing the other two thirds of Americans to believe the idea that this wall is essential. That there is a crisis of some sort without it. That we need 10,000 military troops there rather than 2,000 troops in Syria because the threat is so dire.

You aren't selling the wall to the rest of America. You are imposing it on us. You go down this road, then if you manage to get it built I could see it being torn down by your fellow Americans the next time the pendulum swings.
Click to expand...

For someone with your username, I don't see much in the way of "critical thought". Here is some of the 'critical thinking' that is woefully absent in your op.

First, what most Americans think they want depends on what Americans are asked, as well as to how, what and when it is asked. In 2015, for example:

Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.
Click to expand...

Voters Want to Build A Wall, Deport Felon Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports®

Asked a different way, in 2018, for example:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a proposal that would create a pathway to citizenship for those brought to this country illegally when they were children, build a wall on the Mexican border and change legal immigration to a more merit-based system.
Click to expand...

Most Want Citizenship for Dreamers ? And A Wall - Rasmussen Reports®

Second, the results of polls on walls depends on the numerous factors already alluded to. For example, the oft quoted PEW poll ASSUMES a solid wall, coast to coast and asks "All in all would support building a 2000 mile wall on the Mexican - American border?" Still, suppose they had asked it this way “There is already 700 miles of walls and fences, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the remaining, unwalled portion of the border with Mexico?” and you might get a different answer. And it doesn't help when PEW reputedly over-polled Democrats.

Last, and most importantly, both NPR and the Hill points out that the assumption of full wall is not being proposed. Trump has already said up to a 1000 miles will be natural and other barriers, and other times he and Republican senators have said much of it would be more like robust fencing and barriers.

In fact, the Harvard Harris poll didn't find strong opposition to a coast to coast border barrier. It found that 54 percent of Americans support "building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.".

Polls (e.g. Harris) as you might expect, support that a majority of voters want secure borders (76%), as well as stricter enforcement of immigration laws (70%). Voters also support prosecuting immigrants who cross the border illegally (53%) and sending these immigrants home (64%). A majority (55%) also stand against so-called “catch and release” policies. (And they want merit based immigration and lower numbers of immigrants) - but they also want immigration reform that, presumably, reflects those priorities. https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigration-and-foreign-policy.

So no, a coast to coast wall is not being forced down your throat. What Trump is asking for is 80 percent LESS than his original request - a "wall system" that starts us on the path of a secure border which, as everyone admits, is not secured.

A little more critical thinking might relieve you of your frustrations and misconception.
 
Last edited:
JustHanging said:
Ah, the old "I'm not a gullible fool, I allowed myself to get flimflammed" strategy eh?

And we're supposed to accept their judgement, after they so recently displayed a complete lack of judgement and bought into a know flimflam man's lies (or displayed a complete lack of judgement by supporting someone who is a known flimflam man and is lying to the American people).

Either way they have displayed that they have terrible judgement, and that we should not trust it.
Click to expand...

"You dont agree with me thus you suck thus I am not going to listen to you" is how ignorance is perpetuated.

The Better People dont do that.
 
lurchadams said:
It panders to his isolationist base. Some know that it really won't prevent the inflow of illegals but they like the fact that it's a giant "middle finger" to brown people.
Click to expand...

What about us Americans that want a wall to try and reduce illegal immigration? Are we all isolationist?
 
amelia said:
his mandate is to make mexico pay for the wall.

He promised taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for it. Now he is saying government will stay shut down until taxpayers pay for what he said we wouldn't have to pay for.

He has no mandate to blackmail us into doing what he promised we wouldn't have to do.
Click to expand...

this ^^^
 
maxparrish said:
For someone with your username, I don't see much in the way of "critical thought". Here is some of the 'critical thinking' that is woefully absent in your op.

First, what most Americans think they want depends on what Americans are asked, as well as to how, what and when it is asked. In 2015, for example:



Voters Want to Build A Wall, Deport Felon Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports®

Asked a different way, in 2018, for example:



Most Want Citizenship for Dreamers ? And A Wall - Rasmussen Reports®

Second, the results of polls on walls depends on the numerous factors already alluded to. For example, the oft quoted PEW poll ASSUMES a solid wall, coast to coast and asks "All in all would support building a 2000 mile wall on the Mexican - American border?" Still, suppose they had asked it this way “There is already 700 miles of walls and fences, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the remaining, unwalled portion of the border with Mexico?” and you might get a different answer. And it doesn't help when PEW reputedly over-polled Democrats.

Last, and most importantly, both NPR and the Hill points out that the assumption of full wall is not being proposed. Trump has already said up to a 1000 miles will be natural and other barriers, and other times he and Republican senators have said much of it would be more like robust fencing and barriers.

In fact, the Harvard Harris poll didn't find strong opposition to a coast to coast border barrier. It found that 54 percent of Americans support "building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.".

Polls (e.g. Harris) as you might expect, support that a majority of voters want secure borders (76%), as well as stricter enforcement of immigration laws (70%). Voters also support prosecuting immigrants who cross the border illegally (53%) and sending these immigrants home (64%). A majority (55%) also stand against so-called “catch and release” policies. (And they want merit based immigration and lower numbers of immigrants) - but they also want immigration reform that, presumably, reflects those priorities. https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigration-and-foreign-policy.

So no, a coast to coast wall is not being forced down your throat. What Trump is asking for is 80 percent LESS than his original request - a "wall system" that starts us on the path of a secure border which, as everyone admits, is not secured.

A little more critical thinking might relieve you of your frustrations and misconception.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why there are so many spots with no wall. The biggest reason is, private land owners are weary of being treated as peasants or worse, with heavy handed use of eminent domain which splits their land in spots which renders their property useless and worthless.

The fact is, five billion dollars will only partially begin to SETTLE a fraction of the guaranteed tsunami of litigation which will ensue.
Don't take my word for it, do searches on the opinions of landowners in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas who are already impacted by existing walls placed on their properties, and owners who are slated to get a wall.

To call that five billion dollar figure a "forward looking statement" approaches a level of absurdity that would elicit laughter from anyone who lives in border country. Try FIFTEEN BILLION.

And the fact is, walls in those locations are a poor approach compared to what that kind of money could do for the issue if used in other projects, like more agents, just as one example.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Why is he shoving this down out throats? It's because it's the only thing he has left. He's desperate. It makes him feel relevant to his base no matter how foolish he looks to the rest of us.

And don't forget it's a diversion from his own problems with the special counsel's investigation.
Click to expand...

:lol: you seem impartial....
 
enderpotato00 said:
What about us Americans that want a wall to try and reduce illegal immigration? Are we all isolationist?
Click to expand...

Perhaps... have you thought about why you dislike Mexicans and how this bigotry might affect your day to day life?
 
JustHanging said:
The purpose of the thread was to see evidence that spending $5b on a small portion of Trump's wall will be an effective strategy to limit illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade.

After much typing, I see you do say a wall will help. Do you have any studies from reputable sources to support your claims, or are you just pulling this "fact" out of thin air?
Click to expand...

I see you missed my other post in this thread which lists several ways that walls are used. If walls were "useless" then why are there so many walls around so many peoples homes? If they're "useless" then why does Israel have a wall? Answer those simple questions. Don't hem and haw. Answer them and answer them truthfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom