House Democrat: I Would Trade the Wall for a DACA Bill— We Can Tear It Down in a Couple of Years

[badascan]

The idea of calling them dreamers is sad, blatant, propagandized newspeak...

 

[JamesRussler]

Democrats will never be in charge again. Don't make any deals with them, because we can get it for free after the 2018 midterms.

 

[waiguoren]

The purpose of the wall is symbolic. No one thinks it would actually provide any concrete benefits. Likewise, tearing it down would be symbolic.

Right. No one. Except a large percentage of the people who actually work at the border.

• In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants. Source

• Building more border walls would help funnel drug smugglers over to where agents can catch or stop them, the chief of the Border Patrol agents’ labor union testified to Congress on Thursday...
  Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, also said a wall is better than fencing because it’s too easy to breach the fence with torches, cutting holes that smugglers can pass their loads through.
  
  “I have a brother who’s also a Border Patrol agent, who spent two years and all he did every day is patch holes in a fence,” Mr. Judd recounted in testimony to the House Oversight Committee. “A wall cannot be defeated the way a fence can be defeated.” Source
• Rodney Scott, US Customs and Border Patrol Chief Agent for the San Diego Sector: "The reason you have a front door with a lock on it is because you believe in walls. If you didn't believe in security---if you believed in open borders, no walls and no impedance---you'd leave your doors open at night. So the concept [of the wall] is solid. There are some areas---for example, right on the border in city environments---I don't want my agents right next to a solid wall that they can't see through. People could lob rocks or molotov cocktails across it. We're being asked what we need and where we need it." Source

@Jack V Savage

No response?

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

No response?

Some people support the wall. OK. Doesn't change the fact that it's a pointless, symbolic gesture. Trump knows this, too, and supports it for that reason.

 

[waiguoren]

Some people support the wall. OK. Doesn't change the fact that it's a pointless, symbolic gesture.

Why are you so confident that this is the case, given that multiple experts---including (1) the head of the National Border Patrol Council and (2) the chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector---disagree with you?

These are people who actually deal with illegal crossings on a daily basis, and they are saying a wall would make their jobs much easier.

 

[7437]

Democrats will never be in charge again. Don't make any deals with them, because we can get it for free after the 2018 midterms.

dems thought the same thing pretty recently about the GOP

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why are you so confident that this is the case, given that multiple experts---including (1) the head of the National Border Patrol Council and (2) the chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector---disagree with you?

These are people who actually deal with illegal crossings on a daily basis, and they are saying a wall would make their jobs much easier.

Some people who deal with the issue say a wall would help, most don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/...-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.html

There are 20,000 agents. The reason I didn't bother with you the first time is that we know we can find some of them to say anything. Probably some flat-Earthers and a lot of Creationists among them.

 

[waiguoren]

Some people who deal with the issue say a wall would help, most don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/...-wall-immigration-trump-senate-democrats.html

Your statement is false. Did you read that article carefully? Ignoring the baseless and needlessly inflammatory headline, the article contradicts your claim.

Customs and Border Protection officials said Border Patrol agents were asked to identify “gaps” in border security, not to propose solutions. They said that Border Patrol sector chiefs, from San Diego to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, have voiced support for a border wall.

To summarize, it's not true---as you wrote---that most border agents say a wall would not help. I hope this distortion was not willful. I suspect it is attributable to laziness.

 

[GSP_37]

Build it then tear it down is a waste of tax dollars.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your statement is false. Did you read that article carefully? Ignoring the baseless and needlessly inflammatory headline, the article contradicts your claim.

Customs and Border Protection officials said Border Patrol agents were asked to identify “gaps” in border security, not to propose solutions. They said that Border Patrol sector chiefs, from San Diego to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, have voiced support for a border wall.

To summarize, it's not true---as you wrote---that most border agents say a wall would not help. I hope this distortion was not willful. I suspect it is attributable to laziness.

But Border Patrol agents on the front lines say they need more technology and additional personnel to curb the illegal traffic, according to a report released on Thursday by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The report was based on internal Customs and Border Protection documents from the 2017 fiscal year. It concluded that less than one half of 1 percent of the agents’ suggestions to secure the Southwest border mentioned the need for a wall.

The point of a wall isn't to enhance border security, it's to send a message to Trump's base that he shares their fear regarding changing racial demographics in America. What's more, everyone on both sides of the discussion is well aware of that. Something like eVerify would be the way to go if the concern was truly about preventing illegal immigration.

 

[waiguoren]

The point of a wall isn't to enhance border security, it's to send a message to Trump's base that he shares their fear regarding changing racial demographics in America. What's more, everyone on both sides of the discussion is well aware of that.

This is a huge backtrack on your part.

1. First you claimed that no qualified people think the wall would be effective. I pointed out multiple experts on the front lines who have stated otherwise.
   
2. Then you claimed "Some people who deal with the issue say a wall would help, most don't" and cited a report by Senate Democrats which does not make that claim. You have yet to provide evidence for the claim.
   
3. Now you have abandoned those positions and are focusing on the purported "real reason" for the wall. You have fled from the realm of facts into the realm of inferring motives.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is a huge backtrack on your part.

1. First you claimed that no qualified people think the wall would be effective. I pointed out multiple experts on the front lines who have stated otherwise.
   
2. Then you claimed "Some people who deal with the issue say a wall would help, most don't" and cited a report by Senate Democrats which does not make that claim. You have yet to provide evidence for the claim.
   
3. Now you have abandoned those positions and are focusing on the purported "real reason" for the wall. You have fled from the realm of facts into the realm of inferring motives.

My position is unchanged. "No" shouldn't be read literally. I'm sure there are some idiots out there.

This is my initial post:

"The purpose of the wall is symbolic. No one thinks it would actually provide any concrete benefits. Likewise, tearing it down would be symbolic."

That is still what I believe, granting that there's some exaggeration when I say "no." I figured that an ordinary English speaker would realize that.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

70 percent are adults...idiot libtard calls them "children" to garner sympathy from fellow libtard supporters.

Oh libtards...

Or maybe the 30% is who she is worried most about.

 

[Culombo]

democrats aren't anti american citizens .. they seem to be working for illegal aliens .. they seem to hold the interests of illegal aliens above those of american citizens .. why would anyone vote for these people ?

 

[BrotherClaudio]

More retards willing to waste billions for their own agenda

 

[waiguoren]

"The purpose of the wall is symbolic. No one thinks it would actually provide any concrete benefits. Likewise, tearing it down would be symbolic."

That is still what I believe, granting that there's some exaggeration when I say "no."

You have provided no evidence for this claim. The Senate Democrats' report (full report here) offers no evidence for your claim, as the agents questioned were only asked about vulnerabilities, i.e., "capability gaps". I am quite confident that a poll of all border agents would find very strong support for the construction of a wall.

Related: why do you think the border agents' union (the National Border Patrol Council) endorsed Donald Trump for president? The NBPC has been around since 1967 but had never endorsed a presidential candidate before Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Related: why do you think the border agents' union (the National Border Patrol Council) endorsed Donald Trump for president? The NBPC has been around since 1967 but had never endorsed a presidential candidate before Trump.

Law enforcement in general tends to lean right, and Trump in particular really appealed to a lot of the profession. I'd guess that Border Patrol agents would be receptive to the minority scapegoating that was the heart of Trump's message.

 

[Tiny]

Or maybe the 30% is who she is worried most about.

Sure but its disengenuous to proclaim a false narrative.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

Sure but its disengenuous to proclaim a false narrative.

Not necessarily but you'll see it that way because you want to.

Edit.
Let me clarify. Yes proclaiming a false narrative is wrong.

I'm not really convinced that is what is happening here.

 

[waiguoren]

Related: why do you think the border agents' union (the National Border Patrol Council) endorsed Donald Trump for president? The NBPC has been around since 1967 but had never endorsed a presidential candidate before Trump.

Law enforcement in general tends to lean right, and Trump in particular really appealed to a lot of the profession.

I noticed that you did not even mention the cumulative decades of experience that these men and women have working on the front lines. I also noticed that you fell back again on abstract left/right notions to explain something very concrete.


I think I re-evaluation of your model of human behavior is in order. Most border agents don't think (consciously or otherwise): "I'm on the right, so I should support Donald Trump." Instead, they most likely think, "Donald Trump is taking border security seriously, unlike any other presidential candidate before him, so he has earned my support."

I'd guess that Border Patrol agents would be receptive to the minority scapegoating that was the heart of Trump's message.

According to media reports from late 2008, 52% of border agents were Latinos. On what basis do you suspect border agents of being "receptive to scapegoating of minorities"?