Build the wall.

Yep. That 400 some odd miles of border is totally comparable to the almost 2,000 mile continental perimeter we share with Mexico. It's in real populated areas, too.
Grasp for those straws, sweetheart.

Walls work. Always have. I've become so disinterested in this irrational, abject defeatism that I now favor policy pitches on costs. You should try to help poor @Rod1 pull his failed argument out of the miasma where it was revealed he doesn't know anything about our drug problem at all (he literally believed that most junkies started out on legally prescribed drugs for an ailment):
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/i...had-been-raping.3810041/page-3#post-143836339

I'm going to actually have to make the opposing argument for him because he does not even understand what the arguments made were. The counterargument has nothing to do with believing that a wall couldn't more effectively deter the drug trade. The best counterargument to the wall is the inevitable instability it would wreak on Central American counties like Honduras whose GDP is literally 20% American remittances.

This reminds me I have to go smash him up a bit.
 
With this logic, a felon convicted of burglary should keep his doors unlocked at all times and let everybody come and go as they pleased.

Just because you've committed an offense, doesn't mean that you're "free game" to be committed an offense against. If we operated thus, the world would be a never-ending loop of crimes committed against one another, for vengeance. Which is what it largely has been, in fairness.

But this logic doesn't take us anywhere beyond what we've already witnessed for the past 2000 years.

We have the choice of bringing more order to the world, or to cause more chaos in order to satisfy our immediate impulses. While we will always require some of the latter, so as not to become machines devoid of emotion, I think it is safe to say which alternative is the preferable one in this scenario. An orderly way of immigrating to a country, is far preferable to a chaotic one which serves to create an under-class of people without full citizenship, driving down wages and labour rights for everybody else.

I was replying to your statement that illegals don't respect US laws because of sanctuary cities, etc., when I contend that it is more a result of the US' long history of thumbing their nose at the laws and sovereignty of other nations.

The rest is a strawman.
 
Grasp for those straws, sweetheart.

Walls work. Always have. I've become so disinterested in this irrational, abject defeatism that I now favor policy pitches on costs. You should try to help poor @Rod1 pull his failed argument out of the miasma where it was revealed he doesn't know anything about our drug problem at all (he literally believed that most junkies started out on legally prescribed drugs for an ailment):
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/immigrant-arrives-at-texas-port-of-entry-posing-with-underage-‘daughter’-he-had-been-raping.3810041/page-3#post-143836339

I'm going to actually have to make the opposing argument for him because he does not even understand what the arguments made were. The counterargument has nothing to do with believing that a wall couldn't more effectively deter the drug trade. The best counterargument to the wall is the inevitable instability it would wreak on Central American counties like Honduras whose GDP is literally 20% American remittances.

This reminds me I have to go smash him up a bit.

Of course walls work.

However, in business, their is this little thing called cost-benefit. It is especially important when resources are finite. Israel's West Bank barrier is hardly analogous to the US border with Mexico.

I don't know wtf you are talking about in regards to Rod1 or drugs - are you confused, or just really angry?
 
I was replying to your statement that illegals don't respect US laws because of sanctuary cities, etc., when I contend that it is more a result of the US' long history of thumbing their nose at the laws and sovereignty of other nations.

The rest is a strawman.

You might contend it, but I don't think your proposed alternative has any more truth to it.

How many of these people truly give a damn about America's meddling into their nation's sovereignty, compared to, for example, a bunch of local thugs running a crime ring that has made the environment intolerable? I think the latter has a lot more to do with people moving away, than what America has done.

Why would you want to move to a country that has committed crimes against you, anyway?

And even if it is true, it is certainly not in America's best interests to import a people who have no respect for its laws. Regardless of whether they're morally justified in not respecting them, or not. That's not really how nation-states function.
 
You might contend it, but I don't think your proposed alternative has any more truth to it.

How many of these people truly give a damn about America's meddling into their nation's sovereignty, compared to, for example, a bunch of local thugs running a crime ring that has made the environment intolerable? I think the latter has a lot more to do with people moving away, than what America has done.

Why would you want to move to a country that has committed crimes against you, anyway?

And even if it is true, it is certainly not in America's best interests to import a people who have no respect for its laws. Regardless of whether they're morally justified in not respecting them, or not. That's not really how nation-states function.

What was my proposed alternative?
 
What was my proposed alternative?

You're saying that illegals don't respect America's laws, because America broke the laws of Latin American countries by meddling in their affairs.

I'm saying that America's lack of enforcement at the border, and cities offering sanctuary to those that cross it, has probably played a bigger part into that. Most certainly in the 80's and 90's, when there was virtually none.

The more the border is enforced, the less people come in illegally.
 
You're saying that illegals don't respect America's laws, because America broke the laws of Latin American countries by meddling in their affairs.

I'm saying that America's lack of enforcement at the border has probably played a bigger part into that. Most certainly in the 80's and 90's, when there was virtually none.

The more the border is enforced, the less people come in illegally.

Well, I would say that both phenomena contributed to this.

What happened in the 80's and 90's as a result of this lack of enforcement? What happened specifically to America because of it? Were there hordes of Mexicans running across the desert? Although I'm from San Diego, I lived in STL for awhile, so maybe I missed it.
 
Grasp for those straws, sweetheart.

Walls work. Always have. I've become so disinterested in this irrational, abject defeatism that I now favor policy pitches on costs. You should try to help poor @Rod1 pull his failed argument out of the miasma where it was revealed he doesn't know anything about our drug problem at all (he literally believed that most junkies started out on legally prescribed drugs for an ailment):
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/i...had-been-raping.3810041/page-3#post-143836339

My argument was that the drug problem was a demand-side, public health issue. Your argument was that america should take up the totalitarian ass backward drug policies of China and Malaysia (and yet you can still find drugs there).

How can someone argue with a straight face that the drug war has been a success?

I'm going to actually have to make the opposing argument for him because he does not even understand what the arguments made were. The counterargument has nothing to do with believing that a wall couldn't more effectively deter the drug trade. The best counterargument to the wall is the inevitable instability it would wreak on Central American counties like Honduras whose GDP is literally 20% American remittances.

You do realize that just because the wall gets built it wont mean that the millions of illegals ALREADY in the US will magically disappear right? not to mention visa overstays.
 
You're saying that illegals don't respect America's laws, because America broke the laws of Latin American countries by meddling in their affairs.

I'm saying that America's lack of enforcement at the border, and cities offering sanctuary to those that cross it, has probably played a bigger part into that. Most certainly in the 80's and 90's, when there was virtually none.

The more the border is enforced, the less people come in illegally.

Less people come illegaly because economic conditions have improved at home. Also because it was so easy to go back and forth before the border was enforced it meant a lot of people chose to do seasonal work and then go back to their homes as opposed to staying in the US forever.

That doesnt means that border enforcement doesnt works, i merely think its far easier and cheaper to attack the source.
 
The thing TS fails to understand is, the tunnel was busted
 
Drugs and illegals enter the country in more ways than one, so we should just not try to stop it at all.

Sound logic.
We should stop it by enacting polices that reduce spending and reduce the amount of illegal drugs and humans coming across the border.

Not by continuing policies that have proven to "add fuel to the fire" and throwing countless dollars at paramilitary forces, gizmos and gadgets and a wall that will take eons to complete.
 
Seems about right for Trump supporters.

"What? They're making deep tunnels? BUILD A WALL!"


I'm gonna need you to knock down that fence around your house .. then take down your door .. you don't need them .. go ahead
 
Drugs and illegals enter the country in more ways than one, so we should just not try to stop it at all.

Sound logic.

the logic is actually to spend money and effort on the more effective ways of combating the problem, rather than for a literal wall that is being called for, for the moral victory of it.


you know, from adults that understand disagreeing with something doesn't mean believing in the extreme opposite. try it for once.
 
I'll keep posting this until it sinks in.

It worked for Israel and for Hungary.

Attempted border entries have fallen since the barrier was constructed. During the month of September 2015 there was a total number of 138,396 migrant entries, and within the first two weeks of November the average daily number of intercepted migrants decreased to only 15, which is a daily reduction of more than 4,500.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunga...e_number_of_illegal_migrants_entering_Hungary

Suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of the barrier.[7][48] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been less able to conduct attacks in Israel, which have decreased in areas where the barrier has been completed.[49][50]

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency report that in 2002, there were 452 fatalities from terrorist attacks. Before the completion of the first continuous segment (July 2003) from the beginning of the Second Intifada, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. After the completion of the first continuous segment through the end of 2006, there were only 12 attacks based in the West Bank, killing 64 people and wounding 445.[6] Terrorist attacks declined in 2007[6] and 2008[51] to 9 in 2010.[52]

Israeli officials (including the head of the Shin Bet) quoted in the newspaper Maariv have said that in the areas where the barrier was complete, the number of hostile infiltrations has decreased to almost zero. Maariv also stated that Palestinian militants, including a senior member of Islamic Jihad, had confirmed that the barrier made it much harder to conduct attacks inside Israel. Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarm and Qalqilyah in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas. All attacks were intercepted or the suicide bombers detonated prematurely.[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Effectiveness

Walls work.
 
How do you know this?

They always finding these tunnels in Mexico. It's on the news over there all the time when i go down there to visit.

There not just hot weather girls on TV you know.
 
They always finding these tunnels in Mexico. It's on the news over there all the time when i go down there to visit.

There not just hot weather girls on TV you know.

It's a big stretch to make a wild guess about "thousands" of tunnels. Some, probably. Dozens would surprise me. Hundreds, very doubtful. Did you read that somewhere?
 
Of course walls work.

However, in business, their is this little thing called cost-benefit. It is especially important when resources are finite. Israel's West Bank barrier is hardly analogous to the US border with Mexico.

I don't know wtf you are talking about in regards to Rod1 or drugs - are you confused, or just really angry?
Sure, cost-benefit is why the wall (and immigration in general) wasn't a Top 5 issue for me in the 2016 campaign; probably not even a Top 10 issue if I sat down to write them down.

Yet, if we can afford to squander $125 billion in bureaucratic waste over 5 years on the Pentagon alone, we can afford a substantial wall. Even the highest estimates I saw, which would erect a massive 15ft+ reinforced structure across the entire stretch, placed the cost at $400bn-$600bn. We had $3.32 trillion in federal tax revenue in 2017, another $1.55 trillion in state revenue, and another 1.26 trillion in local revenue.
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue
I will remind readers that two of the states that make up the biggest contributors to that state revenue share this border (i.e. California, Texas).

That's just a single year of revenue. The Chinese had generations of peasants without rights. We have mechanization, skills, and massive hordes of money. Both strategies work.

The strongest counterargument is much more complicated and exhausting; involves the snowballing instability any wall would have on Mexico and Central American countries, and how that would come back in the long-term to be an even bigger problem for us. We cannot allow the western hemisphere to rot.
 
It's a big stretch to make a wild guess about "thousands" of tunnels. Some, probably. Dozens would surprise me. Hundreds, very doubtful. Did you read that somewhere?

Your probably right about thousands being to high but hundreds are believable. You have to account of all the millions of dollars even billion of drug money being trafficking to America, that drug cartels invested in well constructed tunnels .

Pretty rational to continue the profit they gain every year.
 
Your probably right about thousands being to high but hundreds are believable. You have to account of all the millions of dollars even billion of drug money being trafficking to America, that drug cartels invested in well constructed tunnels .

Pretty rational to continue the profit they gain every year.
let's assume there are hundreds(which implies atleast 2 hundred) of tunnels. the length of the mexican-american border is 1,954 miles. if we are being conservative and believe there was 200 tunnels(the bare minimum for there to be "hundreds" tunnels) that would mean there is a tunnel every 9.77 miles on average.

do you actually believe that there is a tunnel every 10 miles along the border?


and lol at even trying to claim there are "thousands" of tunnels in the first place before getting called out. jesus christ.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,834
Messages
55,310,964
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top