Money aside, what is wrong with Trump's wall?

[Rod1]

Yes, you are the intellectually dishonest. I never claimed that trump is reasonable. I said that there's nothing wrong with a wall. A wall is part of border security, is it not? So investing in border security would logically involve investing in some form of physical deterrent at said border.

For goodness sake, you like in Mexico...people don't puts bars on their windows? They don't block streets with concrete barriers? You know they do, I've seen them first hand. Everyone uses physical barriers to prevent passage but when it comes to a border, physical barriers suddenly stop working?

Let me ask a stupid question - do you think fences, locked doors, bars on windows, etc. are all wastes of money and time for the people who buy them?

1.- You claim that you never said Trump is reasonable and in the next sentence you claim the wall is a good idea.

2.- Yes, people but bars in their houses, and guess they dont work for shit if you leave your house alone all day. You know what actually works? alarms, neighborhood watches and having people visit your home. You know surveillance.

3.- Again, you are comparing instances where you are closing a possible route of illegal entry to areas of legal entry which people abuse.

 

[lfd0311]

They're a net positive to the economy by paying into programs that they can't benefit from (like paying sales tax on stuff they buy), they work jobs that Americans don't want and they create activity (they work, buy things, etc.). They're also as hard a working group of people as there is.

It's utterly false that they work jobs Americans don't want. That is propaganda put out by the Left that enables Leftists and major corporations to continue exploiting these people. They work jobs that Americans can't afford to work anymore because 25 to 30 years of illegal immigration/de-unionization has driven the wages for those jobs down to below poverty levels. If the Left really cared about these people, why do the constantly put them in a position to be exploited for their own personal benefit? You're far from a dumb guy, stop and think about that for a few minutes.

 

[spamking]

In spots without effective surveillance, literally the spots where there is less chance the border patrol will react in time, in some places its walled in others they arent walled.

So you think increased surveillance is the magic pill for this problem? That it would truly do more than a physical deterrent?

 

[panamaican]

The issue is that your home is a private property that no stranger has any business crossing. Quite different from a border which has a lot of crossings and a lot of people living in both sides of the wall.

Actually it's the exact same thing. No person has any business crossing a border without permission from the nation on the other side. Just like your home. People invite guests into their homes all of the time, that does not mean that every person gains entry...just the people invited.

If you invite friends over for dinner, it doesn't mean that complete strangers can come into your house and chill. More bad analogies.

But I understand this one at least. You truly think that just because you invite some people in legally that you cannot tell other people to stay out?

 

[Rod1]

You have once again resorted to saying nothing.
The street I live on is also gated, so we can expand the geography of this analogy as much as you want, you're still saying a lot of nothing.

The actual solution is to fix Mexico (which would be the South African government in my analogy) since the US president cannot do that, then a part of a good solution would be to do everything possible to prevent the flotsam from drifting across the border. A wall is a part of that solution.

Expand the wall to cover your entire city, then remove all walls inside the city, does the security in your neighborhood improved or not with this measure?

 

[kpt018]

It's utterly false that they work jobs Americans don't want. That is propaganda put out by the Left that enables Leftists and major corporations to continue exploiting these people. They work jobs that Americans can't afford to work anymore because 25 to 30 years of illegal immigration/de-unionization has driven the wages for those jobs down to below poverty levels. If the Left really cared about these people, why do the constantly put them in a position to be exploited for their own personal benefit? You're far from a dumb guy, stop and think about that for a few minutes.

Your criticism doesn't make any sense. Americans won't work those jobs because they're really hard and low paying, and that's not the fault of immigrants.

If immigration were to stop, companies would have a very hard time filling those jobs.

 

[Rod1]

Actually it's the exact same thing. No person has any business crossing a border without permission from the nation on the other side. Just like your home. People invite guests into their homes all of the time, that does not mean that every person gains entry...just the people invited.

If you invite friends over for dinner, it doesn't mean that complete strangers can come into your house and chill. More bad analogies.

But I understand this one at least. You truly think that just because you invite some people in legally that you cannot tell other people to stay out?

1.- No its not the same thing because you personally know people entering your home, the people working at border crosses dont personally know those crossing.

2.- See above, imagine you have a wedding with 2000 guests, do you honestly believe that you will be able to discern wedding crashers from legitimate guests?

3.- You seem unable to discern the value of analogies by going through a literal tangent, i know you are smarter than that so at this point i think you are just trolling me.

 

[Seano]

Its racist to not allow people to come to the country illegally. *insert south park meme*

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Expand the wall to cover your entire city, then remove all walls inside the city, does the security in your neighborhood improved or not with this measure?

No. The security within my neighbourhood (America, in this analogy) is compromised because of neighbouring neighbourhoods (Mexico, in this analogy). So, the pragmatic solution is to fence off my neighbourhood, until problems in the wider region are solved. Since those problems are beyond our ability to solve, we build fences to keep other people's problems from spilling into our lives.

Building a wall around my country, though, would help. Because, in the long term, a lot of problems in my country would be diminished if neighbouring countries' problems were kept on the other side of our borders.

 

[panamaican]

1.- You claim that you never said Trump is reasonable and in the next sentence you claim the wall is a good idea.

2.- Yes, people but bars in their houses, and guess they dont work for shit if you leave your house alone all day. You know what actually works? alarms, neighborhood watches and having people visit your home. You know surveillance.

3.- Again, you are comparing instances where you are closing a possible route of illegal entry to areas of legal entry which people abuse.

1. No offense but your ability to create complete fabrications out of reality has passed "amazing" and entered the absurd. A wall being a good idea is a good ideas regardless of if Trump is reasonable or not. Earlier I pointed out people who reject things just because Trump said them. You are a prime example. You can't separate the discussion of a wall and border security from a commentary on Trump. Trump can be a complete loon and a wall would still be a solid idea.

2. So...a combination of bars and other methods. Got it. So...a combination of a wall and other methods.

3. No. I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying that a wall will reduce illegal entry by making it harder to pass the areas where the wall exists. That has nothing to do with abuse of legal entry. You're struggling with breaking this problem down into it's parts. I'll try but I'm not hopeful:

Illegal entry = entering illegally.

Legal entry = entering legally.

Illegal immigrant = someone who is currently in the country illegally, it is independent from how they entered.

 

[Seano]

Just replace Mongolian with Mexican/Canadian

Seriously, to build a wall of this scope it will have to be made on the cheap and probably mostly paper mache

I heard Trump in an interview somewhere say "It's going to be a fabulous wall! I'm going to put my name on it"

ffs what a clown

He's appealing to the most paranoid/racist americans who are scared to death of every possible Muslim and

I can never take anyone seriously who bases their opinion on illegal immigration on South Park.

Sorry, you can put a cartoon frame up and think you've proven something if you want but its a reasonable point. Illegals do absorb blue collar jobs and keep wages down.

 

[lfd0311]

Your criticism doesn't make any sense. Americans won't work those jobs because they're really hard and low paying, and that's not the fault of immigrants.

If immigration were to stop, companies would have a very hard time filling those jobs.

The intention was to have a hard time filling them. To make them low paying. To drive down the wages. That is the whole purpose of illegal immigration. To increase profit margins for the wealthy by drastically cutting the cost of labor. If immigration was to stop, companies would have to increase their wages to a more livable wage. They would have to pay benefits and insurance. I thought all of those things are causes the left champions? Why aren't they doing it then? Why are they allowing American working people to be robbed blind by massive corporations? Because they're getting a cut. The Clinton's specifically are famous for that. Leftists like to pretend that illegal immigrant labor is exclusive to strictly farming in the extreme South Western Portion of the US. It isn't. Union Carpenters make $36.00 an hour plus benefits. An illegal immigrant carpenter can do the same exact quality of work and be paid 5 bucks an hour with no benefits, no bathroom or lunch breaks and no chance to at reporting an injury if he gets hurt. Union construction workers in some states make as much as 50 bucks an hour. Illegals maybe make 5 or 6 for the exact same work. That's the real reason for massive immigrant influx.

 

[kpt018]

The intention was to have a hard time filling them. To make them low paying. To drive down the wages. That is the whole purpose of illegal immigration. To increase profit margins for the wealthy by drastically cutting the cost of labor. If immigration was to stop, companies would have to increase their wages to a more livable wage. They would have to pay benefits and insurance. I thought all of those things are causes the left champions? Why aren't they doing it then? Why are they allowing American working people to be robbed blind by massive corporations? Because they're getting a cut. The Clinton's specifically are famous for that. Leftists like to pretend that illegal immigrant labor is exclusive to strictly farming in the extreme South Western Portion of the US. It isn't. Union Carpenters make $36.00 an hour plus benefits. An illegal immigrant carpenter can do the same exact quality of work and be paid 5 bucks an hour with no benefits, no bathroom or lunch breaks and no chance to at reporting an injury if he gets hurt. Union construction workers in some states make as much as 50 bucks an hour. Illegals maybe make 5 or 6 for the exact same work. That's the real reason for massive immigrant influx.

See, I think the issue is the opposite. If companies stop hiring illegals they wouldn't come here.

And it's definitely not the same quality of work. They are mostly hired for agriculture, low-level service industry and low-level construction jobs. They can't do the work of master mechanics and not at the same quality for sure.

Besides, my comment was that it was a net positive for the economy. I agree that it can hurt certain types of workers.

 

[panamaican]

1.- No its not the same thing because you personally know people entering your home, the people working at border crosses dont personally know those crossing.

2.- See above, imagine you have a wedding with 2000 guests, do you honestly believe that you will be able to discern wedding crashers from legitimate guests?

3.- You seem unable to discern the value of analogies by going through a literal tangent, i know you are smarter than that so at this point i think you are just trolling me.

1. That is honestly just stupid. You have a dinner party and invite friends plus dates, plenty of the dates might be people you've never met before. You throw a house party and check the door, some of the people you let in might be people you don't know personally. At the Border, we check id's so we know everyone who enters. Seriously, that's a dumb enough argument to make me quit this thread.

2. No. But that doesn't mean you don't try to prevent wedding crashers. Which is why people hold their weddings in private venues...to limit the amount of people off the street who will just wander into their wedding.

3. LOL... Analogies only work when they are parallels to the point being discussed. If the analogy isn't accurate, it's not a valuable analogy. You have to be fucking with me at this point...right? You're defending a piss poor analogy by saying that the problem is that I noticed that the analogy is piss poor? Surely you've taken the SAT or the ACT or some other test that uses analogies. Analogies are meant to clarify. That can't happen if the analogy doesn't correlate to the thing being clarified. It's like trying to explain why birds fly by comparing it to dogs taking a dump. That doesn't become better just because you insist that we should overlook your shortcomings.

 

[Prefect]

It won't be effective at all. There are 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the u.s. If you assume they came in over a 30 year period, which isn't a assumption since Reagan granted amnesty 30 some years ago, that is 1000 people a day on average. Almost all just get a plane ticket and never leave. The wall doesn't fix anything. the wall doesn't stop anyone from overstaying.

 

[Rod1]

1. No offense but your ability to create complete fabrications out of reality has passed "amazing" and entered the absurd. A wall being a good idea is a good ideas regardless of if Trump is reasonable or not. Earlier I pointed out people who reject things just because Trump said them. You are a prime example. You can't separate the discussion of a wall and border security from a commentary on Trump. Trump can be a complete loon and a wall would still be a solid idea.

2. So...a combination of bars and other methods. Got it. So...a combination of a wall and other methods.

3. No. I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying that a wall will reduce illegal entry by making it harder to pass the areas where the wall exists. That has nothing to do with abuse of legal entry. You're struggling with breaking this problem down into it's parts. I'll try but I'm not hopeful:

Illegal entry = entering illegally.

Legal entry = entering legally.

Illegal immigrant = someone who is currently in the country illegally, it is independent from how they entered.

1.- Really? because Trump said it? We talked about eminent domain, ecological concern and economic costs in this thread, you ignored them because the thread premise is that economic cost is inconsequential, but now we left the hypothetical and you are claiming that it is a good idea regardless of what Trump says, and now you claim that those who are against are simply Trump-haters? Seriously man?

2.- Again, i dont put fences on the backyard of my neighbour to prevent someone from entering my house, you are wanting to put walls in private property to do so.

3.- Again, ignoring completely that the nature of the illegality is completely different between breaking in a store open to the public and a country. Complete intellectual dishonesty.

 

[IIIIIIII]

what's so glaring about this whole discussion, is that people don't seem to realize that a gigantic wall will not stop those, on both sides of the wall, who want to smuggle in illegal immigrants. people will find ways to get them through. what you need to do is remove the desire to have illegals in the united states. money talks louder than pandering rhetoric. and illegals save american companies a lot of money.

 

[Rod1]

1. That is honestly just stupid. You have a dinner party and invite friends plus dates, plenty of the dates might be people you've never met before. You throw a house party and check the door, some of the people you let in might be people you don't know personally. At the Border, we check id's so we know everyone who enters. Seriously, that's a dumb enough argument to make me quit this thread.

2. No. But that doesn't mean you don't try to prevent wedding crashers. Which is why people hold their weddings in private venues...to limit the amount of people off the street who will just wander into their wedding.

3. LOL... Analogies only work when they are parallels to the point being discussed. If the analogy isn't accurate, it's not a valuable analogy. You have to be fucking with me at this point...right? You're defending a piss poor analogy by saying that the problem is that I noticed that the analogy is piss poor? Surely you've taken the SAT or the ACT or some other test that uses analogies. Analogies are meant to clarify. That can't happen if the analogy doesn't correlate to the thing being clarified. It's like trying to explain why birds fly by comparing it to dogs taking a dump. That doesn't become better just because you insist that we should overlook your shortcomings.

1.- Again, you are letting them in because they come with the friends you know personally, border agents dont know everyone personally and neither are other citizens, if you encounter a stranger in your home you know he is there illegally, if you encounter an illegal on the streets you cant tell if he is a citizen or not.

2.- Absolutely, so you agree that there is the possibility of weddings being crashed and still go with the wedding, you dont simply call off the wedding (close the border).

3.- Analogies cant be literally interpreted which is what you are doing, im drawing a pretty specific and concise paramount towards 2 aspects of an analogy, and you are the one taking a literal interpretation towards points completely unrelated at hand.

 

[lfd0311]

See, I think the issue is the opposite. If companies stop hiring illegals they wouldn't come here.

And it's definitely not the same quality of work. They are mostly hired for agriculture, low-level service industry and low-level construction jobs. They can't do the work of master mechanics and not at the same quality for sure.

Besides, my comment was that it was a net positive for the economy. I agree that it can hurt certain types of workers.

Carpentry is "low level construction work" that's the point. Run of the mill Union construction workers in some states, concrete workers, make 50 bucks an hour. You're perpetrating a lie and you don't even realize it.

Secondly, when I was stationed in Csmp Pendelton, I used to see signs all the time around harvest time outside of the base advertising "labor wanted 4 dollars an hour". Where were the army of leftists in California putting s stop to that? Insuring that these people were paid at least minimum wage? They wee nowhere to be found. They were in on the hustle.

 

[spamking]

Your criticism doesn't make any sense. Americans won't work those jobs because they're really hard and low paying, and that's not the fault of immigrants.

If immigration were to stop, companies would have a very hard time filling those jobs.

Which factor weighs more? How hard they are or the low pay?

How is that not the fault of immigrants? If they'll accept the lower wage why isn't that their fault? If they won't take it the job would go to the next person willing to take whatever pay was offered.

While not completely their fault you can't say they're blameless.