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

[panamaican]

Actually the analogy is correct because im not comparing the nature of the crime, but the fact that the crime is a minority aspect of a more broad legal activity.

Someone saying close the border is not the same as saying close the border to illegal entries, closing the border means closing the border to all kind of movement, including legal one.

So when someone says close the border because a tiny minority of crossings are illegal in nature, is the same as saying close the store because a tiny minority of customers are stealing.

You trying to draw a different analogy with breaking an entering is false, because all breaking and entering is illegal, therefore its easier to put bars on the windows without any problem whatsoever. Putting bars in windows doesnt stops your ability to sell things in your store.

No, you're analogy is still incorrect. Even if one is a minor aspect of a broader activity, they are still completely different aspects. Breaking and entering followed by shoplifting (which is just theft) might happen together but they are still different crimes. Someone can commit one of those crimes without committing both. You can illegally enter the U.S. and never take a job, use benefits, etc. Just live illegally. You can enter legally, overstay your visa and work illegally. 2 separate crimes require 2 separate responses. You cannot treat them as the same unless you ignore the actual crimes themselves.

Second, a wall doesn't mean closing the border. The hypo was what's wrong with a wall, money aside. That is a different question from "should we close the border?"

So, again, shoplifting requires actually taking something, breaking and entering only requires entry. Conflating the two in your analogy is simply misapplying the definition of well-defined terms. It's far easier to just re-write your point using the proper crimes - illegal trespassing or some other crime specific to illegal entry, like burglary - which is illegal entry with the intent to commit a crime.

Why you would insist on the wrong language is baffling to me. You could still make your point...unless you don't think your point stands up when presented in terms of people breaking into other people's stores.

 

[Torrid]

Topography...so what? No one is saying that it must be a perfectly contiguous wall from the Pacific to the Atlantic. But a wall is more effective than a fence. And certainly more effective than nothing at all. So, money aside, there's nothing wrong with a wall.

Environmental impact...so what? Define "devastating" impact so I can understand what specifically you're concerned about. Building cities has a devastating impact on the environment but no one says not to do it.

Eminent domain exists for a reason but, really, this is just a money issue and we're discussing "money aside".

Going over and under is impacted by the quality of the wall. Just like any barrier. Yet we build fences around our property. We but physical barriers all over the place because we realize that even a minimal barrier will dissuade some. A significant barrier will dissuade all but the most driven and that's a far smaller group.

Man hours - if that's your concern then what's your opinion on our currently manning and patrolling the existing border? Should we stop? Is it wasted? Perhaps a larger deterrent would actually reduce the need for man hours by reducing the number of people willing to cross it and allowing us to better allocate our man power.

You could have just typed, "lol, so what", and saved me the time of reading that.

You want to propose this magical circumstance where money isn't an issue with the project; so I give you examples of what other problems the wall would have. Then your only response to them is, "let's pretend those aren't an issue either - like the fact that a wall can't be supported on much of the terrain, people will circumvent it easily, and you'll literally rob citizens of their land for an eyesore of a pointless project."

 

[PrinceOfPain]

1.- Sure it could be like the wall on game of thrones then we would have the mexicanlings climbing it.

2.- A wall without surveillance is useless just ask the Chinese.

Avoidance of the issue is fun, but it doesn't make your case. A wall of sufficient height would deter the less determined, and it would slow down the more determined. You can't keep out 100% of anyone who wants to come in, but a strong lock and a tall enough wall slows them down enough that an appropriate response can be rendered - just ask anyone who lives in South Africa.

 

[oldshadow]

Also a wall/fence is only the first step in getting control of illegal immigration.

 

[chardog]

Then do it the first time you post a claim.
It's standard internet courtesy. Don't give others homework like you're some professor. Assert something, post a source; don't complain when others call you on your bullshit or say how easy it was. If it's easy, post it in the first place.

if you actually go into the article, it says that it's half true, could be 25 to 30 percent as well. In other words, talking out of his ass.

 

[Rod1]

well obama's been in power for a while now, why dont you complain about why it's not standard practice?

The idea that employers are the ones that should handle immigration is a failed response from liberals everytime. Why arent you complaining about obama not making it standard practice? In my line of work, I can hire tons of mexicans, some even BORN in america, full adult, and hardly speak any english. Am I suppose to discriminate the guy and accuse him of being an illegal? How the heck should I know if he's illegal or not?

fill out an I-9, I'm not an immigration officer, I did my job.

as for putting people in federal prison for hiring illegals. Good luck putting the poor middle class dude that picked up some guy from home depot to help with his lawn. That'll go really well. Lock him up for 10 years, the sentence fits the crime.

1.- Why do you single out Obama when both parties love that cheap labour?

2.- Its certainly employers fault that they come, certainly you cant blame them for hiring willing workers, but lets not kid ourselves, its like claiming junkies are not the reason why drug cartels exist.

3.- Its not the fault of the farmers that illegals are coming into the country, yet people dont see a problem with fucking them over with a big ass wall.

4.- The sentence fits the crime just as much as a huge ass wall fits the problem of illegal border crossing.

 

[panamaican]

Illegal entry through the US-Mexico border has 2 causes, drugs and illegal workers, eliminate jobs and illegal drugs and you fix both of them.

And sex trafficking.

How about a combination of limiting illegal entry combined with eliminating jobs addresses both. You're not going to eliminate jobs, illegal drugs or completely stop illegal entry. But why treat only part of a problem when you can treat every aspect of it.

No offense but I think this specific argument is stupid and emblematic of the intellectual shallowness I pointed out earlier. People will admit that there are illegal immigrants and that those illegal immigrants are working illegally. They even propose solutions aimed at reducing the number of illegal immigrants (penalizing the jobs or addressing the drugs).

But the moment, the proposed solution involves some aspect of border security...that part of the problem suddenly doesn't require a solution. It's so intellectually dishonest. Illegal entry is the precursor to both the jobs and drugs problems. If you choked down illegal entry, you would have fewer people to take the jobs and fewer drugs. Then you clamp down on the jobs and the drugs for those people who get past the first barrier.

That's the smart way of doing something. Bottleneck at the front, follow ups for those who get through. Both.

 

[Lord of Lies]

Having a wall does work. If you look up the info for the current walls, as they were built they forced illegals to try and cross at other points. What's needed is a wall like Israel has, the large concrete barriers. Bury one in the ground to block tunnels and stand one up to create a wall.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Then do it the first time you post a claim.
It's standard internet courtesy. Don't give others homework like you're some professor. Assert something, post a source; don't complain when others call you on your bullshit or say how easy it was. If it's easy, post it in the first place.

Why do you believe this is the way a discussion should be had?

Post source or bs

 

[ShadowRun]

LOL, Southern Az has one of the lowest illegal population in the States. I guess you are pissed its not WASP enough, but most of these people are legal, so they wont go away.

why comment on something when you don't know what you are talking about ?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Money aside....it just won't work.

I have no moral issue with it...but it won't work, we do t have enough border patrol people to monitor it.

I know you said money aside, but it's a waste of money and it will become a long term repair project for the tax payers.

There are issues with land aquisition (eminent domain etc ) not to mention maintenance and of course how effective it would be etc

 

[Rod1]

Avoidance of the issue is fun, but it doesn't make your case. A wall of sufficient height would deter the less determined, and it would slow down the more determined. You can't keep out 100% of anyone who wants to come in, but a strong lock and a tall enough wall slows them down enough that an appropriate response can be rendered - just ask anyone who lives in South Africa.

The difference is that South Africa doesnt really gets along with their neighbours so their border areas arent really worth anyting, the US-Mexico border is certainly worth a lot of money to simply wall off.

I guess parts of Az could be walled like that but once you enter the mountains and the rivers, well, its only fucking up a lot of people for no particular reason.

 

[Rod1]

why comment on something when you don't know what you are talking about ?

Where in Southern Az do you live? Nogales? Yuma?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Also a wall/fence is only the first step in getting control of illegal immigration.

If anything it should be the last step. There are lower hanging fruit and the wall is the most permanent and logistically difficult of any proposed step. Also, the flow of undocumented immigrants is not currently a problem.

 

[panamaican]

You could have just typed, "lol, so what", and saved me the time of reading that.

You want to propose this magical circumstance where money isn't an issue with the project; so I give you examples of what other problems the wall would have. Then your only response to them is, "let's pretend those aren't an issue either - like the fact that a wall can't be supported on much of the terrain, people will circumvent it easily, and you'll literally rob citizens of their land for an eyesore of a pointless project."

I didn't propose the magical circumstance. I answered the question proposed by others and then the positions presented by you.

I didn't pretend your problems weren't an issue. You didn't present anything specific. Environment, topography. Okay...but you didn't say what about them we should be addressing. They're empty cbuzzwords without effort. At least someone else said: Animals cross the border and a wall impacts them. See, that's an actual point, not just a word.

You want me to address things that you didn't even take the time to type out. For example: What percentage of the topography is incapable of supporting a wall of any type? What difference does the visual effect to citizens have to do with how well a wall prevents illegal entry. C'mon, you're not even attempting to flesh out your points.

 

[Lord of Lies]

He's right. Living in Arizona we have to put up with stuff like this due to illegals and drug smugglers:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/?page=all

LOL, Southern Az has one of the lowest illegal population in the States. I guess you are pissed its not WASP enough, but most of these people are legal, so they wont go away.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Money is the issue though. Trillion dollar wall and billions a year for upkeep. No thanks.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

The difference is that South Africa doesnt really gets along with their neighbours so their border areas arent really worth anyting, the US-Mexico border is certainly worth a lot of money to simply wall off.

I guess parts of Az could be walled like that but once you enter the mountains and the rivers, well, its only fucking up a lot of people for no particular reason.

You misunderstood. That was the extension of an earlier analogy - cameras in the street, wall around my house. The cameras keep no one out, and without a wall, they'd be pointless. A wall is a part of a larger strategy, and your only argument appears to be dependent on the idea that a wall is expected to do the job on its own, without any other measures being taken. That's just stupid.
South Africa has weak border - courtesy of the symbolism that we fell in love with when we welcomed democracy. We've realised that a weak border is a bad idea, and now we're planning on fencing it up again. Not sure what you mean when you say our border areas aren't worth anything.

As for the second point... You're not really saying anything at all.

 

[The Diplomat]

A wall isn't going to physically stop people from coming over illegally. There needs to be a crack down on those who allow it to happen, between different state governments and law officials, to those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants for cheap labour. We need to fix the system set in place before thinking about any kind of wall -we already have fences and walls across the majority of the southern border anyways.

I wouldn't be opposed to more ICE raids and the funding to go with them.

 

[Rod1]

And sex trafficking.

How about a combination of limiting illegal entry combined with eliminating jobs addresses both. You're not going to eliminate jobs, illegal drugs or completely stop illegal entry. But why treat only part of a problem when you can treat every aspect of it.

No offense but I think this specific argument is stupid and emblematic of the intellectual shallowness I pointed out earlier. People will admit that there are illegal immigrants and that those illegal immigrants are working illegally. They even propose solutions aimed at reducing the number of illegal immigrants (penalizing the jobs or addressing the drugs).

But the moment, the proposed solution involves some aspect of border security...that part of the problem suddenly doesn't require a solution. It's so intellectually dishonest. Illegal entry is the precursor to both the jobs and drugs problems. If you choked down illegal entry, you would have fewer people to take the jobs and fewer drugs. Then you clamp down on the jobs and the drugs for those people who get past the first barrier.

That's the smart way of doing something. Bottleneck at the front, follow ups for those who get through. Both.

We are the intellectually dishonest? nobody is saying to not patrol or watch the border, but you are literally claiming that Trump is being reasonable somehow.

Thats the joke, if you are going to invest in border security then invest in more border patrols, more electronic surveillance, maybe move the national guard to the border, tons of things can that can be done, but nope, Trump got it right.