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

[Rod1]

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.

Its not current walls, its the use of more effective surveillance that does it, current walls slows an illegal crosser by like 5-10 minutes tops, its the electronic surveillance coupled with effective patrolling what moved people to other routes.

 

[Rod1]

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 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.

 

[lifelessheap]

It just screams fear and paranoia and shows how bad off most Americans are, that to fix a problem just put a wall around it, build it higher etc

The rednecks have a louder voice than ever with Trump and he's really bringing out the worst of America to the forefront if you ask me.

Make America great again or make america 1852 again.

Seriously, watch the calendar, if Trump is elected time will start going backwards.

So you are an open borders liberal? I assume you don't have to live around thousands of illegals. They are a constant source of crime where I live, and I think we should have a secure border. You know ISIS could just ship their terrorists to Mexico and they could walk right in, right?

 

[Joe]

the funny thing is people actually think this will actually be built or anything close to it.

 

[chardog]

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.

1. just saying he's the modern president for the last 8, if there was a time to implement, obama should have been the one. It's not a trump issue, he's not even president. This is an existing issue. Again, it's not the employers responsibility if they followed the law, and you desperately want it to be. It's a typical talking point from someone that likes reading talking points.

2. makes no sense, you're advocating systematic discrimination. What's there to kid if someone fills out an I-9?

3. uh what?

4. trying your best to conflate the two issues.... I responded before already that heavy punishment arent going to tackle the core issues. You going to put middle class dan in prison for 10 years for hiring a landscaper for his front yard? And how do you determine if Dan intentionally looked for an illegal immigrant? What tools does dan have to verify that he's hiring a legal citizen, and what's his protocol for hiring a cash worker?

 

[The Diplomat]

the funny thing is people actually think this will actually be built or anything close to it.

But then what will Mexico pay for?

 

[Rod1]

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.

Focusing on the wrong part of an analogy doesnt makes it correct.

Trying to draw the wrong aspect of an analogy by drawing a literal correlation to inconsequential point doesnt makes my analogy wrong. That kind of beats the point of analogies when you are drawing literal comparisons.

We have criminals that use perfectl valid and legal entry points like visas, smuggling or simply jump in cities where walls are not that viable.

A criminal doesnt needs to break and entry a 24/7 store to steal, because the door is always open.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

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

Post source or bs

Because the burden of proof of any claim lies with the claimant; furthermore it's discourteous to make an assertion of fact and send others chasing sources.

Like I said, this has been considered standard courtesy for a long time.

 

[Rod1]

1. just saying he's the modern president for the last 8, if there was a time to implement, obama should have been the one. It's not a trump issue, he's not even president. This is an existing issue. Again, it's not the employers responsibility if they followed the law, and you desperately want it to be. It's a typical talking point from someone that likes reading talking points.

2. makes no sense, you're advocating systematic discrimination. What's there to kid if someone fills out an I-9?

3. uh what?

4. trying your best to conflate the two issues.... I responded before already that heavy punishment arent going to tackle the core issues. You going to put middle class dan in prison for 10 years for hiring a landscaper for his front yard? And how do you determine if Dan intentionally looked for an illegal immigrant? What tools does dan have to verify that he's hiring a legal citizen, and what's his protocol for hiring a cash worker?

1.- Considering Obama has come to a presidency with declining Mexican immigration rates i dont see that particular problem to stand out in his term. Also Obama did something when illegal crossings surged coming from central America, it made deals with the Mexican government to seal its southern border making the central american travel to America to be incredibly dangerous.

2.- I advocating measures that will work with the least cost, that its what you want isnt?

3.- The Us-Mexican border in a large tract is a riparian system, plenty of good farm land in the former flooding region of the Rio Bravo.

4.- But i can assure you that it will work wonders, middle class individuals will just need to stop hiring people off the street and only go through certiified landscapers.

 

[Rod1]

But then what will Mexico pay for?

Taco bowls.

 

[Rod1]

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

Drug smuggling wont stop just because you build a wall, human trafficking may not be as profitable but narcos are going to fucking dynamite the wall before cutting that money flow.

 

[panamaican]

Focusing on the wrong part of an analogy doesnt makes it correct.

Trying to draw the wrong aspect of an analogy by drawing a literal correlation to inconsequential point doesnt makes my analogy wrong. That kind of beats the point of analogies when you are drawing literal comparisons.

We have criminals that use perfectl valid and legal entry points like visas, smuggling or simply jump in cities where walls are not that viable.

A criminal doesnt needs to break and entry a 24/7 store to steal, because the door is always open.

Focusing on the wrong part of the analogy points out that the analogy is incorrect and if the underlying analogy is incorrect then the logic that composed said analogy is also incorrect. Which is a pretty good sign that the point being explained via analogy suffers from the same logical failing.

I'm politely pointing out that you don't understand the problem. If you can't put together a proper analogy its because of the core logical failing. Trying to defend the logical failings in your analogy just reinforces that you're probably defending the same logical failings re: the problem being discussed.

Again: Illegal entry =/= stealing. Serious question - do you truly not understand that these are 2 separate things?

 

[spamking]

Its not current walls, its the use of more effective surveillance that does it, current walls slows an illegal crosser by like 5-10 minutes tops, its the electronic surveillance coupled with effective patrolling what moved people to other routes.

Where are those other routes? In spots without walls or other controlled crossings?

And while no wall could stop 100% of everything it would definitely go a ways to discourage folks by simply being both a physical and psychological deterrent. Sure, a determined person could probably find a way, but that's where the idea of extra officers and surveillance come into play. You do what is needed to limit those areas where crossing is seen as possible and force folks to use other means to get over the border.

 

[lfd0311]

This. Immigration from Mexico is a net positive, so we are solving a problem we don't have by building a wall (with a method that probably wouldn't work).

How is it a net positive?

 

[Rod1]

Focusing on the wrong part of the analogy points out that the analogy is incorrect and if the underlying analogy is incorrect then the logic that composed said analogy is also incorrect. Which is a pretty good sign that the point being explained via analogy suffers from the same logical failing.

I'm politely pointing out that you don't understand the problem. If you can't put together a proper analogy its because of the core logical failing. Trying to defend the logical failings in your analogy just reinforces that you're probably defending the same logical failings re: the problem being discussed.

Again: Illegal entry =/= stealing. Serious question - do you truly not understand that these are 2 separate things?

No, because break and entry implies the border closes and everyone leaves it and the criminal enters the store when its not open to the public, the border never sleeps, the border is a 24/7 store, you cant drawn a comparison because break and entry on a store is not defined by the legal status of the customer, but by the business hours of said business.

A legal customer can be both a legal customer and a break and entry, an illegal immigrant cant be both.

In one case the individual defines the crime, in the other is the action. Therefore you cant draw a direct analogy between break an entry and illegal immigration, you can draw an analogy between being a shoplifter and being a legal customer.

 

[Renard]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...os/ramos-40-undocumented-immigrants-come-air/

I literally spent 10 seconds to dig up the article

40% of illegal immigrants arrive by air. A lot over stay their visas. 27-33% of Mexicans do the same thing.

You know what I'm tired of? Fucking retards talking about shit they don't know. Then when someone gives them the basic numbers they scream source like a bunch of little b*tchss rather than spend 10 minutes to educate themselves.

The wall is a stupid fucking idea and you should be embarrassed to think it is a good idea

You haven't read the article. Politifact rated it half-true. 25-35% of illegals fly to the US, the vast majority of which are not Mexicans.

That doesn't mean the wall is a good idea, but all your numbers are messy and useless.

 

[kpt018]

How is it a net positive?

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.

 

[panamaican]

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.

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?

 

[Rod1]

Where are those other routes? In spots without walls or other controlled crossings?

And while no wall could stop 100% of everything it would definitely go a ways to discourage folks by simply being both a physical and psychological deterrent. Sure, a determined person could probably find a way, but that's where the idea of extra officers and surveillance come into play. You do what is needed to limit those areas where crossing is seen as possible and force folks to use other means to get over the border.

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.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

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.

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.