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

[Renard]

Debating the morality of the wall is a waste of time if the wall doesn't work, you may as well be arguing about pointless symbolism.

Illegal immigration from Mexico has been very low for the past few years. The number of illegals in the US peaked in 2007. Almost all the illegal immigrants arrived somewhere between 1995 and 2004. The wall is more than 10 years too late. If you don't like illegal immigration, you should be focussing on deportation. Maybe change the laws that give children of illegals American citizenship for no reason. The thing that makes me facepalm the most is when I see people that are angry about illegals yet they misdirect their anger at doing something that would do nothing to fix what they're angry about.

You could build a wall, as a future deterrent in case something happens to Mexico's economy that urges people to flee to the US. But it could be sitting there, draining money in maintenance, for decades to come and not be needed. It's not needed immediately, unless Trump finds a way to crash Mexico's economy himself in some sort of fucked up self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

What's wrong with the wall?

Some people can't handle the scale of its potential awesomeness.

 

[Rod1]

I'm a Brit with no dog in the US electoral fight and Trump does seem to be a bit of a loon from where I'm standing but I was arguing with someone recently about immigration and they chipped in with "oh right well maybe we should build a wall like Trump wants to". And I had me thinking - other than it not being financially viable, what is actually wrong with having a wall to separate a border exactly?

I've had videos on Facebook posted at me likening it to the Berlin wall and the Israeli one but seems to me that various countries have borders, fences, border patrols and so on?

What is inherently wrong or inhumane about such a thing?

3,200 km border with over 350 million crossings and 500 billion trade a year.

Money aside, i guess the only concern would be ecological impact on the ecosystem and probably some farmers getting fucked up.

If you are going to spend that much spend it on surveillance instead, far better return.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Does Mexico have a wall in its southern border?

 

[TheComebackKid]

 

[panamaican]

Just none of that is true. There are several issues with the wall besides the monetary amount it would cost and the fact that Trump proposed it.

The most obvious is the fact of the varying topography of the area. A lot of these areas do not offer structurally accommodating environments to building a fence, let alone a wall. It's not just a long line of plains and deserts; there's a stretch of varying mountains, marshes, and other land types that would cost much more time, money, and environmental impact to build on.

Second is building off the first point, which is environmental impact. We can rarely do anything small without causing environmental harm, it's obvious that such an ambitiously large project would have a more devestating affect on the area.

Also, the US doesn't own all the land that the wall would be built on; several locations are owned by private citizens, and the US would have to pretty much buy out or steal the land to build something on it that the owners would not want.

Then there is the fact that anything built is rather easily circumvented. Going under or over is likely, unless you build it as high as the sky and deep as hell; it's probably not going to stop anyone that really wanted over anyway. So you have to add in the man hours of constant patrolling and maintenance, which is just outlandish.

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.

 

[Rod1]

There is nothing wrong with having a wall/fence.

It will not be 100% effective at stopping illegals and drugs crossing.

No one in their right mind believes it will stop everyone as that's not the point.

The point is to make it as difficult as possible to cross and easer to stop the ones that do try by pushing them into very difficult areas to try and cross.

So you don't need the fence the length of the border, you just need to fence the easer parts to cross and let nature fence the remaining.

Have you ever been to the border?

 

[Easy The Great]

We need a wall

 

[Fawlty]

It's a hypothetical. Criticizing the premise of the hypo doesn't make sense to me. Isn't this how plenty of problems get solved?

If X wasn't a factor, would Y still be a good idea? If "yes" then can we find a way to deal with X and make it less of a factor? If "no" then let's find something else.

If a wall is an effective strategy, money aside, then you can ask the next question which is "Is there a smart way to handle the money aspect?" That's another yes/no question. If the answer is "no" then the project lacks merit. But if people never even explore the possibility of "yes" then they're closing a door irresponsibly.

Lots of great ideas arise precisely because people try to find a way to get to a good outcome by addressing the biggest hurdle in a more creative way. The money is the biggest hurdle here but the money isn't the idea. It's the barrier to the idea.

It's the part where you rail on people who don't like Trump within the hypothetical. That's weird isn't it? I think it's telling anyhow.

There is plenty to discuss aside from money, like separating families, the effects on the economy, the dubious merits of a wall when most illegals get here without wet backs, and lots of other things. Plenty to discuss, and none of those objections make people reflexive anti-Trump bots. Ask yourself if they would oppose a Kasich wall. I think basically all the same people would still oppose it.

 

[grimballer]

some ppl are not aware that there are this thing called borders. they think anybody can go where ever they want. most of them are americans who dont have real restrictions on travelling.

that being said the best border is natural border. building walls dont work cause youll have to monitor it 24/7 n then theres gonna be repair/maintenance costs.

also trump keeps mentioning the chinese wall, but how effective was it really?

 

[Rod1]

Lol what an impotent argument.

If the problem is that illegals are crossing the border, then closing the border actually fixes the problem.

Anyways on topic : absolutely nothing wrong with that. Borders define countries and if you don't protect them, (which is the case if millions of illegals cross them every year) you are not protecting them.

There is a trend currently for proponents of mass-immigration / globalists to imply that it is futile to guard borders.

One of the fallacies that people have partly accepted because they have heard them over and over form the left-leaning media.

If people are shoplifting in my store, clearly the issue is to close the whole store, mrite?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Every complaint about the wall, aside from the financial one, is meaningless.
"Oh no! Terrain that isn't perfectly flat! AAhhhh!"
You're either shooting down the idea because you dislike Trump, or you're the sort of person who gets nothing done because you can't see yourself overcoming obstacles... obstacles like walls... walls designed to keep out people like you.

"Environmental impact!" Pfff. Really? Do you live off the land, in a hut, subsisting on freshly-fallen fruit?

"It won't work." It'll work better than no wall.


I hope the wall is built. I hope we can see it from fucking space, because, if nothing else, it'll be awe-inspiring.
I doubt it'll be nothing else though.

 

[Darkballs]

Because when it comes to Trump's immigration plan you can't just put the money issue aside. It would be a stunning waste of funds that wouldn't really accomplish anything. Like many of Trumps ideas, building a wall isn't a solution at all, but it sounds tuff. To his base, that's enough. To the rest of us, it's fucking retarded.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

If people are shoplifting in my store, clearly the issue is to close the whole store, mrite?

Is your store an empty piece of land with your product laying around on the floor? Or does it have, you know, walls?

 

[panamaican]

It's the part where you rail on people who don't like Trump within the hypothetical. That's weird isn't it? I think it's telling anyhow.

There is plenty to discuss aside from money, like separating families, the effects on the economy, the dubious merits of a wall when most illegals get here without wet backs, and lots of other things. Plenty to discuss, and none of those objections make people reflexive anti-Trump bots. Ask yourself if they would oppose a Kasich wall. I think basically all the same people would still oppose it.

I haven't railed on them in a way that I haven't railed on anyone else who dismisses an idea/question because of the origin of the idea/question rather than it's merits. When I rail on the right for dismissing ideas from the left just because they're from the left, I brand them with the same label.

Unfortunately, plenty of people are mindless anti-Trump bots. They are irrational. I've been saying this since he announced his candidacy - that people need to stop writing him and his ideas off just because he spent the 2nd half of his career on reality t.v. But they didn't and because they didn't take him seriously, they're spending their time now trying to come up with explanations for why they were so wrong.

I see the wall the same way. Trump said it so the knee jerk reaction is that it's implausible followed by arguments to justify the emotional response. But, imo, if you stop and think it through a wall is an effective deterrent if you can find a way to do cost effectively. That's the premise of this hypo - assuming that if could be done without a financial issue would it still be a good idea. So I answered it.

AS for people who would oppose a Kasich wall being the same as the people who would oppose a Trump wall - sure, if we're referencing people on the left who are anti-everything aimed at reducing illegal immigration, except increased business penalties. But since Trump is the one who said it, we're dealing with the specific anti-Trump shallowness of thought.

And a wall wouldn't hurt families. They can simply pay to enter legally and visit their families...like everyone normally does. As for the economy, if you're referencing the effects of illegal labor on the economy...perhaps it is beneficial to the nation, in the long run, to reduce those effects. Cheap, illegal labor might be a barrier to innovation.

Ultimately, if there's plenty to discuss other than the money...people should discuss it rather than blanket writing it off because of a barrier that may/may not be manageable.

 

[Rod1]

Lol I lived in southern AZ most my of my life so I see the need first hand. my taxes wouldn't go up for that, free college and other entitlements maybe. I don't think it would for that and if they did I wouldn't mind, they have gone up for way more useless spending already.

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.

 

[Rod1]

Is your store an empty piece of land with your product laying around on the floor? Or does it have, you know, walls?

You think the US Mexico border doesnt has walls? the heck most of it has a big river on it.

 

[panamaican]

If people are shoplifting in my store, clearly the issue is to close the whole store, mrite?

No, but if people keep breaking into your store then most people put up some form of deterrent. Barred windows, stronger locks, those metal grates that they pull down after closing up.

Shoplifting requires one solution, breaking and entering requires another.

 

[Rod1]

Good point. Mexicans just shouldn't be allowed in, period.

MS 13 was founded by central americans fleeing US and Soviet backed dictators.

 

[chardog]

Absolutely nothing


Some may say it's irresponsible to spend billions of dollars on a wall that ultimately won't change a thing, considering the crippled state of economy, but they're overlooking all the potential revenue that increased tourism will bring.

How many millions of people visit the great wall of China each year? With a bit of Trump branding this wall could become the biggest tourist attraction the world has ever seen! Trump is a genius

great wall of trump, I like that