Trump's $15 billion, supposedly impenetrable border wall with Mexico is a joke

Any wall can be cut through. It is just a matter of how difficult it is. Bank robbers can weld a hole through a bank vault. It is just extremely difficult and takes so much time that they are under more risk of being caught. It is a deterrent, and no one argues it does not very much reduce the risk of robbery.

Government money was used to build a security wall around Obama's private house. Both the Congress building with a Democrat majority and many state capitols in Democrat states had temporary security barricade fences put up around them when they were paranoid about protests like the one on January 6. The White House had huge tall fences put up with barbed wire on the top surrounding the entire area of the national mall to keep any demonstrators out of the area for Biden's State of the Union address. So fences do work, and everyone - especially Democrat leaders - know it.

 

If you listen to the right's argument, the wall was supposed to stop the apprehensions as well as the number of illegals. That was the origianl claim most RW politicians were making about the wall.

The other problem is that a wall simply solves one or more of the symptoms of illegal immigration, not the root cause. If we solve the root cause, then both apprehensions and crossing will go down. And that is the goal.

 

I live right on the Border.. wall would be impossible to build across this terrain .. and .. completely unnecessary has the harsh terrain is barrier enough. We've always had a certain number of Mexicans come into town to work, and being a small town, we know who is who and who is an illegal from far away.. and those are the ones that concern me and those are the ones flooding the border even in a place like this, far from big cities and far from big raods were illegals typically melt into the landscape. Do not forget, they were invited here and financed by Biden and his globalist buddies

 

I would expect if Republicans take back Congress later this year, border fencing will begin again.

 

Well, the wall is a way to deter and prevent people from coming across without having to resort to apprehensions.

Even if the number of apprehensions went up, that STILL does not necessarily mean the wall was not effective in its role in doing that.
See, you are conflating those two things, not noticing that subtle difference. (Apprehensions per number of migrants prevented from crossing, versus total apprehensions)

 

Large scale walls have never worked in a way you are thinking of. The Great Wall of China was breached numerous times at various places with three dynasties being foreign such as the Yuan Dynesty, Ming Dynasty, and Qing Dynasty. Hadrians wall never worked either in deterence. Constant raids by Saxons behind the wall in the country side while ambushing small Roman patrols. Then you have the Berlin Wall, which was designed to keep people in. There are currently over 200k North Koreans living illegally in China and their "wall" is breached consistently.

Walls are effective only so far and not as much as you think. Considering I live in Texas and know how the immigration works, it wiill not deter all illegal immigration, even the EWI.

Even with the number of apprehensions up it means the wall was not effective. It was not talked about in the Trump Administration and even Trump from time to time dispelled his own DHS official statistics on apprehensions. Apprehensions means that illegals were caught. The number of illegals is still offically between 10 to 12 million. Given that the number is dynamic and every changing, especially for visa violators and visa overstays that have the ability to change their status, shows that the wall does not work in a majority of the cases.

What I mean is if you take all illegal, you will have 3 categories. 40% are EWI, 55% are Visa Overstays, and the 5% are the varous visa violations. The wall only deals with 40% of the total illegal population.

 

You are misrepresenting the argument of the other side, or making an argument from extremes. The argument was never that the wall would totally 100% solve the problem, or be absolutely certain to prevent anyone from ever getting through. Yes, of course everyone admits that a wall will never be 100% effective always.

 

RW politicians and their die hard supporters WANT a wall from one end to the other and they cite specifically The Great Wall of China, Hadrians Wall, the Wall around the Vatican, among others. They also think that building a wall as that would solve all the illegal problems. If you dig further into their argument, anyone and everyone who does not speak like them or look like them are an illegal, terrorist, or some other day of the week sensationalist idea they heard on the radio or TV. Not naming names here. Most importantly, those that are advocating these ideas have two things in common, generally. They never went through or know someone who went through the immigration process, and second, they never consider any other alternative that might be better, albeit a little slower to eventually come around. The main problem with dealing with root causes means you have to commit to a path to resolve the root cause that may last two or more administrations. And that is the Achilles Heel like our war with Iraq and Afghanistan was.

 

I know a man from Mexico who went through the immigration process. He is very very anti-illegal immigration.
Doesn't have a high opinion of people who cut in line.

 

Let's bear in mind that America is never going to be able to solve all those "root causes" in Mexico. America can't even solve all its own problems.
It's absurd to think that America can do something about Mexico that will make it so nice all those people won't want to leave.

But I will tell you one thing. If you do want to "help" these people, it makes a whole lot more sense to give these people help in the countries where they are already in, rather than require them to move into your country before you give them help.

 

It's not just Mexico, but Guatamala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and a few others in Asia. In reality, if we increase the trade and economic powership of the countries I mention, we will see illegal immigration and apprehensions drop significantly over time. But in our political system when it comes to trade and economic incentives, the MNC have a foothold and screw up everything where even the best intentions are laid to waist all for the almight profit and EPS.

Not arguing socialism, just arguing that the MNC should have a foot at the table when it comes to these types of deals.

 

And I know quite a few Vietname boat people who settled in Texas. They came illegally and eventually won their legal status. With one of the families, their daughter can speak Spanish fluently, has a east Texas Southern drawl accent when speaking English and her Vietnames is nearly perfect to her relatives in Vietnam. And yet, she has been called an illegal alien so many times it hard to laugh at it nowadays.

At the same time, I know a Mexican family who has lived here in Texas since the days before the Republic in 1836. They have no feelings for the criminal illegal aliens, the ones who commit crimes in both Mexico and here. But illegals seeking a better life and for job opportunities, they are willing to give a second chance up to a point.

 

How?
The President would have to sign off on it...

Get real...

 

It will come down to the budget. There might be a fight over budget negotiations. One side can "play chicken" and hold up the budget if there is something they completely disagree with.

Usually there's an unspoken rule in Congress that the side who has a greater majority gets to have greater influence over the budget, that the side with a smaller minority should be willing to compromise more. If they don't follow that rule, then the budget gets held up, and it gets turned into a game of "mutually assured destruction".

Republicans might have to settle for only a tiny increase in border funding, or give Democrats something they want in exchange, though recent past experience has shown Democrats are so stubborn and uncompromising that will most likely not happen. (Although that was when Trump was President and they were trying to deny him any victories at all costs to reduce his popularity, so it might be a different story with Biden still in office)

 

Most of it, no doubt, and the rest went to his cronies. It was probably the biggest and most obvious boondoggle in American history. Trump deserves a long prison sentence for that alone.

 

It is illegal to just shoot people, period.

 

So Biden is quiet the genius to axe that border wall idea and put that money where it's far more useful.

 

I can not picture a person carrying all that equipment needed for a "simple blow torch" through the desert.
A battery powered grinder / the upgrade of a hand saw however....

 

Biden could work with a Republican Congress or sit in the WH in a stupor for his remaining 2 years. We all know Biden is a lame duck. As Manchin demonstrated, Biden can't do a thing without the Congress. His choice.

 

Good luck with that...
The GOP Congress will be too busy fabricating reasons to impeach Biden...

Just like "We all know" that 1+1=3, Bigfoot is Real, and the Sun Rises in the West?
Cool...

True.
Glad to see someone (from the other side) finally admit that the Democrats DON'T have "Full Control".
Baby steps...

 

Democrats have full control ? Ha.. their master, Satan prince of this world , is running this show.
Time for y'all to get right with My Lord, the Truth, the Way and th eLife.

 

You need to do a better job of FORMATTING, if you intend to be within The Rules when quoting others.