Why would you Oppose a wall on our Border? Lets find out.

Cheap dodge.

I want to know (from you or anyone) how many fewer people will enter illegally if this piece of wall is built.

Let's remember that when jobs dried up due to the 2008 recession, the number of undocumented aliens in the US STOPPED GROWING!!

It STOPPED!

OK - your turn.

 

I have asked YOU a question, but you refused to answer.

So previous presidents didn't shutdown the government? Were you born yesterday?

 

I want to know from you how many fewer people will enter illegally if a bill identical to the 2013 immigration bill that you love so much was passed today.

 

So PURELY symbolic?

 

Including a known criminal who has committed crime in the US?

Why are you pretending that the US Coastguard and RADAR doesn't exist?

How do you know that the empty boat was used to transport illegal migrants? And how do you know that the migrants on the beach weren't citizens?

 

Sure, they will flow into a tactical choke point, where they will be greeted by their local friendly border agent!

Are you saying that he HAS said that he has supported a concrete wall or steel slats?

 

Including anybody. A small plane can land anywhere or drop their load and fly away.
The ocean is very large and the coastguard can't possibly catch 'em all and do not catch them all.
The empty boat was used to transport drugs, according to the marine patrol, and the migrants said that they wanted asylum and were a ragged bunch with children. Once they step foot on American soil, they can stay
Fact-checking Trump officials: Most drugs enter US through legal ports of entry, not vast, open border
Alan Gomez, USA TODAYPublished 12:04 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2019 | Updated 2:24 p.m. ET Jan. 16, 2019


President Trump's main points while speaking in Texas included human trafficking, Mexico paying for the wall, and moving away from calling it a "wall" USA TODAY


CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
In their ongoing push for $5.7 billion to expand the border wall, Trump administration officials have repeatedly pointed to the flow of drugs across the southern border as proof that such a wall is needed.

President Donald Trump has used that line. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders has, too.

But an analysis of data from the southern border indicates that the vast majority of narcotics enters through U.S. ports of entry, not the wide swaths of border in between where additional barriers could be erected.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points.

While those numbers deal only with drugs that are caught, border experts say the data accurately reflect the way drug cartels successfully smuggle narcotics into the country.


Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats refuse to compromise on border wall funding to end the shutdown

Gil Kerlikowske, who headed CBP and the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Barack Obama, said intelligence received from arrested smugglers and law enforcement partners in Mexico indicate that cartels clearly prefer moving high-profit narcotics through the busy ports of entry because their chances of success are better there.

He used the example of the San Ysidro Port of Entry in southern California, the busiest port with 100,000 people crossing through each day. Port officials recently completed a multi-year, $750 million upgrade to add more Customs officers and inspection technology, but Kerlikowske said the sheer volume of traffic means smugglers' odds are still better going through there than other parts of the border.

"Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater," said Kerlikowske, now a professor of practice in criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University. "It's very clear that (drugs) come through the ports."

ongoing, partial government shutdown, already the longest in U.S. history at 25 days.

Democrats have rejected Trump's request, instead preferring to invest more heavily in ports of entry. The Democratic-led House of Representatives passed a spending bill Jan. 3 that includes $8 million to hire 328 new Customs officers and $225 million to purchase equipment used to screen trucks and vehicles for contraband.


While Trump officials usually mention that 90 percent of the narcotics that enter the U.S. comes across the southern border, they have usually left out the way in which those drugs cross. Vice President Mike Pence was the first to acknowledge in an op-ed column published in USA TODAY on Tuesday that those drugs "primarily" enter the country through ports of entry.

Trump has argued the exact opposite, saying before a trip to McAllen, Texas, last week that most drugs enter between "portals" along the border, not through those "portals."

That is wrong.

 

Weren't you specifically talking about via a port of entry? And a "small plane landing anywhere." So this would be a plane that doesn't have airspace clearance. Do you suppose such a plane would be picked up by Air Traffic Control and tracked? The stupid pilot would risk being engaged by an F-18!

How do you know how many they don't catch?

What, legally?

What is the relevance of this article?

 

Obama sure set out to build a wonderful wall. Built many miles of it in fact. Seems he was pleased by it and so was Hillary.

 

Of course they won't be stupid and cheerfully walk into a choke point.
He has said that he wants a concrete wall or steel slats. However, it changes on a daily basis and that is one reason that Dems don't
want to negotiate with him because he is wishy-washy and they can't pin him down. They want him to announce in public any deviation before they agree.
They had an agreement and Trump backed out because little Miller whined, and then there was the latest backoff.

 

What do they say? That some of them commit crime and we need to stop them from getting into the US? What's wrong with that? Or do they say that they are mostly criminals? THAT would be racist and wrong.

 

How would they be able to identify a choke point?

 

“We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are," Trump said.

"These aren't people. These are animals."

 

Every single last one of them are "innocent?"

They are not US citizens. How do you not get that?

 

Understand that drug runners are very successful, yes?

 

Not as successful as border patrol.

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you not know that he was talking about the HUMAN WASTE ANIMALS of MS-13?

 

You are missing the point, as usual. I am not comparing. I am observing. You need to start thinking beyond the pale.

 

How about you OBSERVE the very reasonable idea that border patrol are pretty good at stopping illegals.

 

Consider it done, so we don't need a wall, yes? Other forms of border security will be just fine to supplement their patrols.

 

I said "PRETTY good", but not one single alien should be able to slip through.

 

No, there was a question about sanctuary.

But, he did not limit his comments as I've quoted above to MS-13, which was created in the USA.

If you want to go after MS-13, then propose an anti-crime measure and/or better fund enforcement efforts.

However, in doing so you're going to learn that making the population of undocumented aliens fearful of any police contact is not going to help enforce the law on MS-13. Police and investigators can't do their jobs without the people being willing and able to talk to them.

 

This is just plain ridiculous.

Not even half those here without papers came by running the border.

Making a perfect wall is total nonsense. Suggesting an impossible perfect wall is some sort of absolute and immediate requirement when it would address LESS THAN HALF THE PROBLEM is a sign of stupidity.

And, today there isn't even a CLAIM as to how much Trump's wall fragment would reduce the number who cross the border illegally.

 

Trump's argument is that what we have is crap.

I'm the one saying that the current situation can be improved without a $5B wall fragment of unknown length, position and effectiveness.

And, let's remember that we do work under international law regarding provision of asylum. Trump is attacking that requirement in multiple ways - a requirement WE actively back and support internationally. His wall is just one of the methods he's using.

 

How is Trump attacking asylum? I've asked you this before, but you appeared to dodge it.