Debate Now I find it amusing, why so much anger against the Wall?

[OldLady]

You still rely on only portions of the overall equation. You're being disingenuous. SHRUG

A Leftists being disingenuous ?

Now that's a first.

You should calm down, Unit. This is the Debate forum. Keep it on topic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

E-verify covers it only need two valid forms of ID like in the past, driver license, SS card, birthcertificate ect...ect...

 

[OldLady]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

E-verify covers it only need two valid forms of ID like in the past, driver license, SS card, birthcertificate ect...ect...

I'm not completely sure I understood what you said, but does that mean I'm all set?
Is e-verify something the employer does on-line to verify my information, or what?
So it's not another card?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

E-verify covers it only need two valid forms of ID like in the past, driver license, SS card, birthcertificate ect...ect...

I'm not completely sure I understood what you said, but does that mean I'm all set?
Is e-verify something the employer does on-line to verify my information, or what?
So it's not another card?

Employer does it. No it's not another card the form is the same as it always have been

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

E-verify covers it only need two valid forms of ID like in the past, driver license, SS card, birthcertificate ect...ect...

I'm not completely sure I understood what you said, but does that mean I'm all set?
Is e-verify something the employer does on-line to verify my information, or what?
So it's not another card?

Yes you are good to get a new job

 

[OldLady]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You didn't hear about California's law against business , they will fine company's if they cooperate with ICE...



These lawmakers really need to go to jail.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said. ... Under California's sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.10 hours ago
California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary ...
Fox News › 2018/01/19 › califo...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but doesn't every state have a say, in the courts, if their laws are violated even by the federal government? I seem to remember that when the President formed that Voting Commission to look into illegal voting, most of the states declined to send information that was prohibited by their state laws to be shared. So I'm not sure this is really anything radical as goes the A.G.'s comments. That law is sure protective, though,of not only illegal immigrants but businesses, if you read it. So Fox is putting an opposite spin on it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You didn't hear about California's law against business , they will fine company's if they cooperate with ICE...



These lawmakers really need to go to jail.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said. ... Under California's sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.10 hours ago
California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary ...
Fox News › 2018/01/19 › califo...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but doesn't every state have a say, in the courts, if their laws are violated even by the federal government? I seem to remember that when the President formed that Voting Commission to look into illegal voting, most of the states declined to send information that was prohibited by law to be shared. So I'm not sure this is really anything radical as goes the A.G.'s comments. That law is sure protective, though,of not only illegal immigrants but businesses, if you read it. So Fox is putting an opposite spin on it.

Come on states can now legally fine people who trys to obey federal laws?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What does it take for you to realize that a small net impact can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a gain)? In this case the small net impact is positive, specifically between $350B and $500B.

I'm beginning to believe you are some sort of PAID troll

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

A-G-E-N-D-A

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

I've been very clear: my stance on what to do about illegal immigration/immigrants derives from the fact that the net impact of illegal immigration/immigrants on U.S. GDP is a net increase to U.S. GDP and not a net reduction of U.S. GDP.

The costs are what they are and nobody likes costs; the gains too are what they are and everybody likes gains. Netting the two as goes illegal immigration/immigrants, one arrives at a net gain, not a net cost. Because the net impact is a gain, what the federal government does about illegal immigration/immigrants needs to conform to requirement I described in post 36.

Let G be the nation's economy (GDP).
Let X be an existential person, place or thing that produces $400B worth of the net value of G.
Let Y be an action(s) that costs money to implement and that eliminates X.

For Y to be "worth it," it must at least produce returns greater than $400B + Y.

Using the cost-benefit model shown above, "Y" is "whatever the federal government does about illegal immigration/immigrants. If someone comes along with a proposal "Y" wherein they provide sound/cogent and conservatively calculated projections of about "Y's" net impact on U.S. GDP and impact is greater than the net impact of illegal immigrants plus the total costs of implementing proposal "Y," then, I'm happy to support whatever be the "Y" approach to dealing with illegal immigrants.

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

Passion, emotion, is the one thing I don't have regarding the matter of illegal immigration/immigrants. Emotionally, I have no zeal for illegal immigration, and if you read the whole of post 36 and you'll see quite clearly that, mostly, I don't give a wet rat's ass about illegal immigrants.

My stance regarding what to do about either/both is purely driven by economic empiricism on a national level, and the reason for my evaluating the matter(s) on the national level is because what I've been discussing is the actions/policies the federal government may or may not undertake to deal with illegal immigration/immigrants. It is absurd, IMO, for the federal government to take action that would reduce national GDP would be a miscarriage of the federal government's role. And let me repeat what I've said before: your "GDP," my "GDP" and any other individual's or group's "GDP," as goes using national resources to do something about illegal immigration/immigrants, means nothing to me in comparison to national GDP.

 

[OldLady]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You didn't hear about California's law against business , they will fine company's if they cooperate with ICE...



These lawmakers really need to go to jail.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said. ... Under California's sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.10 hours ago
California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary ...
Fox News › 2018/01/19 › califo...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but doesn't every state have a say, in the courts, if their laws are violated even by the federal government? I seem to remember that when the President formed that Voting Commission to look into illegal voting, most of the states declined to send information that was prohibited by law to be shared. So I'm not sure this is really anything radical as goes the A.G.'s comments. That law is sure protective, though,of not only illegal immigrants but businesses, if you read it. So Fox is putting an opposite spin on it.

Come on states can now legally fine people who trys to obey federal laws?

That's not how I read it, at least as far as the article goes. What corresponding federal law is being violated?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You didn't hear about California's law against business , they will fine company's if they cooperate with ICE...



These lawmakers really need to go to jail.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said. ... Under California's sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.10 hours ago
California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary ...
Fox News › 2018/01/19 › califo...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but doesn't every state have a say, in the courts, if their laws are violated even by the federal government? I seem to remember that when the President formed that Voting Commission to look into illegal voting, most of the states declined to send information that was prohibited by law to be shared. So I'm not sure this is really anything radical as goes the A.G.'s comments. That law is sure protective, though,of not only illegal immigrants but businesses, if you read it. So Fox is putting an opposite spin on it.

Come on states can now legally fine people who trys to obey federal laws?

That's not how I read it, at least as far as the article goes. What corresponding federal law is being violated?

Not a lawyer, but we do know company's get fined for hiring illegals, now they get fined for cooperating with the feds if they didn't know they hired illegals?


It's ridiculous and a double edge sword.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What does it take for you to realize that a small net impact can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a gain)? In this case the small net impact is positive, specifically between $350B and $500B.

I'm beginning to believe you are some sort of PAID troll

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

A-G-E-N-D-A

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

I've been very clear: my stance on what to do about illegal immigration/immigrants derives from the fact that the net impact of illegal immigration/immigrants on U.S. GDP is a net increase to U.S. GDP and not a net reduction of U.S. GDP.

The costs are what they are and nobody likes costs; the gains too are what they are and everybody likes gains. Netting the two as goes illegal immigration/immigrants, one arrives at a net gain, not a net cost. Because the net impact is a gain, what the federal government does about illegal immigration/immigrants needs to conform to requirement I described in post 36.

Let G be the nation's economy (GDP).
Let X be an existential person, place or thing that produces $400B worth of the net value of G.
Let Y be an action(s) that costs money to implement and that eliminates X.

For Y to be "worth it," it must at least produce returns greater than $400B + Y.

Using the cost-benefit model shown above, "Y" is "whatever the federal government does about illegal immigration/immigrants. If someone comes along with a proposal "Y" wherein they provide sound/cogent and conservatively calculated projections of about "Y's" net impact on U.S. GDP and impact is greater than the net impact of illegal immigrants plus the total costs of implementing proposal "Y," then, I'm happy to support whatever be the "Y" approach to dealing with illegal immigrants.

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

Passion, emotion, is the one thing I don't have regarding the matter of illegal immigration/immigrants. Emotionally, I have no zeal for illegal immigration, and if you read the whole of post 36 and you'll see quite clearly that, mostly, I don't give a wet rat's ass about illegal immigrants.

My stance regarding what to do about either/both is purely driven by economic empiricism on a national level, and the reason for my evaluating the matter(s) on the national level is because what I've been discussing is the actions/policies the federal government may or may not undertake to deal with illegal immigration/immigrants. It is absurd, IMO, for the federal government to take action that would reduce national GDP would be a miscarriage of the federal government's role. And let me repeat what I've said before: your "GDP," my "GDP" and any other individual's or group's "GDP," as goes using national resources to do something about illegal immigration/immigrants, means nothing to me in comparison to national GDP.

Allowing illegals in to flood the job market is racist for natural born citizens, instead of a low skilled worker making $15 bucks an hour painting a fence he has to compete with more competition and lowers the wage ..

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

The employer has an I-9 form that gets filled out, the documentation he can ask for is on the back of that document. Form I-9 Acceptable Documents

 

[watchingfromafar]

I find it amusing, why so much anger against the Wall?
Could it be because-----
(1) it is a waste of money
(2) cannot prevent people from crossing border
(3) casts a dark shadow across our western border
(4) it is just another dumb idea fro da trump
(5) adds billions to our national debt
(6)__________

Good ideas for the wall
(1) short term job creation

 

[watchingfromafar]

There is far more border patrol already along the southern border. You act as if it is undefended and anyone can just walk across. Not by a long shot.

They only act this way because their puppet master told them too.

 

[Markle]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You're not very well informed about what is being done in Sanctuary cities, do you?

 

[dblack]

Walled borders are the tools of authoritarian government.

 

[Markle]

I find it amusing, why so much anger against the Wall?
Could it be because-----
(1) it is a waste of money
(2) cannot prevent people from crossing border
(3) casts a dark shadow across our western border
(4) it is just another dumb idea fro da trump
(5) adds billions to our national debt
(6)__________

Good ideas for the wall
(1) short term job creation

What is your idea to close the border between the United States and Mexico to prevent illegal aliens from flooding into our country?

Why is it our responsibility (taxpayers) to educate and support people who have illegally entered our country?

 

[evenflow1969]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

Because vwalls became obsolete witht he invention of the cannon. It will stop nothing and will cost billions of dollars. I am for legal imigration only. I would just rather spend money on things that actually work!

 

[miketx]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

Because vwalls became obsolete witht he invention of the cannon. It will stop nothing and will cost billions of dollars. I am for legal imigration only. I would just rather spend money on things that actually work!

The wall is not to stop cannons but to stop Mexicans, unless you think they will be fired from a cannon over the wall.

 

[evenflow1969]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

Because vwalls became obsolete witht he invention of the cannon. It will stop nothing and will cost billions of dollars. I am for legal imigration only. I would just rather spend money on things that actually work!

The wall is not to stop cannons but to stop Mexicans, unless you think they will be fired from a cannon over the wall.

I can make a cannon out of an oak log and a rock and I am through your wall! If I can do it, there are a few mexicans that can also. Also lets not forget the thoudans of mile of coast line that can be used instead. The chinese and russians come in shipping crates. Then there is the tunnel and the ladder along with all the seige vehicles from when walls were widely in use.