Where do you want to put The Wall?

[Indeependent]

You're a moron.
Nobody ever gave a damn about market friend visas for good pay.
For that we have visas such as H1-B which have rendered over 3 million people unemployed or underemployed.
Mexicans were always wanted for super cheap labor and nobody in Congress, with the exception of Jeff Sessions, have given a nod towards the issue.
Now wake up.

You are simply clueless and Causeless. A market friendly visa means anyone can be legal. It really is that simple. Only the right wing likes to whine about our illegal problem and exaggerate the exigency, to try to implement their socialism on a national basis.

I presume you own a business or live off your portfolio.

I presume you are simply clueless and Causeless about economics and the law.

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

A market friendly visa will solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, and generate revenue to lower our tax burden.

It has been failing since 1998 when Clinton quadrupled the number of Business Visas.
Why do you think it will work now?
Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions disagrees with you.

 

[Indeependent]

Ooh, look, hi IQ DP clicked the Smiley.
We all know what that means...you can't address the question without looking like a fool.

 

[danielpalos]

You are simply clueless and Causeless. A market friendly visa means anyone can be legal. It really is that simple. Only the right wing likes to whine about our illegal problem and exaggerate the exigency, to try to implement their socialism on a national basis.

I presume you own a business or live off your portfolio.

I presume you are simply clueless and Causeless about economics and the law.

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

A market friendly visa will solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, and generate revenue to lower our tax burden.

It has been failing since 1998 when Clinton quadrupled the number of Business Visas.
Why do you think it will work now?
Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions disagrees with you.

the point is, to solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, even if it requires the amusement park business model. the amusement park sector does not have much of an illegal problem, and generates revenue.

 

[Mudda]

Put the wall on the other side of the Panama Canal and kick all the beaners south of there.

 

[Correll]

We don't need a wall. I said that before. What We really need is people to stop legitimizing illegal immigrants and stop hiring them. Illegals are the new slave class. Empowering illegals is just enslavement, let's get real here.

WE have a Commerce Clause; we need a market friendly visa.

That is a lie of your based on A. your completely refusal to include the NEGATIVE effects of illegal immigration in your cost analysis, and B. your complete loyalty to Mexico and enmity to America.

You really just have, lousy reading comprehension. A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We discussed that before.

You refused to consider ANY of the costs of your position in your cost benefit analysis.

Thus your conclusion is garbage based solely on your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

You only have fallacy not any form of rebuttal. Simple rejection is not any form of valid argument.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism. We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

WE have a Commerce Clause; we need a market friendly visa.

That is a lie of your based on A. your completely refusal to include the NEGATIVE effects of illegal immigration in your cost analysis, and B. your complete loyalty to Mexico and enmity to America.

You really just have, lousy reading comprehension. A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We discussed that before.

You refused to consider ANY of the costs of your position in your cost benefit analysis.

Thus your conclusion is garbage based solely on your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

You only have fallacy not any form of rebuttal. Simple rejection is not any form of valid argument.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism. We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

Are you retarded?

I suspect that he has a extreme case of asperger's combined with a desire to hide the fact that his loyalty is to his fellow Mexicans, and that he is actively hostile to Americans.

 

[Correll]

That is a lie of your based on A. your completely refusal to include the NEGATIVE effects of illegal immigration in your cost analysis, and B. your complete loyalty to Mexico and enmity to America.

You really just have, lousy reading comprehension. A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We discussed that before.

You refused to consider ANY of the costs of your position in your cost benefit analysis.

Thus your conclusion is garbage based solely on your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

You only have fallacy not any form of rebuttal. Simple rejection is not any form of valid argument.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism. We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

Pointing out that your cost benefit analysis conclusion is based on ignoring all the costs, is a very strong form of rebuttal.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriuosly about economics or their reading comprehension skills. Commerce well regulated means an end to our illegal problem via a market friendly visa. No more illegals, is what you don't seem to understand.

We have gone over that many times.

You dishonestly refuse to address or even acknowledge the negative impacts of your desired policies.

Thus your conclusions are completely garbage based on nothing but your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

 

[Correll]

I presume you own a business or live off your portfolio.

I presume you are simply clueless and Causeless about economics and the law.

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

A market friendly visa will solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, and generate revenue to lower our tax burden.

It has been failing since 1998 when Clinton quadrupled the number of Business Visas.
Why do you think it will work now?
Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions disagrees with you.

the point is, to solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, even if it requires the amusement park business model. the amusement park sector does not have much of an illegal problem, and generates revenue.

The POINT is to judge policy based on a Cost/Benefit comparison.

You refuse to do that.


You are dishonest.

 

[Correll]

you are simply clueless and Causeless, next.

You are retarded.
You actually believe everything is black and white.
Does Texas give a damn about Federal Regulations when it comes to pollution?
Apparently not and the Obama Administration didn't do Jack Shit about it.

apples and oranges.

it is about solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism.

The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

Both parties are responsible for a porous border and millions of illegals.
If you don't realize this you have a lot to learn.

nothing but diversion?

it is about solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism.

The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

We could be generating revenue to defray the cost of government.

You're a moron.
Nobody ever gave a damn about market friend visas for good pay.
For that we have visas such as H1-B which have rendered over 3 million people unemployed or underemployed.
Mexicans were always wanted for super cheap labor and nobody in Congress, with the exception of Jeff Sessions, have given a nod towards the issue.
Now wake up.

He doesn't care about any of that. His loyalty is to his fellow Mexicans, and he wants them here, no matter what.

 

[Correll]

nothing but diversion?

it is about solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism.

The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

We could be generating revenue to defray the cost of government.

You're a moron.
Nobody ever gave a damn about market friend visas for good pay.
For that we have visas such as H1-B which have rendered over 3 million people unemployed or underemployed.
Mexicans were always wanted for super cheap labor and nobody in Congress, with the exception of Jeff Sessions, have given a nod towards the issue.
Now wake up.

You are simply clueless and Causeless. A market friendly visa means anyone can be legal. It really is that simple. Only the right wing likes to whine about our illegal problem and exaggerate the exigency, to try to implement their socialism on a national basis.

I presume you own a business or live off your portfolio.

I presume you are simply clueless and Causeless about economics and the law.

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

He is a Mexican Nationalist, and what the South West to be Mexico, if not more.


What he doesn't realize is that land is not what makes a nation, the people do.


The more the US becomes Mexico, the more it becomes what he or his family was running away from.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I presume you are simply clueless and Causeless about economics and the law.

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

A market friendly visa will solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, and generate revenue to lower our tax burden.

It has been failing since 1998 when Clinton quadrupled the number of Business Visas.
Why do you think it will work now?
Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions disagrees with you.

the point is, to solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, even if it requires the amusement park business model. the amusement park sector does not have much of an illegal problem, and generates revenue.

The POINT is to judge policy based on a Cost/Benefit comparison.

You refuse to do that.


You are dishonest.

No, that is not the point. I was very clear in the poll and in my op -

Where do you believe we should put the wall? In Mexico or in the US?

Why?

 

[Correll]

I assure you I am not the clueless one here.
You are just a cheap labor hog who didn't answer my question because you can't without showing what a pig you are.

A market friendly visa will solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, and generate revenue to lower our tax burden.

It has been failing since 1998 when Clinton quadrupled the number of Business Visas.
Why do you think it will work now?
Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions disagrees with you.

the point is, to solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism, even if it requires the amusement park business model. the amusement park sector does not have much of an illegal problem, and generates revenue.

The POINT is to judge policy based on a Cost/Benefit comparison.

You refuse to do that.


You are dishonest.

No, that is not the point. I was very clear in the poll and in my op -

Where do you believe we should put the wall? In Mexico or in the US?

Why?

Obviously we build it on land we control. It was an insanely stupid and dishonest question.

 

[danielpalos]

You really just have, lousy reading comprehension. A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism.

We discussed that before.

You refused to consider ANY of the costs of your position in your cost benefit analysis.

Thus your conclusion is garbage based solely on your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

You only have fallacy not any form of rebuttal. Simple rejection is not any form of valid argument.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism. We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

Pointing out that your cost benefit analysis conclusion is based on ignoring all the costs, is a very strong form of rebuttal.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriuosly about economics or their reading comprehension skills. Commerce well regulated means an end to our illegal problem via a market friendly visa. No more illegals, is what you don't seem to understand.

We have gone over that many times.

You dishonestly refuse to address or even acknowledge the negative impacts of your desired policies.

Thus your conclusions are completely garbage based on nothing but your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

What negative impacts of legal tourism with work authorization?

In the US, tourism is either the first, second or third largest employer in 29 states, employing 7.3 million in 2004, to take care of 1.19 billion trips tourists took in the US in 2005.[23] The US outbound holiday market is sensitive in the short term, but possibly one of the most surprising results from the September 11, 2001 attacks was that by February 2002 it had bounced back. This quick revival was generally quicker than many commentators had predicted only five months earlier.[24]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States

 

[Correll]

We discussed that before.

You refused to consider ANY of the costs of your position in your cost benefit analysis.

Thus your conclusion is garbage based solely on your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

You only have fallacy not any form of rebuttal. Simple rejection is not any form of valid argument.

A market friendly visa solves our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism, not socialism. The right wing, prefers socialism, not capitalism. We would not have an illegal problem, with a "truly market friendly visa".

Pointing out that your cost benefit analysis conclusion is based on ignoring all the costs, is a very strong form of rebuttal.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriuosly about economics or their reading comprehension skills. Commerce well regulated means an end to our illegal problem via a market friendly visa. No more illegals, is what you don't seem to understand.

We have gone over that many times.

You dishonestly refuse to address or even acknowledge the negative impacts of your desired policies.

Thus your conclusions are completely garbage based on nothing but your loyalty to your fellow Mexicans.

What negative impacts of legal tourism with work authorization?

In the US, tourism is either the first, second or third largest employer in 29 states, employing 7.3 million in 2004, to take care of 1.19 billion trips tourists took in the US in 2005.[23] The US outbound holiday market is sensitive in the short term, but possibly one of the most surprising results from the September 11, 2001 attacks was that by February 2002 it had bounced back. This quick revival was generally quicker than many commentators had predicted only five months earlier.[24]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States

Negative impacts such as the rape of that 14 year old girl that you dismissed.

Over and over again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

Over 100 years ago the Panama Canal was built without the tools available to today's civil engineers. Given the amount of sunlight on our southern border, solar energy alone would reduce the cost to build a canal from the mouth of the Rio Grande River to the Tijuana River, a joint project of the US and Mexico (think a decade + of jobs).

A canal wide enough to transport commodities and deep enough for Ocean Going Vessels, potentially allowing for US Navy surface force vessels to transit from our gulf cost the west coast, saving thousands of sea miles in the process.

Is it feasible? Is it practical? If so, it makes more sense than building a wall which can be climbed with a ladder or tunneled under as has been done many times by drug traffickers.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

I saw someone talking about this a couple days ago.

The Rio Grande IS the border between the US and Mexico. If the US builds a wall on it's side, which legally is the only way it can otherwise trying to build a wall on the Mexican side would be tantamount to declaring war on Mexico and seizing their land along the whole 1,300 mile river border, then the US cedes the Rio Grande to Mexico.

You just have to love when reality stands in front of drumpf, pulls it's right hand back around it's right shoulder, and backhand bitch slaps drumpf with the weight of humanity behind it.

 

[Correll]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

Over 100 years ago the Panama Canal was built without the tools available to today's civil engineers. Given the amount of sunlight on our southern border, solar energy alone would reduce the cost to build a canal from the mouth of the Rio Grande River to the Tijuana River, a joint project of the US and Mexico (think a decade + of jobs).

A canal wide enough to transport commodities and deep enough for Ocean Going Vessels, potentially allowing for US Navy surface force vessels to transit from our east to west coast, saving thousands of sea miles in the process.

Is it feasible? Is it practical? If so, it makes more sense than building a wall which can be climbed with a ladder or tunneled under as has been done many times by drug traffickers.

Crazy talk.

THe need to build tunnels would reduce the flow of illegals to a trickle, greatly easing the job of catching and deporting them.

 

[Correll]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

I saw someone talking about this a couple days ago.

The Rio Grande IS the border between the US and Mexico. If the US builds a wall on it's side, which legally is the only way it can otherwise trying to build a wall on the Mexican side would be tantamount to declaring war on Mexico and seizing their land along the whole 1,300 mile river border, then the US cedes the Rio Grande to Mexico.

You just have to love when reality stands in front of drumpf, pulls it's right hand back around it's right shoulder, and backhand bitch slaps drumpf with the weight of humanity behind it.

Soooooo, what's the problem with building the wall on the America side of the river.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

Over 100 years ago the Panama Canal was built without the tools available to today's civil engineers. Given the amount of sunlight on our southern border, solar energy alone would reduce the cost to build a canal from the mouth of the Rio Grande River to the Tijuana River, a joint project of the US and Mexico (think a decade + of jobs).

A canal wide enough to transport commodities and deep enough for Ocean Going Vessels, potentially allowing for US Navy surface force vessels to transit from our east to west coast, saving thousands of sea miles in the process.

Is it feasible? Is it practical? If so, it makes more sense than building a wall which can be climbed with a ladder or tunneled under as has been done many times by drug traffickers.

Crazy talk.

THe need to build tunnels would reduce the flow of illegals to a trickle, greatly easing the job of catching and deporting them.

"Crazy talk"? Really, I bet your great-great grandfather, when seeing his first automobile yelled out, "get a horse"; and his father's great-great grandfather believed the Erie Canal was a boondoggle and an impossible feat; and your father felt JFK's Moon Policy was impossible too.

Crazy talk, not; these were considered crazy too, by those who lacked imagination and belief in the know how of American ingenuity.

 

[Correll]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

Over 100 years ago the Panama Canal was built without the tools available to today's civil engineers. Given the amount of sunlight on our southern border, solar energy alone would reduce the cost to build a canal from the mouth of the Rio Grande River to the Tijuana River, a joint project of the US and Mexico (think a decade + of jobs).

A canal wide enough to transport commodities and deep enough for Ocean Going Vessels, potentially allowing for US Navy surface force vessels to transit from our east to west coast, saving thousands of sea miles in the process.

Is it feasible? Is it practical? If so, it makes more sense than building a wall which can be climbed with a ladder or tunneled under as has been done many times by drug traffickers.

Crazy talk.

THe need to build tunnels would reduce the flow of illegals to a trickle, greatly easing the job of catching and deporting them.

"Crazy talk"? Really, I bet your great-great grandfather, when seeing his first automobile yelled out, "get a horse"; and his father's great-great grandfather believed the Erie Canal was a boondoggle and an impossible feat; and your father felt JFK's Moon Policy was impossible too.

Crazy talk, not; these were considered crazy too, by those who lacked imagination and belief in the know how of American ingenuity.

Canals are not new high tech wonders.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Herr drumpf has said he wants to take land away from Americans as well as Mexicans. Some Americans agree, though not the ones who would lose their homes!

Then there's the cost - Quoted at $4million per mile or more. No problem though, cuz Mexico is paying. Right? The president of the US promised that. Many many many many many many many times. All lies and coincidentally, the same number of times he lied about Mexico paying for it. He also said he loves debt and that's the truth of this - just charge it to our elderly and our descendants.

Many of the most ignorant will say foolish things like "round them up and deport them". Obviously, they don't think that rash statement through. Those same people will also say they are against driver's licenses or other ways of actually tracking undocumented/illegals. Go figure.

So, now that we've covered that, let's get to location, location, location ...

No, the Rio Grande aka Rio Bravo does not belong only to the US. Nor does it belong wholly to Mexico. There are treaties to consider and no, the US does not get to just steal the river, even though drumpf will likely say otherwise.

Almost 1900 miles long, the river flows through three US states and two countries. Its still the third largest US river but has been dammed and polluted until most of what it once was is gone. It is sometimes dry and sometimes floods. There are times when Mexico does not share and times when the US does not.

There's actually a lot of moving parts to this question so ===

Happy reading ... What do you think?

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/CRP/riogrande.htm

Rio Grande - Wikipedia

The wall: Building a continuous US-Mexico barrier would be a tall order

Over 100 years ago the Panama Canal was built without the tools available to today's civil engineers. Given the amount of sunlight on our southern border, solar energy alone would reduce the cost to build a canal from the mouth of the Rio Grande River to the Tijuana River, a joint project of the US and Mexico (think a decade + of jobs).

A canal wide enough to transport commodities and deep enough for Ocean Going Vessels, potentially allowing for US Navy surface force vessels to transit from our east to west coast, saving thousands of sea miles in the process.

Is it feasible? Is it practical? If so, it makes more sense than building a wall which can be climbed with a ladder or tunneled under as has been done many times by drug traffickers.

Crazy talk.

THe need to build tunnels would reduce the flow of illegals to a trickle, greatly easing the job of catching and deporting them.

"Crazy talk"? Really, I bet your great-great grandfather, when seeing his first automobile yelled out, "get a horse"; and his father's great-great grandfather believed the Erie Canal was a boondoggle and an impossible feat; and your father felt JFK's Moon Policy was impossible too.

Crazy talk, not; these were considered crazy too, by those who lacked imagination and belief in the know how of American ingenuity.

Canals are not new high tech wonders.

LOL, you ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of imagination.

Dig This: The Panama Canal Expansion Used Enough Steel To Build 22 Eiffel Towers

Jobs for American steel workers

Lucky for us 19th century engineers solved the problems in building a canal:

: Building a Canal

A bit of history with low tech wonders, and what was accomplished without huge earthmovers:

Panama Canal: The Big Dig of Central America

Here is what they didn't have 100 years ago:

Here's how to make America great with a win-win policy for the US and Mexico.