I have a problem with some of the rhetoric the left uses when talking about the wall

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Considering the construction is estimated to be like 30-40 billion I think it'd take a long time to reach a trillion dollars spent on the wall. Cost arguments aside, do you accept that a well built border wall would serve as a potentially strong deterrent to illegal immigrants?

Potentially strong? No. Not over 2,000 miles of widely varying terrain.

Factor in maintenance, staffing, and all costs that go with that and I say we spend a trillion within 10 years. And there will still be a over 11 million illegals in the country.

 

[sealybobo]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

Do we need a Canada wall too?

 

[OKTexas]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

No, walls don't work, just ask the folks in Berlin.

You also miss the point, the wall is a shameful symbol of rightwing bigotry and hate.

Why, because you say so. STFU


.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Not by much

I can't really say for sure one way or the other. Can you? It seems to me that it could be a pretty effective deterrent if it's built right.

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

....dumbass.
Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Sorry, inbred trash, but that’s an opinion piece cherrypicking the **** out of the stats

 

[BlindBoo]

The idea that a wall will keep anyone or anything out of our country is ludicrous. I think we also need a mote to go along with it, a mine field and a free fire zone where real Americans can remote control the weapons (pay per shot only), all from the comfort of their own homes.

 

[MisterBeale]

Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to statf and upgrade over the decades, a blatant insult against our allies in Latin and South America, a symbol of cowardice replacing the Statue of Liberty, and people who really want to come here will still get in. Maybe the cartels will charge more, that will make them happy.

It'd be expensive for sure. If that's your argument against it then we don't have an issue. I just wanted to say that if we did build it it would do what it's intended to do, which is act as a deterrent. It would slow them down.

I really don't think the argument from both the neo-liberal left, and the neo-con right about expense is a compelling argument when you break it down either. Let's analyze it, shall we?

We now live in a welfare/warfare state.

I too am like you, I tend to be against both current parties as viewed from the left-libertarian/classical liberal perspective. We have strayed from the founders vision mightily.

For instance I noted this statement;

"Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to staff and upgrade over the decades,"

How is this any different than the federal outlays for the interstate highway system, which also serves a compelling national interest? We all agree that this is necessary for our national economic priorities.

So, if the wall would work, then the countess billions spent on it's infrastructure would benefit the national economy, as both a federal jobs program and a compelling capital investment, and a security investment in the same way that spending on the interstate highway system boosts the economy.

Likewise, as you pointed out, it would serve the national interest as long as the US and Mexico/South America have economies which are so divergent that people are tempted to try to break the law to unlawfully immigrate.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to statf and upgrade over the decades, a blatant insult against our allies in Latin and South America, a symbol of cowardice replacing the Statue of Liberty, and people who really want to come here will still get in. Maybe the cartels will charge more, that will make them happy.

It'd be expensive for sure. If that's your argument against it then we don't have an issue. I just wanted to say that if we did build it it would do what it's intended to do, which is act as a deterrent. It would slow them down.

I really don't think the argument from both the neo-liberal left, and the neo-con right about expense is a compelling argument when you break it down either. Let's analyze it, shall we?

We now live in a welfare/warfare state.

I too am like you, I tend to be against both current parties as viewed from the left-libertarian/classical liberal perspective. We have strayed from the founders vision mightily.

For instance I noted this statement;

"Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to staff and upgrade over the decades,"

How is this any different than the federal outlays for the interstate highway system, which also serves a compelling national interest? We all agree that this is necessary for our national economic priorities.

So, if the wall would work, then the countess billions spent on it's infrastructure would benefit the national economy, as both a federal jobs program and a compelling capital investment, and a security investment in the same way that spending on the interstate highway system boosts the economy.

Likewise, as you pointed out, it would serve the national interest as long as the US and Mexico/South America have economies which are so divergent that people are tempted to try to break the law to unlawfully immigrate.

Our highways power the economy. Trump’s wall powers nothing.

 

[MisterBeale]

Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to statf and upgrade over the decades, a blatant insult against our allies in Latin and South America, a symbol of cowardice replacing the Statue of Liberty, and people who really want to come here will still get in. Maybe the cartels will charge more, that will make them happy.

It'd be expensive for sure. If that's your argument against it then we don't have an issue. I just wanted to say that if we did build it it would do what it's intended to do, which is act as a deterrent. It would slow them down.

I really don't think the argument from both the neo-liberal left, and the neo-con right about expense is a compelling argument when you break it down either. Let's analyze it, shall we?

We now live in a welfare/warfare state.

I too am like you, I tend to be against both current parties as viewed from the left-libertarian/classical liberal perspective. We have strayed from the founders vision mightily.

For instance I noted this statement;

"Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to staff and upgrade over the decades,"

How is this any different than the federal outlays for the interstate highway system, which also serves a compelling national interest? We all agree that this is necessary for our national economic priorities.

So, if the wall would work, then the countess billions spent on it's infrastructure would benefit the national economy, as both a federal jobs program and a compelling capital investment, and a security investment in the same way that spending on the interstate highway system boosts the economy.

Likewise, as you pointed out, it would serve the national interest as long as the US and Mexico/South America have economies which are so divergent that people are tempted to try to break the law to unlawfully immigrate.

Our highways power the economy. Trump’s wall powers nothing.

I hold no opinion on that over the long term. I can tell you that the Berlin wall, and the check points in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were quite effective in keeping people from going out, and Israel's wall is effective from keeping people from entering.


So. . . unless you think that the Coast Guard can't be at least as effective at keeping other nationalities out as they are at preventing Cuban's and Haitians from entering, I think you are probably mistaken.

So if I were you, I would not be so naive and partisan as to make any such sweeping assumptions.

You are making assumptions because you are hyper-partisan.



OTH, if you every posted in any thread about Obama's stimulus program. .. .


Then you are being a hypocrite. It is impossible to build something that massive without creating thousands of jobs.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to statf and upgrade over the decades, a blatant insult against our allies in Latin and South America, a symbol of cowardice replacing the Statue of Liberty, and people who really want to come here will still get in. Maybe the cartels will charge more, that will make them happy.

It'd be expensive for sure. If that's your argument against it then we don't have an issue. I just wanted to say that if we did build it it would do what it's intended to do, which is act as a deterrent. It would slow them down.

I really don't think the argument from both the neo-liberal left, and the neo-con right about expense is a compelling argument when you break it down either. Let's analyze it, shall we?

We now live in a welfare/warfare state.

I too am like you, I tend to be against both current parties as viewed from the left-libertarian/classical liberal perspective. We have strayed from the founders vision mightily.

For instance I noted this statement;

"Billions to build, countless billions more to maintain over the decades, countless billions more to staff and upgrade over the decades,"

How is this any different than the federal outlays for the interstate highway system, which also serves a compelling national interest? We all agree that this is necessary for our national economic priorities.

So, if the wall would work, then the countess billions spent on it's infrastructure would benefit the national economy, as both a federal jobs program and a compelling capital investment, and a security investment in the same way that spending on the interstate highway system boosts the economy.

Likewise, as you pointed out, it would serve the national interest as long as the US and Mexico/South America have economies which are so divergent that people are tempted to try to break the law to unlawfully immigrate.

Our highways power the economy. Trump’s wall powers nothing.

I hold no opinion on that over the long term. I can tell you that the Berlin wall, and the check points in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were quite effective in keeping people from going out, and Israel's wall is effective from keeping people from entering.


So. . . unless you think that the Coast Guard can't be at least as effective at keeping other nationalities out as they are at preventing Cuban's and Haitians from entering, I think you are probably mistaken.

So if I were you, I would not be so naive and partisan as to make any such sweeping assumptions.

You are making assumptions because you are hyper-partisan.



OTH, if you every posted in any thread about Obama's stimulus program. .. .


Then you are being a hypocrite. It is impossible to build something that massive without creating thousands of jobs.

Yeah lots of jobs paid by tax payer cheddar. And illegals coming in without skipping a beat.

 

[hunarcy]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

The wall won’t be built. If somehow part of it gets completed, the next President will run on tearing it down.

It’s a complete waste of money and a symbol of cowardice

Wouldn’t tearing it down be a waste of money and resources? Why would anyone do that?

Because it’s ugly, insulting, ineffective, and damaging to wildlife and the ecosystem

And it's all that and more because you say so, huh? *yawn*

 

[TheOldSchool]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

The wall won’t be built. If somehow part of it gets completed, the next President will run on tearing it down.

It’s a complete waste of money and a symbol of cowardice

Wouldn’t tearing it down be a waste of money and resources? Why would anyone do that?

Because it’s ugly, insulting, ineffective, and damaging to wildlife and the ecosystem

And it's all that and more because you say so, huh? *yawn*

Actually it’s nothing, and will probably stay that way

 

[MisterBeale]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

Do we need a Canada wall too?

If the Canadian dollar were worth a third that American dollar, it might be necessary.


This is primarily an economic problem and a problem with controlling borders.


I am not aware of an illegal immigration problem from the north because of political and economic hardship, are you?


When is that last time the coast guard picked up a boat load of Canadians trying to illegally get away with sneaking across Lake St. Claire?

Maybe during Jobbie Nooner?

 

[hunarcy]

Not by much

I can't really say for sure one way or the other. Can you? It seems to me that it could be a pretty effective deterrent if it's built right.

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there will still be millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Not by much

I can't really say for sure one way or the other. Can you? It seems to me that it could be a pretty effective deterrent if it's built right.

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there will still be millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there won’t be? ******* idiot.

 

[Tilly]

The idea that a wall will keep anyone or anything out of our country is ludicrous. I think we also need a mote to go along with it, a mine field and a free fire zone where real Americans can remote control the weapons (pay per shot only), all from the comfort of their own homes.

Israel’s wall and the Israeli/Egyptian Wall work pretty well.

 

[MisterBeale]

Not by much

I can't really say for sure one way or the other. Can you? It seems to me that it could be a pretty effective deterrent if it's built right.

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there will still be millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there won’t be? ******* idiot.

That's why I hold no opinion on it's efficacy.

If we have minimal corruption in the bureaucracy, it will certainly be very effective.

It will all depend upon the border control check points and the folks that control the border and how much corruption and training they have.

If the technology is there, and the training and will is there, it will be very effective.


If it is just an excuse to spend tax payer cheese and something to assuage the will and emotions of angry voters, while hiring the relatives of the same folks that came from the areas illegals immigrated from. . . . .

If the folks at the border control are being bribed by the cartels and the coyotes, the tunnels and bribes will continue, and it will be like a wall isn't even there.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

 

[MisterBeale]

I can't really say for sure one way or the other. Can you? It seems to me that it could be a pretty effective deterrent if it's built right.

Yeah! How many years do you think it will be before we’ve totalled $1 trillion on wall spending, and there are still millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there will still be millions of illegals in the country and more still coming in?

Can you PROVE there won’t be? ******* idiot.

So, you just make claims and provide NO foundation for the claim but I'm an idiot? Your performance in this thread reinforces the idea that you aren't worth the attention it takes to read your posts. Oh, and profanity in that context merely indicates an inferior vocabulary. Next time, try something like "idiotic buffoon", you uneducated twit.

He seems to be extra angry and triggered today

He's really not a bad guy.

But then, neither was Jimmy Carter, I just wouldn't want him leading the nation.

 

[TNHarley]

How about more border control, that's jobs for Americans, new tech cameras to watch the border made in America, that's jobs for Americans. fix our intrasture, that's jobs for Americans. there must be better ways, besides a big ugly wall that costs billions of dollars that we don't have. the Republicans are talking about cutting Social Security & Medicare because we don't have enough money to keep it. lets explore all options.

Do you realize you put forth ideas that would cost a lot of money and then say we dont have any for a wall?

 

[g5000]

So when talking about the wall the left likes to imply that it won't serve any practical purpose. "People will dig under it, climb over it, fly over it and some of them will even blah blah blah..."

Yes, you are correct that a wall won't be an absolute solution to the problem of illegals crossing the border, but it's outright dishonest to say it won't at least be a powerful deterrent. It won't stop all of them, but it will stop some or many of them. Walls work, and there are a lot of modern examples that demonstrate that truth.

There are no examples that a wall of this length works.

The wall is a stupid symbolic gesture which will have no impact on our economy or our country whatsoever. It's a mental masturbation fantasy.