Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?

Vaulk

WordsMatter said:

@Vaulk it was the "therefore we should build the wall" part that made me think you were debating me. Thank you for letting me know that wasn't the case. 

However, I do want to offer something for debate. I feel like when this topic comes up people conflate both sides of the wall argument with assumptions. Pro-wall? You must hate Hispanics. Anti-wall? You just want illegals to run wild. I think it's unfair to both sides.

Personally I am against the wall, only because I think their are more cost effective ways to enforce the land border via technology, and I would be all for a digital wall. At the same time I recognize that their is a sweet spot of the number of illegal immigrants in the country. They are useful because they don't have the right of a citizen, no minimum wage, no labor laws. They are good for some sectors of our economy. Now I actually recognize positives in Trump cracking down on illegal immigrants. I've studied illegal immigrants workers in various developed Asian countries and I think they do it right. They enact policies and do enough raids to keep the illegal immigrants always afraid that the slightest move will get them sent away. This leads the immigrants to stay confined in their own small neighborhood and only go between work and home. The governments will occasionally go into both the neighborhood and the places of work and just deport a bunch of them. They knew they were in these places long before deporting them, and they know and will let these places populate again. The goal of this is to allow the business owners to have their cheap labor while cycling through illegal immigrants so that none get to start very long, generally just a couple years. I think a system like this would be effective here.

I personally think that what you're talking about in regards to a "Digital wall" isn't as cost effective as you might think.  Setting all non-essential information aside, the issue at had is that we don't have a secure border.  So:

Q: How do we secure the border? 
A: By implementing effective security measures. 
Q: What security measures do we need?
A: That depends on what type of security we're talking about.
Q: What are we looking to secure?
A: Access to the United States.
Q: How is security access established in most situations?
A: With the implementation of access control.
Q: How do we implement access control?
A: First by physically limiting the number of access points a person can use to a manageable number.
Q: How do we limit the number of access points to the United States?
A: The same way you limit the number of access points in any situation, you close it off entirely and build door ways, in this case we'd use gates.

It's a matter of simple security procedures.  The border must be secure and in order to secure it you must limit the areas where people can physically cross.  Without a wall it would take hundreds of thousands of border patrol agents to keep illegal immigrants from crossing.  Sex trafficking, drug trafficking and the general abuse and detestable treatment of children while attempting to cross the border is reason enough to put a total stop to it.  It's not safe for them and it's illegal to boot.  At this point I'm willing to support anyone who hasn't used the same line the last 3 presidents have used, throwing more money and tightening the rules hasn't worked ever...and it's pure stupidity to keep trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

sear

When candidate Trump promised to build a wall from coast to coast, and Mexico would pay for it I thought it was a bad idea.

OF COURSE Mexico wouldn't pay for it!

So now Trump wants to stick the U.S. $tax $payer with the bill.

Such $squandering would be substantial folly, an exercise in naïveté.

The ostensible purpose is to keep illegal aliens out.

BUT !!

 Many illegal aliens in the U.S. enter legally. Some of them simply over-stay their visa.

 Others may arrive from Cuba, from across the Atlantic.

 Much of our U.S. / Canadian border is unguarded, and even unmarked. The notion that building such wall would solve the U.S. illegal immigration problem is fanciful. It's at best a delusion. And let's not forget, candidate Trump also claimed he would deport all illegal aliens; a promise he has not repeated lately.

sear

When candidate Trump promised to build a wall from coast to coast, and Mexico would pay for it I thought it was a bad idea.

OF COURSE Mexico wouldn't pay for it!

So now Trump wants to stick the U.S. $tax $payer with the bill.

Such $squandering would be substantial folly, an exercise in naïveté.

The ostensible purpose is to keep illegal aliens out.

BUT !!

 Many illegal aliens in the U.S. enter legally. Some of them simply over-stay their visa.

 Others may arrive from Cuba, from across the Atlantic.

 Much of our U.S. / Canadian border is unguarded, and even unmarked. The notion that building such wall would solve the U.S. illegal immigration problem is fanciful. It's at best a delusion. And let's not forget, candidate Trump also claimed he would deport all illegal aliens; a promise he has not repeated lately.

sear

When candidate Trump promised to build a wall from coast to coast, and Mexico would pay for it I thought it was a bad idea.

OF COURSE Mexico wouldn't pay for it!

So now Trump wants to stick the U.S. $tax $payer with the bill.

Such $squandering would be substantial folly, an exercise in naïveté.

The ostensible purpose is to keep illegal aliens out.

BUT !!

 Many illegal aliens in the U.S. enter legally. Some of them simply over-stay their visa.

 Others may arrive from Cuba, from across the Atlantic.

 Much of our U.S. / Canadian border is unguarded, and even unmarked. The notion that building such wall would solve the U.S. illegal immigration problem is fanciful. It's at best a delusion. And let's not forget, candidate Trump also claimed he would deport all illegal aliens; a promise he has not repeated lately.

Applesauce

no there's better ways to control the border, rolls of barbed wire 20 feet wide, automated machine guns with movement sensors.  But seriously the border needs to be controlled, anything is better than nothing.

Nathaniel_B

Maybe not a wall, but a reinforcement of the border fence. The problem is that there are gaps between the border, as if Its incomplete, so we need to fix it. The wall could work! I actually like the idea and would like to find a better way of stopping Illegals from getting into our country to receive so many benefits that normal U.S citizens can't have. 

keithprosser

The Berlin wall was built primarily to stop East Germans leaving.  Trump's wall might help keep Americans in their own country by turning the US into one big prison.

SkepticalOne

The wall is a waste of money! Most illegal immigration into the US occurs when immigrants fly into the country and overstay their permit - the wall doesnt address this. 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

The wall is a waste of money! Most illegal immigration into the US occurs when immigrants fly into the country and overstay their permit - the wall doesnt address this. 

I've heard that too, but how does one track how many come across the border if they are never caught or found?  the wall is largely symbolic imo  Obama put up a wall around his new home, so I think they do work.  The half assed fence an barriers that have become useless because of disrepair, ineffectiveness and in some cases general stupidity of placement need to be replaced anyway.  Enough people thought a barrier was a good idea and they have been in place for a very long time.  Waste of money?  I don't know, but if the trade deficit is erased or reduced I guess that's how mexico will pay for it.

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce
If we cant track how illegal immigration occurs, then how do we know a wall will be effective? Secondly, we actually do have numbers for illegal immigration by expired visas through airports as an entry point.

So, if we want to actually stop illegal immigration, our solutions should address the problem as it is and not as we intuit it on little or no data.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce
If we cant track how illegal immigration occurs, then how do we know a wall will be effective? Secondly, we actually do have numbers for illegal immigration by expired visas through airports as an entry point.

So, if we want to actually stop illegal immigration, our solutions should address the problem as it is and not as we intuit it on little or no data.

I see no  reason not to do both.  The U.S. should do a much better job stopping criminal aliens regardless of their means.

Cicero

We need to control who enters our country. IF we don't have a process for entry then we truly are a foolish people. We must protect ourselves from those that wish to do us harm. For those that disagree do you live in a home with doors? Do they have locks? Do you lock them to keep the unknown out? 

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 


Edit - brainfart. I meant to say immigrants should not be assumed criminals.

SkepticalOne

Cicero said:

We need to control who enters our country. IF we don't have a process for entry then we truly are a foolish people. We must protect ourselves from those that wish to do us harm. For those that disagree do you live in a home with doors? Do they have locks? Do you lock them to keep the unknown out? 

No wall at the border is not the same as no door/lock on a home. There are plenty of cheaper options for restricting access from to the US that are more (or as) effective as the "wall". 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 

crim·i·nal

ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/

noun

1. 1.

   a person who has committed a crime.

   "these men are dangerous criminals"

   synonyms:

   lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant;

   
   if it fits........ you may certainly think as you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.
   doing something illegal makes you a........criminal.

SkepticalOne

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce
If we cant track how illegal immigration occurs, then how do we know a wall will be effective? Secondly, we actually do have numbers for illegal immigration by expired visas through airports as an entry point.

So, if we want to actually stop illegal immigration, our solutions should address the problem as it is and not as we intuit it on little or no data.

I see no  reason not to do both.  The U.S. should do a much better job stopping criminal aliens regardless of their means.

I see no reason to do a wall.  I have no idea what "both" would be.

SkepticalOne

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 

crim·i·nal

ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/

noun

1. 1.

   a person who has committed a crime.

   "these men are dangerous criminals"

   synonyms:

   lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant;

   
   if it fits........ you may certainly think as you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.
   doing something illegal makes you a........criminal.

When people enter the country legally, they are not criminals...and there is no reason to stop them from entering the country. 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 

crim·i·nal

ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/

noun

1. 1.

   a person who has committed a crime.

   "these men are dangerous criminals"

   synonyms:

   lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant;

   
   if it fits........ you may certainly think as you wish, but it doesn't change the facts.
   doing something illegal makes you a........criminal.

When people enter the country legally, they are not criminals...and there is no reason to stop them from entering the country. 

is overstaying your visa legal? because you are the one who said that's how most people are here illegally, and if that's illegal, see definition already provided.

SkepticalOne

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 

crim·i·nal

ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/

noun

1. 1.
   a person who has committed a crime.
   "these men are dangerous 

is overstaying your visa legal? because you are the one who said that's how most people are here illegally, and if that's illegal, see definition already provided.

I accept overstaying your visa is illegal. However, this is beside my point: Someone is not committing a criminal act until they have overstayed their visa and you cant overstay your visa if you are not already in the the country. How does a wall address this problem?

It doesnt.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Of course we should attempt to stop criminals from entering our country, but "criminal" should not be considered synonymous with 'immigrants staying beyond their allotted timeframe'. 

crim·i·nal

ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/

noun

1. 1.
   a person who has committed a crime.
   "these men are dangerous 

is overstaying your visa legal? because you are the one who said that's how most people are here illegally, and if that's illegal, see definition already provided.

I accept overstaying your visa is illegal. However, this is beside my point: Someone is not committing a criminal act until they have overstayed their visa and you cant overstay your visa if you are not already in the the country. How does a wall address this problem?

It doesnt.

it doesn't that's why I said the U.S. should address both those issues, overstaying and crossing the border.  There's no reason not to deal with both is there?

CYDdharta

SkepticalOne said:

The wall is a waste of money! Most illegal immigration into the US occurs when immigrants fly into the country and overstay their permit - the wall doesnt address this. 

This is simply not true.  While as significant minority of illegals overstay their visas, it is still a minority.  The majority of illegals walk across the border.

SkepticalOne

CYDdharta said:

SkepticalOne said:

The wall is a waste of money! Most illegal immigration into the US occurs when immigrants fly into the country and overstay their permit - the wall doesnt address this. 

This is simply not true.  While as significant minority of illegals overstay their visas, it is still a minority.  The majority of illegals walk across the border.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/

A majority (60% to 90%) of unauthorized immigrants come from overstays. The Center for Migration studies and the Department of Homeland Security give us these numbers.

For the record, my original post was inaccurate. 40% of overstays fly into the country which is not "most" as I originally stated. However, it is true most unauthorized immigrants overstay their visa rather than illegally crossing the border. The wall does not address this.

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

I'm not against dealing with unauthorized entry into the US, but the problem of illegal entry is grossly exaggerated as is it's supposed solution (the wall).

There are much more effective and inexpensive solutions.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

I'm not against dealing with unauthorized entry into the US, but the problem of illegal entry is grossly exaggerated as is it's supposed solution (the wall).

There are much more effective and inexpensive solutions.

I would agree with that, but since Trump is the first to make it any kind of priority or seriousness, it's his call.  Perhaps the many previous administrations not left so many messes for him to clean up we wouldn't need to talk about it.  We shall see what actually happens.

Agility_Dude

My opinion on this issue is build the wall. Illegal immigrants commit lots of crimes here which costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Therefore, building a wall will be cost efficient long term.

SkepticalOne

Applesauce said:
I would agree with that, but since Trump is the first to make it any kind of priority or seriousness, it's his call.  Perhaps the many previous administrations not left so many messes for him to clean up we wouldn't need to talk about it.  We shall see what actually happens.

Trump is not the first, nor is it his call. He (like all elected officials) represents the governed and we tell him what to do - not he other way around. "Seeing what actually happens" suggests we (the employers of Trump) have no say and this is misguided.

The fact that there are other more effective less expensive solutions (you've agreed) means the wall is a poor solution and that we should be outraged if it became a reality. 

SkepticalOne

Agility_Dude said:

My opinion on this issue is build the wall. Illegal immigrants commit lots of crimes here which costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Therefore, building a wall will be cost efficient long term.

Most unauthorized immigrants do not enter the country illegally. The wall does nothing to address this.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:
I would agree with that, but since Trump is the first to make it any kind of priority or seriousness, it's his call.  Perhaps the many previous administrations not left so many messes for him to clean up we wouldn't need to talk about it.  We shall see what actually happens.

Trump is not the first, nor is it his call. He (like all elected officials) represents the governed and we tell him what to do - not he other way around. "Seeing what actually happens" suggests we (the employers of Trump) have no say and this is misguided.

The fact that there are other more effective less expensive solutions (you've agreed) means the wall is a poor solution and that we should be outraged if it became a reality. 

he campaigned in part on building a wall, he was elected, it is his choice to continue to push on building it or change to something else.  You don't get to vote on every decision he wants to make, you can say whatever you like until you are blue in the face, ultimately it is his decision on if he wishes to listen or not.  I think we should be more outraged at those who attack and want to abolish I.C.E. but that's a different topic I guess.  Walls work to a large degree, nothing is perfect and we shouldn't just stop there and call it good enough.  Have you heard of any legitimate alternatives proposed by anyone on the left or the right?  Me neither.  Call it what you will, unless you have a viable alternative you are just blowing hot air.

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

There are many things which stand in front of building a wall... funding for instance. We do have a say in that.

Also, whether or not I provide alternatives does nothing to justify a solution that does not address the bulk of illegal immigration. The idea of the wall stands or falls on it own merits. I've not seen a compelling argument for the wall.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

There are many things which stand in front of building a wall... funding for instance. We do have a say in that.

Also, whether or not I provide alternatives does nothing to justify a solution that does not address the bulk of illegal immigration. The idea of the wall stands or falls on it own merits. I've not seen a compelling argument for the wall.

sure we have an indirect say I suppose I'll give you that, write your congressman if you think that will help.  You made the requirement that it needs to "address the bulk of illegal immigration"  That's moving the goal posts.  If you'd like to talk about how to stop and or deport the bulk or largest part of illegal immigration that is specific and a separate issue.  This is about building a wall to stop people crossing the southern border.  We can discuss which is more important, has a bigger impact etc etc, but not in this thread as I think it would be off topic.

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

My objection to the wall is that the problem it aims to solve (ie. Illegal immigration) will be largely unaffected by it as most unauthorized immigrants come into the country legally. This is very relevant to the discussion and not something I have failed to mention before now. 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

My objection to the wall is that the problem it aims to solve (ie. Illegal immigration) will be largely unaffected by it as most unauthorized immigrants come into the country legally. This is very relevant to the discussion and not something I have failed to mention before now. 

I understand your position it just seemed we were moving away from the topic "Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?"  Which couldn't possibly apply to those already in the country because of expired visas.  The issue of this thread as I see it is, do we need or want to stop people walking across the southern border with a wall?  I do want people stopped from walking across the southern border into the U.S.  I have seen no real proposals or alternatives to the wall, absent those things how could I not be in favor of the wall?  I'm trying to keep the issues as separate as possible w/o conflating them too much, which I believe we were doing.

SkepticalOne

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

My objection to the wall is that the problem it aims to solve (ie. Illegal immigration) will be largely unaffected by it as most unauthorized immigrants come into the country legally. This is very relevant to the discussion and not something I have failed to mention before now. 

I understand your position it just seemed we were moving away from the topic "Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?"  Which couldn't possibly apply to those already in the country because of expired visas.  The issue of this thread as I see it is, do we need or want to stop people walking across the southern border with a wall?  I do want people stopped from walking across the southern border into the U.S.  I have seen no real proposals or alternatives to the wall, absent those things how could I not be in favor of the wall?  I'm trying to keep the issues as separate as possible w/o conflating them too much, which I believe we were doing.

I'm not convinced a wall will keep people from crossing the southern border illegally. Even if it did, what's to stop someone from going around? It's like walling up the front door to your home (at great personal expense) and allowing 3 people to enter  with permission through the patio door while a burglar lets himself in through the window. So much for the security measures on the front door and the money used to reinforce it!

Finally, there are many alternatives to a physical wall  (eg, a virtual wall, border patrol, etc. - a rabbit hole of possibilities), but acceptance of the wall shouldn't come because you dont know there is an alternative. That's an argument from ignorance. You should have good reasons for endorsing a course of action - whatever it is - and "I dont know another option" is not a good reason.

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

Applesauce said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

My objection to the wall is that the problem it aims to solve (ie. Illegal immigration) will be largely unaffected by it as most unauthorized immigrants come into the country legally. This is very relevant to the discussion and not something I have failed to mention before now. 

I understand your position it just seemed we were moving away from the topic "Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?"  Which couldn't possibly apply to those already in the country because of expired visas.  The issue of this thread as I see it is, do we need or want to stop people walking across the southern border with a wall?  I do want people stopped from walking across the southern border into the U.S.  I have seen no real proposals or alternatives to the wall, absent those things how could I not be in favor of the wall?  I'm trying to keep the issues as separate as possible w/o conflating them too much, which I believe we were doing.

I'm not convinced a wall will keep people from crossing the southern border illegally. Even if it did, what's to stop someone from going around? It's like walling up the front door to your home (at great personal expense) and allowing 3 people to enter  with permission through the patio door while a burglar lets himself in through the window. So much for the security measures on the front door and the money used to reinforce it!

Finally, there are many alternatives to a physical wall  (eg, a virtual wall, border patrol, etc. - a rabbit hole of possibilities), but acceptance of the wall shouldn't come because you dont know there is an alternative. That's an argument from ignorance. You should have good reasons for endorsing a course of action - whatever it is - and "I dont know another option" is not a good reason.

the wall would be built so you could not simply walk around it, unlike many spots where there was a fence or other things installed previously.  It won't be 100% effective, that's not possible, nothing is with regards to this topic.  I'm more playing devil's advocate and why people support the wall.  Some of prototypes were quite effective when tested by professionals.
I think there were 6 guys who tried to rob a jewelry store, anyway they each paid $4500 to get smuggled into the U.S.  Now if you make it substantially more difficult, it becomes a cost benefit (increased punishment would be good too) then the smugglers would have to increase their prices to make it worth while.  Let's suppose they have to double their cost because of all the extra things they would need to do and extra risk involved.  If the new number is now $9000 that would further eliminate those who would attempt an illegal entry just because of the finances, or lack of.  Again not a 100% but it could be a much better deterrent.  Currently you don't need to hire a smuggler as evidenced by people simply walking across or climbing the dilapidated fences.  The current fences are of little use, mostly due to design.  A remedy should have been made long ago, so here we are now.

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

Right now there are around ~450k individuals attempting to cross the border illegally per year. We stop around ~300k of those. Do you understand you are advocating a 2000 mile long wall at a cost of $70 billion and $150 million year maintenance cost with the result being inconveniencing ~150k people? 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Right now there are around ~450k individuals attempting to cross the border illegally per year. We stop around ~300k of those. Do you understand you are advocating a 2000 mile long wall at a cost of $70 billion and $150 million year maintenance cost with the result being inconveniencing ~150k people? 

I am not aware of those figures.  If what you say is accurate then that would be grossly excessive.  However no one afaik has tried to negotiate an alternative, which I believe was the point of it all.  You ask for the stars and settle for the moon.  the obstructionist on the left are building a voter base with illegals so they aren't interested in stopping or deals with the criminal aliens.  Absent of a viable alternative the wall must go forward.  It's like a game of chicken if you know what that is and Trump isn't going to blink, the rest don't even know they are playing.  Consider that for a moment if you will.  X says we can do 1,2 and 3 it will be just as good or almost as good as the wall and yet half the cost.  Victory for Trump.  He made it an issue and forced them to solve it at a lower cost than the initial proposal.  It's not about getting credit, it's about taking credit which he is good at doing.  If you were in congress or whatever wouldn't you find the best engineers to come up with cheaper alternatives?  I mean if you actually gave a sh1t.  if you don't like the solution to a problem presented, but you offer no real alternatives who is really to blame?

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce
You say its grossly excessive and still want to move forward. If the facts won't dissuade you from endorsing a bad plan, I dont know what would. 

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce
You say its grossly excessive and still want to move forward. If the facts won't dissuade you from endorsing a bad plan, I dont know what would. 

is that what I said? or was I giving my opinion of how Trump might think and negotiating tactics?  perhaps you could point that out for me or stop trying to put words in my mouth?

MayCaesar

@Applesauce

I find it to be an extremely flawed reasoning to say that just because someone proposed a solution with no explicit alternative, that solution should be executed. Sometimes trying to solve the problem can only worsen the problem, and it is better to do nothing than to mess things up. I do not see how Trump's "wall" addresses anything (as has been said before, anyone with a cheap wooden ladder will easily cross the wall), however it has a lot of negative effects. It:

1. Wastes an already quite limited budget.
2. Antagonizes the US in the eyes of other nations, including close allies and vital economical partners.
3. Creates the sense of false security, easily exploitable by actually dangerous criminals.
4. Further divides an already divided nation, pitting citizens and members of the government against each other and slowing down any progress they could achieve by working together.

I do not see how building this wall is constructive from any point, other than fulfilling Trump's electoral promise (and he has failed at delivering on so many of his promises already, that one more will not make any difference neither among his supporters nor among his haters).

SkepticalOne

@Applesauce

Applesauce said:
If what you say is accurate then that would be grossly excessive.

Applesauce

MayCaesar said:

@Applesauce

I find it to be an extremely flaw reasoning to say that just because someone proposed a solution with no explicit alternative, that solution should be executed. Sometimes trying to solve the problem can only worsen the problem, and it is better to do nothing than to mess things up. I do not see how Trump's "wall" addresses anything (as has been said before, anyone with a cheap wooden ladder will easily cross the wall), however it has a lot of negative effects. It:

1. Wastes an already quite limited budget.
2. Antagonizes the US in the eyes of other nations, including close allies and vital economical partners.
3. Creates the sense of false security, easily exploitable by actually dangerous criminals.
4. Further divides an already divided nation, pitting citizens and members of the government against each other and slowing down any progress they could achieve by working together.

I do not see how building this wall is constructive from any point, other than fulfilling Trump's electoral promise (and he has failed at delivering on so many of his promises already, that one more will not make any difference neither among his supporters nor among his haters).

flawed or not, I believe that if it happens, that is why it will happen.  He has some support for it.  You don't like Trump that's obvious, however Obama and both Clintons were for border security.  What I find a bit odd is those opposed are opposed to the wall, and cost seems to be a secondary issue, why is that?  I guess because it's Trump.  So we have a long list in government who at one time or another supported some kind of physical barrier at the border, but none of them actually did anything about it, until now, and now there's selective moral outrage.  Had Bill Clinton and Obama actually followed through with their promises it would have been accepted and loved as a wonderful idea.  Were you as outraged when Clinton and Obama "failed at delivering on so many of his promises"?  I highly doubt that.  You might have a touch of T.D.S.
How much did the A.C.A. website waste?  Every administration wastes our tax money to some degree, don't you agree?  
Has funding for the whole wall been approved yet?

Applesauce

SkepticalOne said:

@Applesauce

Applesauce said:
If what you say is accurate then that would be grossly excessive.

and somehow that implies or proves I still want it to move forward and that I endorse the plan?  You have assumed too much, read and interpreted things that aren't there.  How about you man up and admit you made a mistake and you were wrong about your assumption?

MayCaesar

@Applesauce

I am not outraged at all, I am simply making an argument. And yes, I am aware that Obama and the previous presidents did not deliver on many of their promises either, and I have never said otherwise. ACA in particular was, in my opinion, an utter failure, and I have never supported the idea of state-funded healthcare in the first place. 

I think building the wall is an incredibly impractical and even, dare I say, "simpletonic" idea. It does not matter who promotes this idea: Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else. And this being the only real proposal to do something about illegal immigration (which is also up to debate; I have heard much more realistic proposals than this from other politicians) does not make it a good proposal, or even a proposal that could achieve anything positive.

Applesauce

MayCaesar said:

@Applesauce

I am not outraged at all, I am simply making an argument. And yes, I am aware that Obama and the previous presidents did not deliver on many of their promises either, and I have never said otherwise. ACA in particular was, in my opinion, an utter failure, and I have never supported the idea of state-funded healthcare in the first place. 

I think building the wall is an incredibly impractical and even, dare I say, "simpletonic" idea. It does not matter who promotes this idea: Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else. And this being the only real proposal to do something about illegal immigration (which is also up to debate; I have heard much more realistic proposals than this from other politicians) does not make it a good proposal, or even a proposal that could achieve anything positive.

I can agree with that, though tbh I haven't heard any realistic proposals, not saying they don't exists, they are probably something you have to really dig for as it has on the media and sites that I have seen.  To that end I would much prefer an alternative that would give us more for our money.  If there's something that's 80% as effective but costs half as much, that would be a far better alternative.  I have no idea where this issue is going and I can't even make an educated guess.  But I do hope something is done in a more responsible manner.  For this to come down as an all or nothing would be bad on many levels.

cheesycheese

aksk_19299 said:

We should build a wall. As Trump said illegal immigrants are pouring into the country for he southern border.

andje_23939 said:

It should be built. Also, Lakmsj_2029391, America may not have been founded on letting drug dealers into the US.

klso_29292999292 said:

Yes, the wall should be built and Trump claim is will be.

acontrinajdi_1992 said:

The wall should be built.

ajajj_1829 said:

The wall should be built. It is necessary to the border control and national security of the United States and its people's safety.

usarussiaaffairs_19 said:

The wall should be built to increase national security and border control.

DebateIslandRocks said:

I think the wall is the right decision.  It is interesting to me that 75% agree on this poll.

urethaguleron said:

Yes, a wall on the southern border is necessary and has been infnored or put away for too long.

alenkajj_19 said:

Yes, and many conservatives are now for this plan if Trump's.

ohhh_1083 said:

Trump should build a wall.

joecavalry said:

Yes, illegal immigration needs to stop.

Mr_Bombastic said:

@atomicgunner
History teaches us that a country without secure borders cannot survive.

yolostide said:

The border wall should be built to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into the United Statss illegally.

joecavalry said:

Illegal immigration should be stopped. The wall on the southern border of the U.S. could assist in eliminating illegal immigration into the United States.

Give me one good reason for it if your only reason is that they are darker skinned then your an incredibly ignorant xenephobe these people are fleeing danger how will our grandchildren see us as people who sacrificed a bit of money to help people fleeing danger or people who kept their doors closed for no good reason i’ll assume that you want to be remembered as the first one however we arent doing it if your reason for keeping them out is overpopulation then I don’t see many people advocating for a one child policy crime let me direct you to this study https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

aksk_19299 said:

We should build a wall. As Trump said illegal immigrants are pouring into the country for he southern border.

andje_23939 said:

It should be built. Also, Lakmsj_2029391, America may not have been founded on letting drug dealers into the US.

klso_29292999292 said:

Yes, the wall should be built and Trump claim is will be.

acontrinajdi_1992 said:

The wall should be built.

ajajj_1829 said:

The wall should be built. It is necessary to the border control and national security of the United States and its people's safety.

usarussiaaffairs_19 said:

The wall should be built to increase national security and border control.

DebateIslandRocks said:

I think the wall is the right decision.  It is interesting to me that 75% agree on this poll.

urethaguleron said:

Yes, a wall on the southern border is necessary and has been infnored or put away for too long.

alenkajj_19 said:

Yes, and many conservatives are now for this plan if Trump's.

ohhh_1083 said:

Trump should build a wall.

joecavalry said:

Yes, illegal immigration needs to stop.

Mr_Bombastic said:

@atomicgunner
History teaches us that a country without secure borders cannot survive.

yolostide said:

The border wall should be built to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into the United Statss illegally.

joecavalry said:

Illegal immigration should be stopped. The wall on the southern border of the U.S. could assist in eliminating illegal immigration into the United States.

Give me one good reason for it if your only reason is that they are darker skinned then your an incredibly ignorant xenephobe these people are fleeing danger how will our grandchildren see us as people who sacrificed a bit of money to help people fleeing danger or people who kept their doors closed for no good reason i’ll assume that you want to be remembered as the first one however we arent doing it if your reason for keeping them out is overpopulation then I don’t see many people advocating for a one child policy crime let me direct you to this study https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

No one is talking about skin color; well, no one but you.  What does that say about who the racists are in this thread?

Most of these people aren't "fleeing' anything, most of them are coming from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.  If they were truly fleeing a situation they thought was an immediate threat to their lives, they'd head for Nicaragua, Belize, Mexico, Panama; no, they came to the US instead.  "Fleeing danger" is the excuse they've been programmed to use if they get caught, they come here because of how well we take care of our lower classes and for the opportunity our society provides to everyone.  Rewarding bad behavior is never a good idea.

cheesycheese

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=central+america+murder+rate&safe=strict&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU695AU707&hl=en-GB&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOrozWnareAhWBgUsFHc50A1UQ_AUIEygC&biw=1024&bih=659#imgrc=QvggFr5V6DM1iM

piloteer

CYDdharta said:

Most of these people aren't "fleeing' anything, most of them are coming from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.  If they were truly fleeing a situation they thought was an immediate threat to their lives, they'd head for Nicaragua, Belize, Mexico, Panama; no, they came to the US instead.  "Fleeing danger" is the excuse they've been programmed to use if they get caught, they come here because of how well we take care of our lower classes and for the opportunity our society provides to everyone.  Rewarding bad behavior is never a good idea.

I'm not sure where you got your information from. Who exactly is it that has "programmed" these people? As if they're not capable of making life changing decisions on their own! I think what you're trying to say is that these people decided to leave everything they have, just to be a thorn in the side of Americans. They just woke up one day, and left everything they had and walked thousands of miles on foot, to get to a place that they're not guaranteed to get into, just to say FU Trump?!?!? Obviously these people have legitimate reasons to want to risk their lives to try and get to a place that might have better opportunities for them. Shame on us if we waste tax dollars on a wall that will be useless. I don't think these people are any kind of a real threat to the US. The scariest people already live here. Like people who want to kill Jews because of a supposed genocide they're waging on the white race. Or dudes who live in vans with a tea party sticker on it, who mail bombs to people, just because he doesn't like them! Ya, those guys are scary, not South American refugees. 

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

I'm not sure where you got your information from. Who exactly is it that has "programmed" these people? As if they're not capable of making life changing decisions on their own! I think what you're trying to say is that these people decided to leave everything they have, just to be a thorn in the side of Americans. They just woke up one day, and left everything they had and walked thousands of miles on foot, to get to a place that they're not guaranteed to get into, just to say FU Trump?!?!?

Sounds pretty , the only problem is that isn't what I'm saying, that's what you're saying. Taco Bell commercials aren't reality, these people didn't just wake up on the same day and decide to make a run for the border. This whole thing was obviously pre-planned and orchestrated, and that the same people who are responsible for this mess also coached this band of criminals on what stories to tell US officials if they got caught.

Obviously these people have legitimate reasons to want to risk their lives to try and get to a place that might have better opportunities for them. Shame on us if we waste tax dollars on a wall that will be useless. I don't think these people are any kind of a real threat to the US. The scariest people already live here. Like people who want to kill Jews because of a supposed genocide they're waging on the white race. Or dudes who live in vans with a tea party sticker on it, who mail bombs to people, just because he doesn't like them! Ya, those guys are scary, not South American refugees. 

If that's all they really wanted, they were already offered it by the Mexican government.  Obviously that ISN'T what they want.  Not a one of them has a legitimate asylum claim in the US.  And of course you're ignoring the number of these poor refugees that are guilty of murder, kidnapping, prostitution, drug smuggling and human trafficking.

piloteer

@CYDdharta

Ummm, I guess I am ignoring how many of these people are criminals. Tell us, exactly how many of them are guilty of drug selling, murder, kidnapping, and prostitution. I want credited stats on the number of these refugees who are violent criminals! I'll bet those "poor refugees" would be willing to work for less money than what you expect to get paid. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. These people are starving and can't find work, so you think they would want to go to Mexico? I would also like some credited statistics on who it is that is "coaching" these people. Again, your not making much sense here. I think you still think these people are only coming here to annoy you. Even though I hope it annoys you alot, I'm sure they didn't have you in mind when they decided to try and find a better life for themselves.