frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Trump Government Shutdown

2



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited January 2019

    @CYDdharta ;

    I've noticed a number of oddities in how you tend to argue. You usually ignore any point that functions against you rather than defending your argument, focusing instead on attacking points you find problematic that support your opponent. You also tend to strip out single sentences to respond to, and then oversimplify the point being made. I'm seeing that a lot in your responses, here.

    "You've been paying too much attention to the president's many detractors and not enough to what he actually says.  The border wall is but one of many steps he's trying to take to secure the border.  It's an important step, but far from the only one."

    You're correct, that's what Trump has said in posted materials. Here's what he's done: during negotiations over funding the government, he has outright rejected the notion that anything but a border wall will be effective. His response to an initial bill from the Senate that would have contributed $1.6 billion to border security, but not the wall, was to reject it outright. That's also been how he's responded to Democratic statements that there is bipartisan support for border security, just not the wall.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-throws-government-funding-deal-into-doubt-says-trump-does-not-want-to-go-further-without-border-security

    So, yes, he may recognize that his border security efforts do not stop at the wall. However, his position is that the only point at which those efforts can start is with the wall. In other words, he views other layers of protection at the border as pointless without the wall, and in doing so, is stymieing any and all efforts to fund border security that do not include funding for the wall. 

    "This is just false and absurd.  The public isn't responsible for observing, much less enforcing, the laws along the border.  And since illegals tend to settle along the border, the results of any poll of residents of border areas will be skewed."

    Can't help but notice that you didn't defend your choice of sources on the matter, but fine, let's move onto mine. You'll note that the links I used to support my statements here didn't just include polls - just because you seem to love the ad populum fallacy doesn't mean I do. In fact, the interviewed people provide very specific issues, including a labor shortage, escalating tensions, overwhelming volunteer shelters, increased exposure to violence and health threats, effects on property rights, harms to the environment, local investments from Mexican companies, reduced retail sales... the list goes on. These are specific problems, and several are even quantified (look to the amount of sales made to Mexican customers). That's a lot better than what you've provided, which solely includes personal accounts and statements of expectations should a wall go up rather than verifiable data about a wall having specific effects. The public may not be responsible for observing or enforcing laws along the border, but they certainly have some indication of the effects of those efforts and their potential expansions. These harms exist now. Local lawmakers are often Republicans and are seeking means to improve border security, just not with a wall. You can say they're biased if you want, but if there really was a great deal of harm from immigration, we'd expect to see it in these border states. The push-back should be immense.

    "So the objections to funding the wall are almost entirely politicians trying to score political points.  Noted, and thanx for the assist."

    You're really bad at reading quotes and where they apply. These show that support for a wall can be and often is based on a quid pro quo. That's the reason so many Democrats supported this legislation. Objections to funding the wall may be aimed at scoring political points as well, but that just evens the playing field. Any stance a politician takes can be solely for that sake or for a variety of other reasons, including the rational and personal. Just because you want to declare the entire opposition to the wall to be hackneyed politics in motion doesn't mean it is, and it's not what any of those quotes say it is. Remember, you're the one who is arguing that politicians like Obama and Clinton genuinely supported a wall at one point. Kind of hard to prove they're hypocritical when their sole reason for doing so was to get concessions from Republicans.

    "The GAO report is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  The purpose of the report was to identify "Additional Actions [that are] Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps".  It doesn't assess the effectiveness of a border wall at all."

    ...I'm honestly not sure if you're serious. An "Assess[ment of] Contributions to Operations and Provid[ing] Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps" is a much longer way of saying "determining how well has this wall worked towards its stated purpose?" Honestly, I don't know how they could be any clearer about the purpose of this document. It's even spelled out further under "What GAO Found" on their website under this very topic:

    "Border fencing is intended to benefit border security operations in various ways, according to officials from the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), which is within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). For example, according to officials, border fencing supports Border Patrol agents' ability to execute essential tasks, such as identifying illicit-cross border activities. CBP collects data that could help provide insight into how border fencing contributes to border security operations, including the location of illegal entries. However, CBP has not developed metrics that systematically use these, among other data it collects, to assess the contributions of border fencing to its mission. For example, CBP could potentially use these data to determine the extent to which border fencing diverts illegal entrants into more rural and remote environments, and border fencing's impact, if any, on apprehension rates over time. Developing metrics to assess the contributions of fencing to border security operations could better position CBP to make resource allocation decisions with the best information available to inform competing mission priorities and investments."

    To summarize, they find that the CBP lacks the means to make basic assessments of the wall's effectiveness, i.e. they cannot provide an objective and meaningful analysis of the total positive impact of the wall as it stands. So, yes, they are not assessing the effectiveness of a border wall, but neither is the CBP. That's the point. That's the problem. 

    "Which illustrates why border fencing is inadequate and proves the need for a border wall.  Once again, and thanx for the assist."

    "Which is yet another reason to build the wall.  You're getting good at proving the president's position."

    Saying "this evidence goes against a fence and supports a wall" is fallacious. The fact that the fence has failed doesn't mean that a wall will be a more effective alternative, or that it won't cause greater harms. If anything, it's likely to enhance these very problems without meaningfully affecting total illegal immigration (most of which comes in by planes anyway). Just because you apparently don't want to support your side of the argument doesn't mean you can rely on mine to do it for you.

    "This isn't a physics problem, this is a law enforcement problem.  Most people understand that the observations of law enforcement officers in charge of carrying out the mission have a direct bearing on the discussion.  As far as studies of the effectiveness of an actual wall, there aren't very many.  This is about the only one available;

    https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration"

    And studies aren't always scientific. They are, however, based on objective data, usually from a broader set of information than is anecdote. I understand that Border Patrol agents should have a say in these decisions, but acting based solely on their personal recommendations when data points to inherent problems with a wall as a deterrent to illegal immigration is a problem. 

    As for that study (thanks for providing it), I see a few problems. First, it doesn't take into account any of the effects I discussed earlier, particularly those involving trade with Mexico in localities. Second, much as the NAS study has a good deal of data behind it, it's not the sole study to analyze the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, and there's widespread disagreement based on what factors you take into account. If you want, I can find you a few that say exactly the opposite or find net neutral effects. Third, the authors make no effort whatsoever to justify the effectiveness of a wall, merely stating that if the wall provides a certain degree of effect, it is sufficient to outstrip the cost of the wall. the study only compares a wall to continuing the current state of affairs. The study presumes its solvency without providing any meaningful analysis of how it is achieved. Fourth, it doesn't compare the relative effectiveness of a wall versus any other defense measure along the border. Even if a wall would be effective at stopping some, we're not comparing between a world without improved border security and a world with a wall. Everyone wants increased security, so the comparison should be to other methods. Fifth, the study admits that the costs of a wall haven't been fully fleshed out, especially considering the altered expectations of what a wall will look like and be composed of. Comparisons of cost require that both the cost of illegal immigrants and the cost of the wall be fixed, yet the latter continues to fluctuate.

    CYDdhartaWordsMatterZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    @Zombieguy1987

    @CYDdharta



    "US special agent shares details of deadly drug cartel ambush"


    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @TTKDB

    Well well, this is your most responsive post I've seen. Good to see you can actually stick to the topic when you're willing enough. Your ability to craft a question seems to be waning though... seeing a lot of question marks after statements.

    Yes, my stance is that the person or persons responsible for government shutdown bear that responsibility because they have, effectively, held the finances of the country hostage for the sake of pursuing a specific policy objective. It is for that reason that I would say Democrats were responsible for a recent shutdown because they were demanding provisions to protect Dreamers. It is also for that reason that Trump is responsible for this shutdown, as he is holding out for a specific policy objective (the wall) even when he is presented with viable alternatives that accomplish similar goals. I could find his stance more noble if he wasn't outright refusing border security funds that do not go to the wall.

    So, let's start with what I disagree with from your post.

    I disagree that "Trump's dialogue, has been about funding for both the border wall, and border security", largely because that conceptualization assumes some equality of weight in his eyes, or at the very least that one doesn't come before the other. He's willing to pursue border security, maybe, perhaps, but only if we give him the wall first. Sure, he's stated that he's all for border security, but he's made quite clear throughout this shutdown that he accepts nothing less than total funding of the border wall. Nothing else, no substitutions, no compromises.

    I also disagree with the notion that the border wall and border security in general are fair and equal ideas. I've already hinted at why in a general sense, but I'll get down to it more specifically with this example. Let's start with the obvious: border security encompasses all methods aimed stymieing or stopping illegal immigration at the border, a border wall is one such method. Treating them as equal is grossly unfair and unequal because it sets one option as functionally equal to literally every other option that could address the same problem. Onto the next problem: at most, the benefits of fairness and equality apply to voice, not to support. When I say "voice," I mean that it's reasonable to expect that people give them equal consideration. It is not reasonable to expect everyone weigh two options equally, even when there is substantially more evidence-based support for one option, or clear negative evidence against one option. There are many border security ideas that receive broad support. Why? Because experts broadly agree that they are both efficacious and cause the least degree of harm. The same cannot be said of a wall. So, if you're saying that we should consider a wall, fine. I've considered it, reading multiple studies that have assessed both its effectiveness and the harms it will cause. I've weighed the option against alternatives, and found it egregiously wanting.

    I also disagree with the "story on the Border" you've posted. Much like @CYDdharta, it seems your point is largely based on anecdotal experience (to his credit, at least he focuses on expert experiences, and a relatively broad set of them). I don't doubt that people suffer from illegal immigration, and I don't doubt that some of them could be helped by a border wall. The question is not "would this person here be positively affected by a border wall?" The question is "would the wall have a positive or negative effect on a broad scale?" I've posted responses before about how polling shows people living on the border, by and large, don't want a wall because they would view it as a tremendous negative, so even if our focus is solely on those living on the border, your point only applies to a minor subset of that population.

    I don't think we need a department specific to a border wall because I don't think we need a border wall. I don't think we need a department of border security, either, because we have DHS. And so far, you've done scant little to support why a border wall, specifically, is the most effective method available to help people. If you really feel these things are necessary, then it's about time you did that.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    "I don't think we need a department specific to a border wall because I don't think we need a border wall. I don't think we need a department of border security, either, because we have DHS. And so far, you've done scant little to support why a border wall, specifically, is the most effective method available to help people. If you really feel these things are necessary, then it's about time you did that."

    Who are you to express to anyone in the United States, that the country that they live in, doesn't need a border wall because you, or the other anti wall protesters say so?

    If you, nor the others who live on or near the border wall along with the other US citizens who do, I'm going to make a guess, that they may express to you or the other naysayers, to come on down, to the border give it a few days, and see the illegaI immigrants breaking into the country illegally?

    Or watch the human trafficking and drug smuggling occur before your own eyes? 

    Here's what I think, if some who are anti wall, does that maybe mean that an anti border wall protester maybe supports the illegal drugs that are being smuggled into the country?
     
    Or maybe the anti wall protesters, are OK with the human trafficking that the border is being used for as well? 

    Trump isn't holding anyone hostage with the partial shutdown, but he is with the shutdown, exposing those who are in a sense, hampering those who support the border wall being funded.

    Is Trump metaphorically speaking, holding you hostage?

    So those who speak out against funding the border wall, they apparently know who their liberal base is, and everytime, I see them speak to the news media outlet cameras, from where I'm standing or watching, they aren't speaking for me, or for the rest of the country, that supports the border wall and the funding of it, (200 GoFundMe website pages that have already donated funds for the border wall funding.)

    And in sense, it's becoming very peculiar how some in the media, will spend fair amounts of news time to go after the POTUS, with their apparent, one sided bias perceptions? 

    I'm sorry, but how is it newsworthy to go about hounding the POTUS, for up to 10-15 minutes at a time?

    When there are various other situations that are making the news that some of the liberal news media outlets, could be informing or educating the public with? 

    Did you watch the video about the rancher on the border? 

    It's very informative and educational.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico

    Some excerpts from the webpage:

    "Trafficking across the border with the United States

    The U.S.-Mexico border with the area up to 100 miles from the border demarcated.

    A third of the people annually trafficked into the United States are from Latin America, and the vast majority of these people enter the US through the Mexico-United States border.[14]This extremely porous border has historically been the site of one of the most protracted labor migrations in the world, and is North America's largest transit site for young children exploited in labor and sex trafficking as of 2011.[27] Texas is a particularly important transit site for domestic trafficking; around twenty percent of domestic trafficking victims pass through the state at some point on their journeys.[27][28][14]

    "Coyote" is the colloquial term used to refer to migrant smugglers along the Mexico- United States border.[29] In the past, the coyote-migrant relationship ended once the smuggler delivered the migrant to the U.S.[8] However, it has become increasingly commonplace for coyotes to coerce migrants into exploitative labor arrangements upon reaching their destination in the U.S (frequently a different one from that which they paid to be smuggled to).[8] These labor agreements frequently involve forced agricultural labor and/or sex work, conditions that migrants would never have consented to had they been previously aware of them.[8] Coyotes use unpaid debt as a threat in order to force migrants into such arrangements. The rising costs of smuggling, a result of increased border security and enforcement, has made it far more common for migrants to become heavily indebted to smugglers.[8] Additionally, the expansion of the coyote's role to include transporting migrants to a final destination within the U.S., rather than simply transporting them across the border, incurs additional expenses that the migrant must pay, and so increases the likelihood of their being exploited and trafficked by the coyotes as forced laborers or sex workers.[8]

    Smugglers sometimes pretend to offer reduced fees to women and child migrants and then sexually assault or rape them as a form of substitute "payment".[14][30] Human traffickers masquerading as coyotes often use false promises of guaranteed jobs to lure migrants, and will sometimes kidnap women and children along the journey, either for ransom from their families, or to be sold in the US into servitude or prostitution.[14] Many unaccompanied children also make the crossing from Mexico to the U.S.[31]Unaccompanied minors are sometimes sold into prostitution by the trafficker, and their families are falsely led to believe that they died during transit.[14]

    Within the United States, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 serves as a legal framework within which many perpetrators of trafficking are tried, but victims of trafficking are generally punished on equal footing with perpetrators if intercepted during the process of entering the country.[5]"

    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    Who am I? First off, within the bounds of this debate, I’m simply someone expressing their opinion based on meaningful data and analysis of the situation. Second, I’m a US citizen and a voter. Last I checked, we lived in a democratic republic, one where we elect representatives by popular vote to represent our views. Especially when we feel those views are supported by the available data, I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t have a voice in this conversation. Third, I’m using my free speech, just the same way as you are. I’m allowed to express my views, and allowed to push against legislation that supports a wall, just as you are allowed to do the opposite. I could rephrase your questions in the opposite direction and they would have the exact same meaning – who are you to decide that we need a wall?

    As I’ve already pointed out, popular opinion along the border is that there shouldn’t be a wall. Yes, there is a subset of that population that is harmed in the absence of the wall. There is also a strong majority that view the wall as net harmful. Just because you sympathize more with the former doesn’t mean the latter don’t exist or that they don’t have meaningful weight in the conversation.

    You keep throwing the same red herrings into this conversation. Over and over, you argue about human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration being net harmful. I have not, within the bounds of this discussion, ever said that any of these things are good. I have not argued that no efforts should be made to stop or stymie these problems. I’ve stated, and I will continue to state again and again, that a wall is both unnecessary to address them and causes a great deal more harm than other available and more efficacious solutions.

    And I think this has been the biggest problem with your arguments. I keep mentioning this, but you really can’t seem to help yourself. You have a really hard time staying on the topic, a really hard time addressing points other people are making, and apparently, you lack the ability to see what this actual debate is about. This isn’t an issue of “should we have more border security or not?” it’s one of “what kind of border security should we have?” Breaking it down, this debate should be about answering three questions:

    1)      Is Trump responsible for the government shutdown, or are legislators responsible?

    2)      Is a wall an effective solution to the problems we face with border security?

    3)      Is a wall more net beneficial than other possible solutions?

    And, as a follow up to these three:

    4)      Is a wall worth shutting down the government?

    I don’t see you answering any of these questions. You’ve challenged my basic ability to have this conversation (I could have just answered with “free speech”), pointed to people on the border being harmed by illegal immigration (I’ve never denied that), and repeatedly pointed to the problems caused by ineffective border security right now. None of that addresses any one of these questions. You refuse to provide any explanation of why a wall would solve for illegal immigration. You refuse to address concerns from other people on the border that a wall would cause them egregious harm. You refuse to treat any of the other border security measures being discussed as potentially comparable or better than the wall in accomplishing its goals.

    In fact, the only thing you’ve tried to address in any way is the first question, and even there, you’re not challenging the argument I’ve presented. All you’ve done is assert that Trump isn’t holding anyone hostage. I’d heartily disagree. Over 800,000 Americans have not received their income this month. Millions more are affected by the shutdown, with all kinds of government services effectively shutting off. Hundreds of thousands could lose their homes in the coming days due to a lack of funding for HUD and inability to pay rent. People are actively quitting the TSA because they are forced to work for no pay, which may soon cause a great deal of security issues in airports (where most of our illegal immigrants come in). All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Congress has passed resolutions that would provide this funding back to these agencies without any strings attached. Trump has repeatedly refused to sign it.

    I’d say that thee people are being held hostage by someone who views the wall as the most pressing issue. If you’d rather I used a different term, I think that Trump is mortgaging their economic status to build his wall. He’s taking something we all agree is important, the basic livelihoods of working American citizens, and using it as leverage for the purpose of getting what he wants. You can argue that more people want a wall than just the president, just as I would have argued that a lot of people wanted DACA to be extended despite the president’s views. But that doesn’t change the fact that, in both cases, funding for basic necessities were being held up for a political goal. We can argue that a wall provides benefits that outstrip the costs, but even if that’s the case, it’s no excuse for damaging these peoples’ lives. If the wall can’t be passed without strangling almost a million people economically for weeks or months at a time, then maybe we should start asking ourselves if a wall is worth it at all.

    WordsMatterZombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame you're doing good work here. Bless you
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    Where is the evidence to support this claim from you?

    Was it reported on Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, WHRO, or maybe, OAN (One America Network?)

    "As I’ve already pointed out, popular opinion along the border is that there shouldn’t be a wall. Yes, there is a subset of that population that is harmed in the absence of the wall. There is also a strong majority that view the wall as net harmful."

    "Just because you sympathize more with the former doesn’t mean the latter don’t exist or that they don’t have meaningful weight in the conversation."

    Sympathize?

    Could it be that maybe, there are some US citizens, (who are apparently placing some of the Illegal Immigrants above the rest of the citizens in their own cities, and sympathizing with some of the 11-22 million illegaI immigrants, and shoving their (300 sanctuary city localities) down the throats of the rest of the law abiding citizens? 

    "In fact, the only thing you’ve tried to address in any way is the first question, and even there, you’re not challenging the argument I’ve presented. All you’ve done is assert that Trump isn’t holding anyone hostage. I’d heartily disagree. Over 800,000 Americans have not received their income this month. Millions more are affected by the shutdown, with all kinds of government services effectively shutting off. Hundreds of thousands could lose their homes in the coming days due to a lack of funding for HUD and inability to pay rent. People are actively quitting the TSA because they are forced to work for no pay, which may soon cause a great deal of security issues in airports (where most of our illegal immigrants come in). All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Congress has passed resolutions that would provide this funding back to these agencies without any strings attached. Trump has repeatedly refused to sign it."

    The border wall, should have been built or constructed, back in the 1980's, and then followed up with upgrades say every 2-4 years? 

    This way, the border wall, to begin with wouldn't have a become, the (4 State Elephant: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas that it's grotesquely morphed) into since the 1980s, and up until now, in January 2019?

    Did you read the border information from Wikipedia?

    Did you watch the video about the rancher who lives on the border, and listen to his experiences with the illegal immigrants?

    Or maybe you just balked at them, and paid them no attention? 

    A recap of what was expressed in the video: The human trafficking drug trafficking, sexual assualt, murder, and US citizens having their property being stolen from their properties because of the Illegal Immigrants? (Cars, trucks, and horses.)

    I wonder how many US citizens, have lost their lives, and can't go back to their families, or their homes, because they were murdered by an illegal immigrant?

    I sympathize with the families who have lost loved ones to the crimes committed by some of the Illegal Immigrants.

    I wonder, could illegal weapons as well, be getting smuggled into the United States, via southern border? 

    Who do you maybe sympathize with, the 11-22 million illegal immigrants who are illegally here, and getting sanctuary in one of the 300 sanctuary cities, in the United States, or the United States citizens themselves who are living with the illegal immigrants who were given sanctuary in a country based on laws, but apparently those sanctuary cities, I guess in a sense created their own laws in a matter of speaking, that apparently reside in the very face of the laws of this country, that the rest of the US citizens abide by? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    My sources have largely been used in response to @CYDdharta because he's been the only one to challenge my points. You haven't. If you want, you can go back through those posts and view the evidence I've used. You could also look at the CNN article I posted in response to you, to which you have yet to respond. They've been posted from a variety of news sources, like CNN, MSN, PBS and Fox.

    If you read back through... well, any of the points I've made (not that I've gotten the impression you've really taken any of them seriously), both against you and him, you might notice that I've pointed to specific issues that people along the border have with building a wall that affect them and their communities. They don't say that they support illegal immigrants above American citizens - that's you making assumptions about how these people think. They talk about very specific issues, including a labor shortage, escalating tensions, overwhelming volunteer shelters, increased exposure to violence and health threats, effects on property rights, harms to the environment, local investments from Mexican companies, reduced retail sales. If you want the sources on that, here you go:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump’s-wall-proposal/ar-BBS44f5

    "The border wall, should have been built or constructed, back in the 1980's, and then followed up with upgrades say every 2-4 years?"

    You keep asserting things like this, yet when I ask you for evidence supporting the notion that a border wall actually helps (and therefore, evidence that its construction would have ever helped substantially), you refuse to provide any. You refuse to support your own arguments. In fact, there are many questions surrounding this issue that you simply refuse to address.

    I've used many sources to support my argument. None of them have been Wikipedia. However, even if they were, that is still more support than you've been providing for your statements. Your videos, the ones you keep posting about like some kind of verbal tic, do nothing to support your argument. At this point, I'm just going to start quoting myself in response to you on this. Maybe if I put in bold and underline it, you'll actually read it:

    You keep throwing the same red herrings into this conversation. Over and over, you argue about human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration being net harmful. I have not, within the bounds of this discussion, ever said that any of these things are good. I have not argued that no efforts should be made to stop or stymie these problems. I’ve stated, and I will continue to state again and again, that a wall is both unnecessary to address them and causes a great deal more harm than other available and more efficacious solutions.

    As for your last point, I sympathize with everyone involved in this. I sympathize with the people fleeing countries in Central America where their lives and the lives of their family are constantly at risk. I fear for them and all the people seeking refuge in a nation that is supposed to abide by basic international standards with regards to asylum seekers. I also sympathize with everyone who is negatively affected by illegal immigration, sex trafficking and the numerous other harms that are inherent to having such a large border and the economic demands that exist on both sides of that border. That includes your rancher. Lastly, I sympathize with those who rely on legal trade opportunities across the border, and those who rely on a low but consistent flow of traffic across and then back over the border into Mexico. Those people, and their communities, rely on that flow continuing. From the sound of it, your only sympathies are with the second group. From my perspective, that ignores a great deal of the issue.
    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame you're doing good work here. Bless you
    For better or worse, it's what I do.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    "You keep asserting things like this, yet when I ask you for evidence supporting the notion that a border wall actually helps (and therefore, evidence that its construction would have ever helped substantially), you refuse to provide any. You refuse to support your own arguments. In fact, there are many questions surrounding this issue that you simply refuse to address."


    Former President Bill Clinton:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gatekeeper

    "Operation Gatekeeper was a measure implemented during the Presidency of Bill Clinton by the United States Border Patrol(then a part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)), aimed at halting illegal immigration to the United States at the United States–Mexico border near San DiegoCalifornia.[1] According to the INS, the goal of Gatekeeper was "to restore integrity and safety to the nation's busiest border."

    Operation Gatekeeper was announced in Los Angeles on September 17, 1994, by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and was launched two weeks later on October 1.

    The United States Congress allocated additional funds to the Border Patrol and other agencies. By 1997, the budget of the Immigration and Naturalization Service had doubled to 800 million dollars, the number of Border Patrol agents had nearly doubled, the amount of fencing or other barriers more than doubled, and the number of underground sensors nearly tripled.

    The merits of Operation Gatekeeper were debated extensively, including during Congressional hearings. The Department of Justice, the INS, and the Border Patrol maintained that Operation Gatekeeper was a success. Some Congressmen and others sharply criticized the program and declared it a failure.[2] "


    Former President George W Bush:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

    "On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006(Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."[1]

    Secure Fence Act of 2006
    Great Seal of the United States
    Long titleAn Act To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.
    Enacted bythe 109th United States Congress
    "

    Former President Barack Obama:

    https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683623555/president-obama-also-faced-a-crisis-at-the-southern-border

    "President Obama Also Faced A 'Crisis' At The Southern Border"






  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    "WordsMatter said:
    @whiteflame you're doing good work here. Bless you"

    "For better or worse, it's what I do."

    You have your opinion, and it's just that.


    "My sources have largely been used in response to @CYDdharta because he's been the only one to challenge my points. You haven't. If you want, you can go back through those posts and view the evidence I've used. You could also look at the CNN article I posted in response to you, to which you have yet to respond. They've been posted from a variety of news sources, like CNN, MSN, PBS and Fox."

    I'll (take your word for it,) but that all it's getting.

  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @TTKDB

    And your spotless record of failing to support your points somehow continues!

    Let me repeat the points that you need to support in order to uphold your side on this argument. Again, I'll bold it and underline it to focus your attention:

    You keep asserting things like this, yet when I ask you for evidence supporting the notion that a border wall actually helps (and therefore, evidence that its construction would have ever helped substantially), you refuse to provide any.

    Please, note that the goal is to PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BORDER FENCE WAS BENEFICIAL.

    Now, let's have a look at your quotes.

    The vast majority of both quotes fail to address anything regarding the actual efficacy of these two efforts to build fencing on the border. In fact, the only lines that say anything on this front are these:

    "The merits of Operation Gatekeeper were debated extensively, including during Congressional hearings. The Department of Justice, the INS, and the Border Patrol maintained that Operation Gatekeeper was a success. Some Congressmen and others sharply criticized the program and declared it a failure."

    The words I focus on are in bold and underlined, again, to draw your attention. That does not look like a fence that had an unequivocally beneficial effect. And the story gets worse if we investigate the attached link. 

    “In a June 23, 1996, article in the North County Times - a newspaper serving north San Diego County - two officials of the National Border Patrol Council (the union representing Border Patrol agents, hereinafter "the Union") claimed that Operation Gatekeeper was a failure. More significantly, they alleged it was a fraud. They charged that Border Patrol supervisors were falsifying records, altering intelligence reports, and conducting operations in a manner calculated to mislead the public about the program's effectiveness. These allegations were repeated on July 15, 1996, in testimony before the California Assembly, in a San Diego radio interview on July 25, in a hearing on August 9 before the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, and in additional newspaper reports.

    ...

    Because there was no effective way to measure how many aliens actually crossed the border, reported results were limited essentially to the number of apprehensions. Initially apprehensions at Imperial Beach Station increased, and numbers were higher than on the same dates one year earlier.10  The INS and the Border Patrol attributed this rise to increased effectiveness, reflecting the immediate impact of increased manpower and the new deployment. As time passed apprehension numbers at Imperial Beach began to fall, while apprehension numbers at stations further east began to rise. This development suggested that some illegal crossers had abandoned Imperial Beach and shifted their entry efforts to stations further east.11

    Operation Gatekeeper represented a vast shift in the operational paradigm for the field agents. The changes were difficult to comprehend, particularly for long-time agents. Instead of taking whatever action they could to apprehend illegal crossers, they were told to remain in a particular position to deter entry into the country. Where historically agents who apprehended numerous aliens were praised, now agents were told that lower apprehension numbers was the objective. While under the old system apprehension numbers provided a ready measure of an agent's skill and work ethic, under the new system the abstract concept of deterrence governed. Agents who were previously free to decide how and where they would work and what illegal traffic they would pursue were now told where to work (often in a fairly constrained area), what traffic they could pursue and how far, and were accountable for their whereabouts at all times.

    Many agents disliked these new methods. Some found their new duties boring while others believed that the new strategy would be ineffective. Numerous agents believed that Gatekeeper was a mere "political ploy" rather than a legitimate operational strategy. Some suspected that their supervisors' orders to remain in their fixed positions were designed to reduce apprehensions. Some agents believed that political pressure from "Washington" (variously defined as the President, the Attorney General, the INS Commissioner, Congress, or some unspecified political entity) had led supervisors to feel that if apprehension numbers did not fall, "heads would roll." Agents who lacked faith in the new strategy felt that apprehension numbers would fall only if agents were prevented from making apprehensions or the reports concerning apprehensions were falsified. Some agents become suspicious of their supervisors' motives and began to believe that supervisors were preventing them from doing their job. Agents began talking about their suspicions, and word of alleged falsifications began to spread.”

    https://oig.justice.gov/special/9807/gkp01.htm

    So, we're off to a good start. Let's continue onto your other example, for which you provide no quotes that address efficacy, just Bush's views before the plan was passed that it would be efficacious. I'll just quote from my previous responses to @CYDdharta about this very thing. The GAO attempted to figure out if the CBP even had the ability to make basic assessments about the effectiveness of this 2006 addition to the border fencing. Here's what they found:

    "Border fencing is intended to benefit border security operations in various ways, according to officials from the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), which is within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). For example, according to officials, border fencing supports Border Patrol agents' ability to execute essential tasks, such as identifying illicit-cross border activities. CBP collects data that could help provide insight into how border fencing contributes to border security operations, including the location of illegal entries. However, CBP has not developed metrics that systematically use these, among other data it collects, to assess the contributions of border fencing to its mission. For example, CBP could potentially use these data to determine the extent to which border fencing diverts illegal entrants into more rural and remote environments, and border fencing's impact, if any, on apprehension rates over time. Developing metrics to assess the contributions of fencing to border security operations could better position CBP to make resource allocation decisions with the best information available to inform competing mission priorities and investments."

    To summarize, they find that the CBP lacks the means to make basic assessments of the wall's effectiveness, i.e. they cannot provide an objective and meaningful analysis of the total positive impact of the wall as it stands. So, yes, they are not assessing the effectiveness of a border wall, but neither is the CBP. That's the point. That's the problem. If you can't assess the effectiveness of border security efforts, as the GAO clearly shows with their reports. The CBP even outright admitted that "efforts to measure the effectiveness of fencing were stopped in 2013 due to "funding shortfalls." 

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/gao-border-wall/

    Your third source just talks about how there were still lots of problems with illegal immigration under Obama. That doesn't support your arguments on efficacy, either. Recall (and I can't believe I'm saying this for a fifth time), I have never argued that illegal immigration isn't a problem. I'm arguing that the solution to that problem that you are suggesting would be net harmful and not efficacious.

    So, I'll give you another shot (and, again, I'll put it in bold and underline it: would you care to spend any time whatsoever providing actual support for your argument that a wall is substantially efficacious AND that it is better than other available means for enhancing border security? So far, you've provided absolutely no support for either argument.

    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @whiteflame ;

    "For better or worse, it's what I do."

    You have your opinion, and it's just that.


    "My sources have largely been used in response to @CYDdharta because he's been the only one to challenge my points. You haven't. If you want, you can go back through those posts and view the evidence I've used. You could also look at the CNN article I posted in response to you, to which you have yet to respond. They've been posted from a variety of news sources, like CNN, MSN, PBS and Fox."

    I'll (take your word for it,) but that all it's getting.

    You're right, it is my opinion. It's also backed by a large helping of sources containing factual information and data, all of which you refuse to even address, let alone respond to. If you want to claim that our views are equal on the basis that we're both presenting opinion, go ahead. That doesn't change the fact that one of us cares a lot more about supporting that opinion with fact.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    "You're right, it is my opinion. It's also backed by a large helping of sources containing factual information and data, all of which you refuse to even address, let alone respond to. If you want to claim that our views are equal on the basis that we're both presenting opinion, go ahead. That doesn't change the fact that one of us cares a lot more about supporting that opinion with fact."

    I watch the news pretty much each day.

    I've seen a fair amount of some of the liberal news anchors having a discussion about Trump, and for 10-15 blocks of time, he is what they choose to lament over day in and day out?

    Trump, with a side of Trump, and then maybe something about what the other liberals, who don't work for the media, but apparently enjoy the news media outlet cameras in front of their faces?

    It's sad when some of the liberal news media anchors, apparently go out of their ways to make and create a soundbite that makes the news, starting themselves?

    (In the news today, a journalist who works for this or that news media outlet, made the news today, because they challenged the current POTUS with a question, and this or that happened?)

    Yet, some of the other former Presidents, got softball questions, and some in the media then, barely stirred up the leaves on the ground or in the trees, when they presented the news to the viewing public, when some of the previous Presidents were apparently in office? 

    Do you recall, when the current POTUS, was elected President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton didn't become the next POTUS? 

    I did some channel surfing that morning, and still at around 1am EST, I don't believe that anyone for the most part, wasnt maybe willing to express that the  Election was done, and I believe that Hillary Clinton was going to make an announcement the following morning, of the next day? 

    I believe that the Election was over, but from the reaction of some of the news media outlets, maybe some of the news media outlets, were unsure of what to say? 

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

    Some excerpts from the webpage:

    "Post-election events and controversies

    Trump's victory, considered unlikely by most forecasts,[532][533][534][535][536] was characterized as an "upset" and as "shocking" by the media.[537][538][539][540]

    Protests

    News report about the protests in Los Angeles on November 12 from Voice of America

    Following the announcement of Trump's election, large protests broke out across the United States with some continuing for several days.[541][542][543][544]

    Protesters have held up a number of different signs and chanted various shouts including "Not my president" and "We don't accept the president-elect".[439][541] The movement organized on Twitter under the hashtags #Antitrump and #NotMyPresident.[545][546]

    High school and college students walked out of classes to protest.[547] The protests were peaceful for the most part. At some protests fires were lit, flags and other items were burned and people yelled derogatory remarks about Trump. Rioters also broke glass at certain locations.[548][549][550] Celebrities such as MadonnaCher, and Lady Gaga took part in New York.[551][552][553] Some protesters took to blocking freeways in Los AngelesSan Diego, and Portland, Oregon, and were dispersed by police in the early hours of the morning.[554][555] In a number of cities, protesters were dispersed with rubber bullets, pepper spray and bean-bags fired by police.[556][557][558] In New York City, calls were made to continue the protests over the coming days after the election.[559] Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani called protesters "a bunch of spoiled cry-babies".[560]Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti expressed understanding of the protests and praised those who peacefully wanted to make their voices heard.[561] "

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  


    Some excerpts:

    "Arizona Border Ranchers Torn in Support for Trump's Wall"


    Some of the below responses are from the Comments section, there are 732 of them, here are 3 of the responses: 

    "The wall is a band-aid for a much larger problem, Mexico. Specifically the Mexican government. I can't understand how el presidente isn't embarrassed that no one wants to live in Mexico and would rather flee to the U.S."

    "The drug dealers will stop crossing illegally if America wouldn't consume drugs. The illegals workers wouldn't come if nobody would hire them. Its is very simple. America must stop consuming drugs and the hiring laws must be enforced."

    "Thousands rushing the border again today!!!! Choose wisely for the people and children. Nancy being sworn in with the children was beautiful symbolism!! What deal will she do? And having volunteered in Berlin for a few years in refugee camps. I can tell you that contraband is muled inside children! Kids younger than 8 cut open at lucrative destination points! Angry survivors may someday act out against those who allowed this to happen! How many more are being used across our border? Please consider and perhaps modify perspectives bases on new information. Such as the most cost effective means of securing the southern border. Kids are being mule inserted because it's lucrative and too easy!  Adults illegally transporting children not their own at our southern border! And you know airports scanners don't allow this! Consider please! And respect!"





    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    …Seriously, how much do you love your red herring fallacies? Not a single one of these posts even attempts to support your argument. You simply keep jumping to entirely separate points, probably because you have no support for your argument.

    No, instead, you’d rather talk about perceived bias within news media, a point which has nothing to do with either the initial post nor with your own argument. But hey, I’ll humor you.

    To start, you provide no evidence whatsoever of this perceived bias. The only sources you provide in support of that notion show the backlash against Trump being elected, which has nothing to do with news media. That being said, I know there is some bias (some of that being strongly for Trump, but hey, let’s just ignore Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge, Daily Caller, The Blaze, Daily Caller, National Review, Newsmax, Worldnet Daily, RedState, Free Republic, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Town Hall, Rush Limbaugh, The Third Report, Media Research Center, GOPUSA and all the other news sources that don’t fit your narrative). I also know that Trump has stoked a great deal of that bias himself. But none of that really matters. The presence of bias doesn’t fundamentally alter the information being reported. It may alter the slant it’s given, but not the information itself. Hence, while you might be using this as some kind of broad-based response to all my sources (none of which you’ve chosen to respond to in the slightest), it is not the slightest bit responsive. Bias doesn’t invalidate a source, and bias doesn’t erase data.

    But hey, perhaps your goal is to focus on the reaction of individuals rather than the media (after all, a protest is made up of individuals and covered by news media, the fact that those protests exist doesn’t mean that media is responsible for their occurrence). I’m not sure what point this proves. If your goal is to show that there are people who were upset about this election, then all I can say is… no duh. Of course people were upset. I’m not going to get into the multitude of reasons why people were upset that Trump was elected, but however valid or invalid you think they may be, the fact that people were upset doesn’t tell me anything we didn’t already know. 

    Liberals are generally opposed to the wall. Surprise, surprise! Many of those liberals probably don’t know a lot about the wall or border security. Shocker! The opposite direction of these statements applies to conservatives as well. Many conservatives support the wall because they support Trump. Many conservatives do this despite not knowing a lot about the wall or border security. Not everyone is well informed, and most people make knee-jerk reactions against a policy choice based on their political slant. That’s a given. Know what’s also a given, at least in recent history? Denying that the president is the president! It was commonly claimed by major conservatives that Obama wasn’t even born in the US, faking his birth certificate. He was a secret Muslim, an agent of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida, that he was out to destroy America, that he had FEMA concentration camps… the list goes on. Backlash against a new president, particularly divisive ones, is practically a given at this point, and it goes to some very disquieting places. The fact that many people have said mean things about Trump doesn’t bolster your points at all.

    And finally, we go back to your beloved ranchers! Or… wait, now we’re not even concerned about them, we’re concerned about the views of random, anonymous posts from people under the video! No, no, clearly this is the point where you convince me of your argument. This is the point when I call it quits and declare you the winner for introducing the same argument for a sixth time.

    So, I’ll end off with the same point I’ve made twice now, repeated verbatim and, once again, in bold and underlined:

    You keep throwing the same red herrings into this conversation. Over and over, you argue about human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration being net harmful. I have not, within the bounds of this discussion, ever said that any of these things are good. I have not argued that no efforts should be made to stop or stymie these problems. I’ve stated, and I will continue to state again and again, that a wall is both unnecessary to address them and causes a great deal more harm than other available and more efficacious solutions.

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    "Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in anargument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions."

    "Over and over, you argue about human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration being net harmful. I have not, within the bounds of this discussion, ever said that any of these things are good. I have not argued that no efforts should be made to stop or stymie these problems. I’ve stated, and I will continue to state again and again, that a wall is both unnecessary to address them and causes a great deal more harm than other available and more efficacious  solutions."

    ef·fi·ca·cious
    /ˌefəˈkāSHəs/
    adjective
    FORMAL
    1. (of something inanimate or abstract) successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective.

    Your "other than available and more efficacious solutions" have already been done, and they didn't work.

    I stated the below earlier in this thread.

    The border and the border wall, have had three separate former Presidents, who applied three separate attempts to address the border and the border wall issues, and it wasnt enough.

    It needs an overhaul, it needs upgrades, and it needs help.
    Those who live on or near the border, deserve the same attention, when it comes to the border and border security, that the rest of the states in the country get besides these states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas)

    How does the border wall harm people?

    You know what, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer both, could 
    voluntarily, go down to the border wall itself, and take a tour along the various border wall areas, and I'm sure that the various ranchers, and the border security themselves could educate and enlighten Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer on the long standing issues with the border wall, and how they could fully be addressed? 

    So with an updated border wall, you could add an overwatch to the border wall as well, guard shacks or platforms, stationed along the wall at 100 feet or 150 feet increments?

    This way, there could be sets of eyes, along the border wall, day and night?

    There's the border security, for the border wall. And I wonder how many of the ex military citizens or civilians in general, wouldn't be interested in doing border security, on the updated or enhanced border wall?

    Think about that, a new job market, to add to the growing employment numbers here in the United State? 

    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited January 2019

    So, let me get this straight. Your response to me saying that your argument is nothing but a series of red herrings, largely because you refuse to address the issue of how efficacious a wall actually is or would be, is to do four things:

    1.       Quote a definition of what a red herring is, emphasizing the words “Red herring,” “fallacy” and “argument”.

    I’d like to just applaud you for doing this, because I’ve never seen someone compound a fallacy so expertly. I’m serious – presenting the definition like this is a red herring in and of itself because a) you haven’t explained how your points aren’t red herrings, b) it doesn’t make your points less fallacious, and c) it’s yet another distraction from any effort to do so or to get yourself back on topic. I crown you king of red herrings; you made it! I’m sure you did this with some goal in mind of showing how your argument isn’t full of red herrings (you know, those things that “divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue”, an issue which you even helpfully quoted just after you quoted this definition), but just posting the definition doesn’t accomplish that goal. It doesn’t prove you’ve been on topic to show me a definition like this, just as it doesn’t prove you’ve talked about the efficacy of a wall simply because you post a definition of efficacious.

    You have been and continue to largely be off topic. You keep throwing distractions into the argument in the hopes that it will somehow swing things your way, but all it accomplishes is making your argument look more and more threadbare. In fact, it’s interesting that you quote a paragraph I’ve now posted, oh, 3 times and still… STILL… don’t respond to it in any way. You haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever to show that a wall is necessary, only that border security, in general, would be a benefit to some people.  You haven’t compared it to other available solutions, you just state that they’ve failed without referring to what those solutions are. I can’t tell if you’re just distracted by your own personal biases about immigration as an overarching issue and can’t get off it, or if you just have absolutely nothing to say in support of a wall, specifically. So, either you are personally distracted to the point that you can’t debate the topic effectively, or you are actively distracting from the point to avoid revealing the dearths in your knowledge.

    2.       Argue that other solutions have already been tried and failed.

    This is the first point you’ve made in this entire debate that actually addresses some portion of the issue. You point to issues with former presidents’ efforts to build a border wall, and state that it was insufficient. Good. Here’s the problem: it’s not a point for your side of the debate. Seriously, think about it. You’re pointing to previous efforts to build a wall, saying that they were ineffective. Those walls, i.e. the ones that were built over hundreds of miles of the border, have not stopped the problems from occurring on the border. Human trafficking, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration all continued to similar degrees. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that efforts to build a border wall have largely been failures. Why does that matter? Because if you want to provide, oh I don’t know, actual support for your argument that a border wall is efficacious, you’re going to struggle to find that information. Hell, if anything, just by presenting this information, you’ve outright conceded that the information doesn’t exist or that the evidence shows border walls don’t work. Seriously, that’s what you’ve posted here. Are you actively trying to hamstring your own argument now? Just because you say it “needs an overhaul” doesn’t mean you’ve shown that any efforts to expand on or improve the wall will be efficacious. All you’re doing is just doubling down on the same utter lack of support for your argument.

    But let’s get to the other assertion you’re making in this point: that other border security measures haven’t worked. That sounds like it’s addressing my point. I say “sounds like” because you in no way support this argument with any evidence. I say “sounds like” because I’ve already provided evidence that previous efforts to measure the effectiveness of border security are either tainted or just poorly conceived, so I don’t think you can provide sufficient evidence. I say “sounds like” because I haven’t actually made this argument – I have made the argument that there are border security measures we could implement that would be better than a wall. I actually provided it in response to you, so I’ll quote myself again:

    I can be against a wall solely for the reason that I don't believe it's as effective of a deterrent as other border security measures we could take. There are alternatives that could be explored for far less cost and with a potentially greater effectiveness. As long as any of those is a reasonable alternative, I don't see how your argument applies. The wall has to be both an effective deterrent and more effective than alternatives that do not incur similar harms. I've provided an example of such alternatives below.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html

    3.       Ask “How does the border wall harm people?”

    Seriously? Are you just refusing to read what I post? Do I have to bold and underline literally everything I say to get your attention? Because I’ve stated specific harms before. Here, I’ll bold and underline the quote for you:

    If you read back through... well, any of the points I've made (not that I've gotten the impression you've really taken any of them seriously), both against you and him, you might notice that I've pointed to specific issues that people along the border have with building a wall that affect them and their communities. They don't say that they support illegal immigrants above American citizens - that's you making assumptions about how these people think. They talk about very specific issues, including a labor shortage, escalating tensions, overwhelming volunteer shelters, increased exposure to violence and health threats, effects on property rights, harms to the environment, local investments from Mexican companies, and reduced retail sales. If you want the sources on that, here you go:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/on-the-border-little-enthusiasm-for-a-wall-‘we-have-other-problems-that-need-fixing’/ar-BBRZHS4?li=BBnbcA1&srcref=rss

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump’s-wall-proposal/ar-BBS44f5

    4.       Argue that people are hurting at the border, and that we should pay more attention to their needs.

    …I’ve covered this issue so many times that I can’t even bring myself to quote my own points again. Seriously, this would be the fourth time I’d quoted the exact same point, and the seventh time I’ve made the same basic argument. This point is a red herring. I don’t know how many times I have spell that out for you before you realize that you’ve been doing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Just because you keep making the same argument doesn’t make it any more meaningful, any more effective, or any more powerful. It just doubles, triples, quadruples, quintuples, sextuples and septuples down on a point that neither challenges any statement I have made in this debate nor addresses the central issue we’ve discussed. If you bring this up again, I’m outright ignoring it. Just because you think liberals don't understand the issue will enough to challenge issues with the wall doesn't mean you're right.

    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    "including a labor shortage,"

    A labor shortage in the United States, or in Mexico?

    "escalating tensions,"

    Escalating tensions with whom, the United States, or Mexico?

    "overwhelming volunteer shelters,"

    Overwhelming volunteer shelters where, in the United States, or Mexico?

    "increased exposure to violence and health threats,"

    Increased exposure to violence and health threats from whom, the United States, or Mexico? 

    "Increased effects on property rights,"

    Increased effects on property right to whom, the United States, or Mexico? 

    "harms to the environment,"

    Harms to the environment of whom, the United States, or Mexico?

    "local investments from Mexican companies, and reduced retail sales."

    Local investments from Mexican companies, and reduced retail sales for whom, the United States, or Mexico? 

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    "Argue that people are hurting at the border, and that we should pay more attention to their needs."

    The ranchers at the border are hurting, when they are dealing with some of the illegal immigrants, are stealing cars, trucks, or horses.

    There are various United States citizens who are hurting, because an Illegal immigrant illegally came into the United States, and innocent citizens have either been killed by the illegal immigrants, committing a crime, killing some by drunk driving?

     There are how many illegal immigrants walking around with a collection of dui's, on their crime records?

    And how many illegal immigrants, have committed sexual assualt crimes against some of the citizens in the United States?

    So I think that the plethora of needs, of the thousands upon thousands of US citizens, affected by the illegal immigrants, their needs deservedly should be addressed, seeing as how the border wall issues, should be deservedly addressed as well?

    The United States of America, belongs to the law abiding US citizens, and not the illegaI immigrants.
    Not today, not yesterday, and not since 1987 either.

    Unless some of the citizens in the United States, are allegedly, back dooring the laws of the US, by breaking the very laws of this country themselves, by allegedly, utilizing the illegal immigrants to do work for them under the table? 

    Doesn't the use of utilizing the illegaI immigrants for work, going against the IRCA of 1986, signed by then POTUS Reagan? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    So now you've given up completely defending your own argument? All you have left is asking questions about mine that you could just as easily look up in the links I gave you? I guess doing any work that doesn't require looking up a Youtube video or a Wikipedia article is asking too much.

    You want direct quotes? Fine. I'll take them from the exact articles you didn't care to check.

    On labor shortage:

    “'This is the sleepiest little town you could think of,' said Adriana Zizumbo, 31, who was raised in Columbus and owns the cafe with her husband. 'The only crisis we’re facing here is a shortage of labor. Fewer people cross the border to work than before, and Americans don’t want to get their hands dirty doing hard work.'”

    So, yes, it's in the US. Columbus is in New Mexico. Not Mexico.

    On escalating tensions, volunteer shelters, violence and health threats:

    "Many said there was indeed a humanitarian crisis unfolding, but they blamed the Trump administration for worsening it with a series of policies aimed at deterring Central American migrants from making the journey. Those policies, many of which have been blocked by legal challenges, have failed to stop the flood of migrants. But they have succeeded in escalating tensions, overwhelming volunteer shelters and putting those seeking asylum from violence at renewed risk of health threats and other problems once they arrive in the United States."

    This was from interviews taken of residents in California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Not Mexico.

    On property rights:

    "A cattle rancher in southern Arizona said he had traveled to Mexico a day earlier, and he saw no emergency. The lines were long — officials have shut down the number of ways people there can cross — but there were no signs of conflict or people pressing to get in.

    'There is no border problem, except for ones we are causing,' said the rancher, who said he had not had any problems with illegal border crossers on his property and who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution from strident supporters of Mr. Trump’s planned border wall. 'There’s no need for a bigger wall. There is not a border crisis down here.'"

    In case you didn't read it (you seem to miss a lot of what I post), that's a cattle rancher (one of your favorite people to quote) in southern Arizona. Not Mexico.

    On environmental harms:

    "Many border lawmakers worry that building a wall would threaten local economies, force private landowners to cede their property and harm the environment, especially in areas such as Big Bend National Park in West Texas."

    Again, in case you're not keeping track, that's West Texas and other areas with national parks near the border. Not Mexico. 

    On local investments and retail sales:

    "Contreras... said even discussion of a wall has caused some Mexican investors to halt millions of dollars of investments in retail and residential real estate projects in the Rio Grande Valley. He argues a wall would discourage Mexican shoppers from crossing the border to Texas. Those shoppers make up between 30 to 45 percent of the area’s retail sales, according to a 2012 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas."

    Let's take a look at that study. It looks at 4 border cities: El Paso, Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville. All in Texas. Not Mexico.

    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    Remember when I said I wasn't going to cover this any more? Remember when I said it's off topic and I've explained exactly how it is off topic seven times now? I can't believe I'm going to do this again, but I will entreat on you one more time to understand by putting this in all caps, bold it, and underline it.

    ASSUME RIGHT NOW THAT I CONCEDE THE ISSUE THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS NET NEGATIVE. IT IS HARMFUL. GRANTED. GIVEN. DONE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GOING BACK OVER THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BECAUSE I HAVEN'T CHALLENGED THEM, NOR DO I PLAN TO DO SO.

    WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU KEEP POSTING ABOUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS OR HARMS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. YOU CAN STOP NOW. SERIOUSLY. STOP. NOW.

    If that doesn't stop it, I don't know what will.

    What I have been saying, and what I will continue to say, is that the effects of a border, both as a means for stopping these problems and as a cause of unintentional or intentional harm to the region ensure that a wall is a net negative means of trying to resolve these problems. Border security and its effects are complex issues. A wall has effects that go beyond just keeping more criminal behavior from getting into the US (and, I would argue, very little effect keeping it out). I've provided a great deal of information on those harms, none of which you've challenged. You also have continuously failed to support the notion that a wall is an effective solution, much less that it is the most effective solution. If you want to join that conversation sometime, I'd love to see it. I haven't seen it yet. You seem solely focused on making the same point over and over, even when it does absolutely nothing for your argument.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @whiteflame

    "Contreras... said even discussion of a wall has caused some Mexican investors to halt millions of dollars of investments in retail and residential real estate projects in the Rio Grande Valley. He argues a wall would discourage Mexican shoppers from crossing the border to Texas. Those shoppers make up between 30 to 45 percent of the area’s retail sales, according to a 2012 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas."

    Let's take a look at that study. It looks at 4 border cities: El Paso, Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville. All in Texas. Not Mexico."

    So to apparently appease some of the Mexican investors, and Mexican shoppers, leave the border wall talk alone?

    You might upset, some of the Mexican money people/ Investors?

    The border wall might discourage their investments, from going, from one bank to another?

    And you might upset the Mexican shoppers? 

    Their shopping experiences might get disrupted, by that unsightly border wall talk? 

    The politics of money, I'm looking at California, New Mexico, and Arizona.

    I've done some shopping in Texas, and not one US citizen that I saw some, had expressed anything unsightly, about the border wall hindering their shopping experiences at all? 

    But some of the Mexican shoppers might view it differently, exactly who is pandering to whom? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    I don't get it. What do you find so wrong with this picture? Is it that American business owners could attract Mexican customers and investors? Or is it that the benefits of those businesses thriving are shared between Americans and Mexicans?

    Yes, shockingly, the talk of a giant wall going up will somehow inhibit the ability of both investors and customers to go from Mexico to the US. Physical impediments and more difficulties involved in receiving permission to cross them generally make movement and anything that comes with it more difficult, even for legal travelers. That means their funds will also dry up. Last I checked, money coming from Mexicans was still valuable. Oh well, I guess your minimal, anecdotal experience talking with other people in Texas (not sure where, not sure about what, probably not specifically about this topic) outweighs objective interviews of a broad variety of US citizens, business owners, and their elected representatives. Clearly, you know more based on your highly curated study of local shoppers in Somewhere, Texas.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    Whiteflame 

    Applesauce

    Zombieguy

    All three of the above names, seem to have an issue with questions being asked, when people ask questions about any topic?

    Your questions are always off topic and don't further the debate.

    I ask questions, that I feel that any member of the public, who may arrive at this forum, or other forums, should be able to be educated on both sides of any forum, regardless of what any of the forum topics are.

    How do you expect people to answer your questions when most are irrelevant?

    My view is this, if the author of any forum, can't be fair and equal to the other participants who show up to educate themselves on the theme of any forum, because the author of a forum, decides to be one sided, or only argues from their own narratives or points of view, then why take the time to create a forum, if not to be fair and equal with and to the theme of any forum then?

    How does any member of the public, to gain an education, and if the forum, that they may go about participating in, and the author goes about displaying a bias towards others, who may not jump on the bandwagon to any forum, and take up a side with the author,   rather than to debate both sides of the theme to any forum?

    If any forum was created to be educational, why be one sided with the debate, if a forum was really created to platform an individuals point of view, rather than to have an inpartial, fair, and equal debate in regards to the theme of any forum, then what's the point to authoring a debate theme, when the hidden intent was to create a platform to push a narrative to begin with? 

    That's why I ask questions, I believe in being educated.

    Says the guy who has a clear bias...

    To the other participants of the other forums, don't you like being educated on the theme of any forum?

    Or maybe, being educated on the various forums authored by whomever, isn't the point of creating, any of the forums? 

     And maybe, the actual hidden point, is to create a forum, to platform a narrative, and then to promote said narratives, with the individuals own talking points? 




  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    @CYDdharta ;

    I've noticed a number of oddities in how you tend to argue. You usually ignore any point that functions against you rather than defending your argument, focusing instead on attacking points you find problematic that support your opponent. You also tend to strip out single sentences to respond to, and then oversimplify the point being made. I'm seeing that a lot in your responses, here.


    I've noticed you're prone to projection, as that precisely and succinctly sums up your approach in this debate from your very first reply.  For example;

        "You've been paying too much attention to the president's many detractors and not enough to what he actually says.  The border wall is but one of many steps he's trying to take to secure the border.  It's an important step, but far from the only one."

        You're correct, that's what Trump has said in posted materials. Here's what he's done: during negotiations over funding the government, he has outright rejected the notion that anything but a border wall will be effective. His response to an initial bill from the Senate that would have contributed $1.6 billion to border security, but not the wall, was to reject it outright. That's also been how he's responded to Democratic statements that there is bipartisan support for border security, just not the wall.

        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-throws-government-funding-deal-into-doubt-says-trump-does-not-want-to-go-further-without-border-security

        So, yes, he may recognize that his border security efforts do not stop at the wall. However, his position is that the only point at which those efforts can start is with the wall. In other words, he views other layers of protection at the border as pointless without the wall, and in doing so, is stymieing any and all efforts to fund border security that do not include funding for the wall.

    This is completely false, as you're well aware.  The wall IS CRITICAL, but it's only one of several security measures.  Capitulating to a bill that does not provide for a border wall is exactly the same as saying there is no need at all for a border wall, which is ridiculous.  It doesn't mean, however, that a wall is the ONLY security measure Trump considers crucial.  In order for you to prove this point, Trump would have to approve a bill that provides funds for a wall and nothing else.  The Dems haven't offered such a bill, let along Trump approving it.

    "This is just false and absurd.  The public isn't responsible for observing, much less enforcing, the laws along the border.  And since illegals tend to settle along the border, the results of any poll of residents of border areas will be skewed."

    Can't help but notice that you didn't defend your choice of sources on the matter, but fine, let's move onto mine. You'll note that the links I used to support my statements here didn't just include polls - just because you seem to love the ad populum fallacy doesn't mean I do. In fact, the interviewed people provide very specific issues, including a labor shortage, escalating tensions, overwhelming volunteer shelters, increased exposure to violence and health threats, effects on property rights, harms to the environment, local investments from Mexican companies, reduced retail sales... the list goes on. These are specific problems, and several are even quantified (look to the amount of sales made to Mexican customers). That's a lot better than what you've provided, which solely includes personal accounts and statements of expectations should a wall go up rather than verifiable data about a wall having specific effects. The public may not be responsible for observing or enforcing laws along the border, but they certainly have some indication of the effects of those efforts and their potential expansions. These harms exist now. Local lawmakers are often Republicans and are seeking means to improve border security, just not with a wall. You can say they're biased if you want, but if there really was a great deal of harm from immigration, we'd expect to see it in these border states. The push-back should be immense.

    LOL, right, red herrings are your fallacy of choice.  How would a wall negatively impact illegals overwhelming shelters?  How would it negatively impact increased exposure to violence or health threats?  These are some examples of the things that  wall would improve. 

    "So the objections to funding the wall are almost entirely politicians trying to score political points.  Noted, and thanx for the assist."

    You're really bad at reading quotes and where they apply. These show that support for a wall can be and often is based on a quid pro quo. That's the reason so many Democrats supported this legislation. Objections to funding the wall may be aimed at scoring political points as well, but that just evens the playing field. Any stance a politician takes can be solely for that sake or for a variety of other reasons, including the rational and personal. Just because you want to declare the entire opposition to the wall to be hackneyed politics in motion doesn't mean it is, and it's not what any of those quotes say it is. Remember, you're the one who is arguing that politicians like Obama and Clinton genuinely supported a wall at one point. Kind of hard to prove they're hypocritical when their sole reason for doing so was to get concessions from Republicans.

    I can not only read the quotes, but I can actually comprehend them; apparently you cannot.  Estimates for the wall range from $8 billion to $70 billion.  The president is currently seeking $5 billion.  It is quite obvious that the president is not seeking to construct a wall along the entire border at this time.  That being the case, not a SINGLE ONE of you're quotes is applicable.  This is just politicians playing politics, nothing more.  Their hypocrisy is plain to see for anyone who actually looks.

    "The GAO report is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  The purpose of the report was to identify "Additional Actions [that are] Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps".  It doesn't assess the effectiveness of a border wall at all."

    ...I'm honestly not sure if you're serious. An "Assess[ment of] Contributions to Operations and Provid[ing] Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps" is a much longer way of saying "determining how well has this wall worked towards its stated purpose?" Honestly, I don't know how they could be any clearer about the purpose of this document. It's even spelled out further under "What GAO Found" on their website under this very topic:

    "Border fencing is intended to benefit border security operations in various ways, according to officials from the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol), which is within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). For example, according to officials, border fencing supports Border Patrol agents' ability to execute essential tasks, such as identifying illicit-cross border activities. CBP collects data that could help provide insight into how border fencing contributes to border security operations, including the location of illegal entries. However, CBP has not developed metrics that systematically use these, among other data it collects, to assess the contributions of border fencing to its mission. For example, CBP could potentially use these data to determine the extent to which border fencing diverts illegal entrants into more rural and remote environments, and border fencing's impact, if any, on apprehension rates over time. Developing metrics to assess the contributions of fencing to border security operations could better position CBP to make resource allocation decisions with the best information available to inform competing mission priorities and investments."

    To summarize, they find that the CBP lacks the means to make basic assessments of the wall's effectiveness, i.e. they cannot provide an objective and meaningful analysis of the total positive impact of the wall as it stands. So, yes, they are not assessing the effectiveness of a border wall, but neither is the CBP. That's the point. That's the problem.

    I'm, likewise, honestly not sure if you're being serious.  The report has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evaluating the wall.  In fact, the term "wall" isn't used ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT.  Their objective was to evaluate between the 8+ different types of fencing  and barriers currently in use versus the terrain and potential security threats of different areas of the border.  A single homogeneous border wall of the type being considered solves almost all of the problems attributed to the hodgepodge of various types of fencing described in the CBO report.

    "Which illustrates why border fencing is inadequate and proves the need for a border wall.  Once again, and thanx for the assist."

    "Which is yet another reason to build the wall.  You're getting good at proving the president's position."

    Saying "this evidence goes against a fence and supports a wall" is fallacious. The fact that the fence has failed doesn't mean that a wall will be a more effective alternative, or that it won't cause greater harms. If anything, it's likely to enhance these very problems without meaningfully affecting total illegal immigration (most of which comes in by planes anyway). Just because you apparently don't want to support your side of the argument doesn't mean you can rely on mine to do it for you.

    No, it absolutely proves the point.  Illegals are not going to build a ramp 30' high to drive over the wall as they note has been done to the 3' high fencing currently in place.  They cannot use bolt cutters to cut a hole in the wall the way they have in the current mesh and chain link fencing.  They cannot just jump over the wall as they can parts of the current fence.

    "This isn't a physics problem, this is a law enforcement problem.  Most people understand that the observations of law enforcement officers in charge of carrying out the mission have a direct bearing on the discussion.  As far as studies of the effectiveness of an actual wall, there aren't very many.  This is about the only one available;

    https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration"

    And studies aren't always scientific. They are, however, based on objective data, usually from a broader set of information than is anecdote. I understand that Border Patrol agents should have a say in these decisions, but acting based solely on their personal recommendations when data points to inherent problems with a wall as a deterrent to illegal immigration is a problem.

    As for that study (thanks for providing it), I see a few problems. First, it doesn't take into account any of the effects I discussed earlier, particularly those involving trade with Mexico in localities. Second, much as the NAS study has a good deal of data behind it, it's not the sole study to analyze the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, and there's widespread disagreement based on what factors you take into account. If you want, I can find you a few that say exactly the opposite or find net neutral effects. Third, the authors make no effort whatsoever to justify the effectiveness of a wall, merely stating that if the wall provides a certain degree of effect, it is sufficient to outstrip the cost of the wall. the study only compares a wall to continuing the current state of affairs. The study presumes its solvency without providing any meaningful analysis of how it is achieved. Fourth, it doesn't compare the relative effectiveness of a wall versus any other defense measure along the border. Even if a wall would be effective at stopping some, we're not comparing between a world without improved border security and a world with a wall. Everyone wants increased security, so the comparison should be to other methods. Fifth, the study admits that the costs of a wall haven't been fully fleshed out, especially considering the altered expectations of what a wall will look like and be composed of. Comparisons of cost require that both the cost of illegal immigrants and the cost of the wall be fixed, yet the latter continues to fluctuate.

    Your criticism of my studies seem trite, considering you haven't posted ANY studies to support your comments.  Not one.  The closest you've come to posting a study was posting an article about a GAO study which even you have admitted is irrelevant to the topic at hand and posting an OIG report about a Border Patrol operation that actually undercuts your position.  We've already been over the GAO report, so lets look at the OIG report. 


    A principal element of the new strategy was a large increase in personnel overall, and large concentrations of personnel along the border. Because the Border Patrol Academy could not instantaneously produce vast numbers of new agents, the increase in agents at Imperial Beach was achieved by transferring agents to that station from other Border Patrol sectors, from the temporarily closed San Clemente checkpoint, and from other border stations in the San Diego Sector - most notably Chula Vista and Brown Field. Agents were also required to work six days a week.

    Another important element of Operation Gatekeeper was a different deployment of personnel. The new strategic plan at Imperial Beach called for three tiers of agents. The first tier was deployed in fixed positions along the border and had "prevention, apprehension, and observation" responsibilities. A second tier of agents - located further north in corridors heavily traveled by aliens - had more freedom of movement in containing and apprehending illegal traffic that made it past the first line of defense. The third tier was charged with apprehending any traffic that penetrated the first two lines of defense.7 Agents were instructed to advise their colleagues in the next tier north of any alien traffic moving in their direction. Given Gatekeeper's deterrence emphasis, many agents were assigned to first-tier, fixed positions along the border. These agents were instructed to remain in their assigned positions rather than chase alien traffic passing through adjacent areas.  Prior to Gatekeeper, such stationary positions were relatively rare.

    The new strategy also called for significant infusions of additional equipment. Because the equipment the Border Patrol had ordered with the new funds supplied in the 1994 Crime Act would not begin to arrive until the end of 1994, significant amounts of equipment were obtained on loan from the Department of Defense, including: 6 nightscopes to help agents see illegal traffic crossing the border in darkness; 40 seismic sensors to detect traffic around the clock; and 80 portable radios to enable agents in the field to communicate and coordinate operations. A new electronic fingerprinting system (IDENT) was also initiated to assist agents in identifying aliens who had been previously apprehended or who had criminal records.8  The Sector also received new four-wheel drive vehicles that could traverse the rough dirt roads along the border.

    Notice what's missing from the Operation Gatekeeper strategy?  That's right, any talk of a border wall.  In fact, the OIG report explains why the landing mat style pedestrian fencing, one of the only types of border obstacles currently in use that is at all wall-like;

    Solid fencing - constructed from surplus steel landing mats obtained from the Department of Defense - was erected along long stretches of the border starting at the ocean. Although not a great impediment to persons wishing to climb over (the panels contain horizontal grooves which provide easy toe and hand grips for climbers) the fencing serves two important functions:

    Obviously a border wall designed specifically for the purpose doesn't suffer from this defect.

    Then there's the opinion piece from "Fact"Check.  As noted above, this is also irrelevant to the current discussion.  $5 billion will not fund a wall along the entire border, it will only be enough to get the project a good start and put a wall only in the areas where it would be of greatest benefit.

    "Everyone wants increased security".  I don't believe that at all.   The loudest critics of the border wall have an overriding interest in keeping the border open, security is not a concern.

    I don't get it. What do you find so wrong with this picture? Is it that American business owners could attract Mexican customers and investors? Or is it that the benefits of those businesses thriving are shared between Americans and Mexicans?

    Yes, shockingly, the talk of a giant wall going up will somehow inhibit the ability of both investors and customers to go from Mexico to the US. Physical impediments and more difficulties involved in receiving permission to cross them generally make movement and anything that comes with it more difficult, even for legal travelers. That means their funds will also dry up. Last I checked, money coming from Mexicans was still valuable. Oh well, I guess your minimal, anecdotal experience talking with other people in Texas (not sure where, not sure about what, probably not specifically about this topic) outweighs objective interviews of a broad variety of US citizens, business owners, and their elected representatives. Clearly, you know more based on your highly curated study of local shoppers in Somewhere, Texas.

    This is another argument that undercuts your position and vouches for the effectiveness of a border wall.  The wall doesn't make it any more difficult to legally enter the US.  It doesn't change the requirements needed to cross the border.  The only thing a wall will do is keep people from crossing the border illegally.  If people in the area believe that will cause funds to dry up, that means two things.  First, that the people in that area are profiting from unauthorized entries into the US.   I have little sympathy that people who are abetting criminals will be losing money.  Second, they believe the wall will work, and they're in a better position than most to form an accurate opinion.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    Are you calling the ranchers in this video, liars?



    "The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land.

    "In the 80's the border started changing. 300 illegal immigrants a month, coming across the border illegally, and then in the 90's it became 300 illegal immigrants a day, stole stuff, broke stuff, trucks stolen, cars stolen, saddles, horses stolen."

    "Since the 2000's, the cartels took over the human trade, as well as the drug trade. that's what the border is about now, money, it's not  about, immigration, but smuggling."

    And in the video, they mention, that the smugglers, aren't someone that should be messed with.

    And apparently on this ranchers property, 6 people have been killed.

    And there is a tree on the property as well, that has a nickname attached to it, and the nickname is sad and sickening.

    So, if some who are anti border wall, check out this video, because some of the us citizens who live along the border because of their properties, have seen and experienced some ugly things because of what's been happening along the border, since the 1980's.

    And because of the conversations, and the history about the border, being experienced by the ranchers, it makes you wonder, where some of the anti border individuals, go about developing talking points, that fail to include the ranchers perspectives, from what they have seen, and experienced at the border for years now? 

    This video has been around for a while now, yet when the anti border wall individuals expess themselves, they seem to be lacking in the narratives of the us citizens living along the border?

    And instead, reiterate only their individual anti border wall narratives? 
     


    "Rancher on the border scared for his life."


    What say you whiteflame?

    Is the rancher in that video, maybe lying as well?


    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB I thought only liberals were supposed to legislate on feels over reals. At least people can't get killed on his land once the government forcibly "buys" his land for a terribly low price to build either a steel fence that can get cut with a household saw, or a concrete wall you can blow up with a trip to home Depot
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    I’ll start by being clear about what we’re arguing here.

    The topic we’ve been discussing involves the cause for the shutdown. Since it’s been set aside (no one seems to be challenging my argument on this front), the question of responsibility is no longer part of that discussion. Instead, the focus has been on the policy behind it: the building of a wall along our southern border with Mexico. To be clear, we are not comparing between a world with a wall and the status quo. We are comparing between a world with a wall and any other world, i.e. any border security measures that do not include a wall. To my mind, that means we’re discussing three things:

    1)      What is a wall in the context of this policy? What does that wall solve with regards to illegal immigration and trafficking across the border, and how well does it solve for it?

    2)      What other effects does a wall have?

    3)      Are there alternatives that are more efficacious/lack the harms of a wall?

    Your arguments in this post have solely been assertions with regards to these three points.

    On #1, you’ve said “The wall IS CRITICAL,” but you haven’t explained why. You haven’t provided evidence to support why it is. When your response amounts to an assertion of necessity followed by assertions that other methods will be ineffective without a wall… I’m sorry, but that is not an argument. I’ve provided some evidence that other methods are effective without a wall, though I haven’t seen any efforts to address it (given again, below). This is also the extent of your analysis on point #3. If anything, your response here only proves my point: Trump has been very clear that he will accept no alternatives to a wall, regardless of the willingness of Congress to fund them or their efficacy.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/opinions/trump-border-wall-ineffective-opinion-cuellar/index.html

    You may be right that capitulating and taking funding for other border security measures is “the same as saying there is no need at all for a border wall,” but I don’t see how that’s ridiculous. You haven’t furnished any proof of the effectiveness of such a wall, nor has Trump as far as I’ve been able to tell. In fact, you’ve gone so far as to disparage past efforts as ineffective. All you’ve done is state that future efforts will be effective because the wall will be higher and stronger. Two problems with that. First off, it’s an assertion. It’s not supported by data or evidence of any sort, it’s just a statement of your beliefs regarding their efficacy. Build a 30 foot wall, people will build 31 foot ladders, or tunnel under the wall, or go around it (you said that it wouldn’t cover the entire border, and they’ve done this plenty before). Second, your assertion relies on some knowledge of how the wall will be constructed. I don’t know about you, but from everything I’ve seen, it’s unclear what the wall will be made from, how it will be constructed, what the dimensions will be… the list goes on. All of this is to say that your assertions regarding the capacity of individuals to get through or over the wall rely on a clear understanding of what these walls will look like. You don’t have that. None of us do.

    It generally seems like you have no interest in supporting your assertions that a wall is efficacious. Instead, you just keep making them. Even on the GAO report, you seem to understand what it says, but not what it means. The report talks about the inability of the Border Patrol to measure the effectiveness of their border security efforts. Border security, as it stands today, includes border fencing. It includes infrastructure meant to prevent individuals from crossing the border. It doesn’t have to say “wall” because it is challenging the notion that the CBP has effective means of evaluating their security measures. All of them. So, no, it doesn’t take into account a potential future border wall that expands on these efforts, largely because no one was discussing it at that time, but more importantly, because their focus was on the ability of the CBP to assess the effectiveness of any and all border security measures. And CBP copped to it, admitting fault in their assessments. If they can’t assess the effectiveness of any border security measure currently in use, how can you? For that matter, the one study you provided in support of its effectiveness you’ve chosen not to defend at all. You can call my responses trite, but they’re still untouched.

    That just leaves your point on #2. You challenge some of the arguments I’ve provided for negative effects, though once again, all your responses are assertions. I don’t see how any of my analysis is a red herring – these are stated harms that range from likely to certain following the building of a wall. Can’t help but notice that you didn’t address effects on property rights, harms to the environment or escalating tensions in your responses, but let’s focus on what you do address. When it comes to shelters, I'll admit, this is more of a problem of how we process asylum seekers, though it’s likely to get worse with a wall. As a result of how these processes have changed, they are more often housed on the border, meaning that those shelters that are intended to house them for short periods are being overwhelmed. A wall would make desperate people all the more desperate, and symbolize a willingness to double down on the views about asylum seekers.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/trump-fact-check-speech-immigration-border-security

    On violence and health threats have similarly been enhanced by crowding lots of people together at the border with fewer resources. People get sick when they’re placed in those kinds of situations. They resort to criminal activity. A wall, once again, increases their desperation.

    On financial harms, you do two things: that legal trade would continue uninterrupted, and that illegal trade is the only thing that would stop. I don’t know where you’re getting this. A wall is a physical barrier. It would have limited crossing points, each of which would require individuals to be checked before passing through, likely in both directions. Compounding those difficulties with the already enhanced difficulties of legally immigrating to the US, and you’ve got yourself a problem for legal immigrants. But all you’ve done is address travel. Travel isn’t the only thing affected by a border wall, as simply building one is a giant middle finger to Mexico, given the claims that Mexico will, someday, be forced to pay for it. Those negative relations affect trade, including the willingness of individuals in Mexico to invest in American companies. A wall stands as a barrier in more ways than one.

    The rest of your response appears to largely be based on responses to the Operation Gatekeeper point. You, again, make assumptions about the efficacy of a wall on the basis that that wall will have (or not have) specific features, claims you can only make if you know what the wall will look like. You also argue that they’re not seeking all the money for the wall now, so that should be fine. However, this clashes with your other argument that there needs to be a continuous wall across the entire border to see effectiveness. If this is a proof of concept, then I don’t see how it can possibly be effective when people can easily travel around whatever portions are walled, as with El Paso. So, either you’re expecting the money to become available to continue constructing the wall without proof, or your expecting that they do extensive and novel studies of the bits of wall they build over years and years before they receive extra funding to build the rest, which may never come because there may be minimal or no total effect.

    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987WordsMatter
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    ...Seriously? I put it in bold, underlined it, and used caps lock, and you still didn't read what I said, did you? Guess I'll post it again:

    ASSUME RIGHT NOW THAT I CONCEDE THE ISSUE THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS NET NEGATIVE. IT IS HARMFUL. GRANTED. GIVEN. DONE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP GOING BACK OVER THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BECAUSE I HAVEN'T CHALLENGED THEM, NOR DO I PLAN TO DO SO.

    WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU KEEP POSTING ABOUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS OR HARMS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. YOU CAN STOP NOW. SERIOUSLY. STOP. NOW.

    To translate this for the sake of the point you're making, I never challenged the ranchers' experiences. I never said they were wrong or liars. I never said they weren't experiencing hardships. I said that their experiences require us to take some meaningful action in terms of border security. I said that their experiences are not the only important ones to consider. Both because I view a border wall as not meaningful to help people like these ranchers and because I think a border wall would do more harm than good to others, I think we should turn to other border security strategies.

    Maybe one day, you'll read my argument instead of repeating yourself over and over on a point that I've conceded and that has no meaning to the discussion at hand. Maybe one day, you'll try to defend your own argument instead of blindly lashing out at some facsimile of mine.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame

    What's wrong, the illegaI immigrants who sexually assaulted us citizens, and killed us citizens, it's unsettling to mention those events in this forum?

    Do you email the national news media outlets, and tell this to them as well? 

    "WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU KEEP POSTING ABOUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS OR HARMS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. YOU CAN STOP NOW. SERIOUSLY. STOP. NOW.'

    Are those national news media outlets, are they preaching to the choir, when they do a news segment, on the crimes that the illegaI immigrants have committed?

    Are you going to call them out as well, for sharing the facts, about the crimes committed by the illegaI immigrants? 

    Fox news or YouTube, are you going to call them out?

    "I said that their experiences require us to take some meaningful action in terms of border security. I said that their experiences are not the only important ones to consider. Both because I view a border wall as not meaningful to help people like these ranchers and because I think a border wall would do more harm than good to others, I think we should turn to other border security strategies."

    And my previous points of view, restated again:

    You know what, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer both, could  
    voluntarily, go down to the border wall itself, and take a tour along the various border wall areas, and I'm sure that the various ranchers, and the border security themselves could educate and enlighten Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer on the long standing issues with the border wall, and how they could fully be addressed? 

    So with an updated border wall, you could add an overwatch to the border wall as well, guard shacks or platforms, stationed along the wall at 100 feet or 150 feet increments?

    This way, there could be sets of eyes, along the border wall, day and night?

    There's the border security, for the border wall. And I wonder how many of the ex military citizens or civilians in general, wouldn't be interested in doing border security, on the updated or enhanced border wall?

    Think about that, a new job market, to add to the growing employment numbers here in the United State?  

    The above, is how you address the border wall, and the security situations, with the overwatches, guard shacks, or platforms, and the added guard details, to accompany the overwatches, guard shacks, or platforms.

    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @TTKDB

    I’m seriously at a loss. I’m sitting here repeatedly saying that you’re correct that people suffer from the lack of effective border security. I’m not minimizing it, I’m not challenging your arguments on that front, yet you keep throwing it back in my face, as though it somehow alters anything I’m saying. I’m telling you that I'm the choir. You’re preaching to someone who accepts that these harms exist and would like them to be resolved. Why can’t you accept that? 

    As as for the rest of your post, you’re still not answering why a border wall is necessary. You point to better, more continuous monitoring of the border as a way to improve security. I agree. A wall is not necessary to improve vigilance. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB reading your comments makes my head hurt
    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB reading your comments makes my head hurt

    That's @TTKDB for you

    Applesauce
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    Trump as being a real blank petulant child right now.
    CYDdhartapiloteerApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • A border wall isn’t only there physically, its there mentally as well. If you see a giant 12 foot wall/metal slats, what are you gonna think? You’re either gonna try and climb it (with additional spending we could fund officers that guard most of it), or you’re gonna think that you’re not welcome, that the US has no place for illegals. This is what makes the wall effective.
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    Trump as being a real blank petulant child right now.

    No, this is Pelosi and Schumer having a blanking temper tantrum.
    piloteerApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    "WordsMatter said:
    @TTKDB reading your comments makes my head hurt

    That's @TTKDB for you."

    I'm pro wall, pro border wall security, pro community, I'm pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro second amendment, I'm pro legitimate facts oriented.

    I support the ranchers who have been dealing with, for years now the illegaI immigrants who have stolen their property that rightfully belonged to those ranchers.

    I find it to be a conflict of interest, when the US citizens who live on the border, who are anti border wall?

    So does this mean, that some of those anti border wall US citizens, are less concerned with the various crimes that the illegaI immigrants have committed against those ranchers, and the various us citizen who have been killed by some of the illegal immigrants? 

    And are apparently more focused on those who shop at their businesses along the border, and are more focused on those individual Mexican monatery investors? 

    IE those apparent conflict of interest situations?
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "WordsMatter said:
    @TTKDB reading your comments makes my head hurt

    That's @TTKDB for you."

    I'm pro wall, pro border wall security, pro community, I'm pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro second amendment, I'm pro legitimate facts oriented.

    Are you pro-everything?

    I support the ranchers who have been dealing with, for years now the illegaI immigrants who have stolen their property that rightfully belonged to those ranchers.

    I find it to be a conflict of interest, when the US citizens who live on the border, who are anti border wall?

    So does this mean, that some of those anti border wall US citizens, are less concerned with the various crimes that the illegaI immigrants have committed against those ranchers, and the various us citizen who have been killed by some of the illegal immigrants? 

    They are are concerned with crime issues, but a wall isn’t the answer

    And are apparently more focused on those who shop at their businesses along the border, and are more focused on those individual Mexican monatery investors? 

    IE those apparent conflict of interest situations?

  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    "They are are concerned with crime issues, but a wall isn’t the answer."

    How do you know that?

    Did they tell you that?

    I would be interested in seeing your legitimate interviews that you had with those ranchers?
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    Hard to argue with this logic, it's all about Dems playing political games;


    "Instead of building an actual physical barrier of steel, concrete, or some other material, Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats advocate employing an array of high-tech devices — drones, infrared sensors, surveillance cameras, and more — to keep track of activity at the border without physical impediments to discourage illegal crossings.

    "We cannot protect the border with concrete," Clyburn said recently. "We can protect the border using the technology that is available to us to wall off intrusions."

    The problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country.

    That is especially important given the nature of the migrants crossing the border illegally today. In the past, many were single adult men who could be caught and quickly returned to Mexico. But now, according to the Department of Homeland Security, about two-thirds of the crossers are families and unaccompanied children who, by U.S. law, cannot be quickly returned. Once in the United States, their asylum claims — the vast majority are ultimately judged without merit — take a long time to process. During that time, many simply disappear into the country.

    The point, for those illegal immigrants, is not to enter the United States without being detected. It is to enter, be caught, and begin the asylum process that will allow them to stay, one way or the other.

    A smart wall is no obstacle to such crossers. On the other hand, a physical barrier would be a big obstacle and, if placed in key areas of the border, would likely reduce illegal crossings significantly. That is precisely the kind of barrier that Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats oppose."

    Byron York: In border fight, Democrats want 'technological wall' that won't keep anybody out


    Applesauce
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    I have never understood why the government works the way it does in this regard. Suppose Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on some point of the budget. Very well, allocate the disputed amount (highest as proposed) for later use and keep quarrelling, but continue working on other endeavors on which you can find an agreement.

    Total governmental shutdown over one disagreement in the budget planning indicates that something is broken in the system.

    I was in El Paso a couple of weeks ago. There is enough border protection for even a mouse to not be able to sneak through. I walked on the same pathwalks the visitors from Mexico do. The protection is bigger than almost everywhere else in the world, aside from the 38th Parallel on the Korean peninsula, and the Gaza barricades. Suffice to say the situation is not nearly as dramatic as to warrant a complete halt of federal government performance for weeks.

    Who is to blame here is irrelevant. Two sides cannot find a compromise. Both are to blame. But the main object of blame should be the system itself, that allows for such incredible situations.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    I'm pro wall, pro border wall security, pro community, I'm pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro second amendment, I'm pro legitimate facts oriented. 

    "Are you pro-everything?'

    Can you answer the above question, being that you posed it?
    Zombieguy1987
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    After reading and thinking about this I've changed my stance a bit.  
    I don't want illegals coming in so it seems a physical barrier is needed.  What if we took away the reasons and incentives the illegals are coming in?  Then we really would just need border security for the drug smugglers.  If only citizens could receive tax money paid benefits, work etc most wouldn't come here, but the liberal states and cities wouldn't go for that, rather than enforcing and obeying laws they want sanctuary cities, give them no cost healthcare etc.  So what's left but to physically hinder, deter or restrain them from coming in illegally?  yes the whole system needs an overhaul, but that doesn't look like it will ever happen.  companies should be punished for hiring illegal works, that is the law.
    not enforcing laws is the same as the boy who cried wolf.
    while I would prefer enforcement of laws, accountability and reform, no one is talking about or has in any meaningful and serious way.
    What a wall/barrier might look like no one knows and we wouldn't know until money is actually spent.  To be fair the money will be used for other security measures besides a wall/barrier.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Applesauce

    "What if we took away the reasons and incentives the illegals are coming in?"

    There are 300 sanctuary cities, across the country who have or are apparently giving some of the 11-22 illegaI immigrants sanctuary, and doing so in the very face of the laws of this country.

    Now what are the odds of those 300 sanctuary cities, self halting, on giving those millions of illegaI immigrants sanctuary in their very own cities?

    That is incentive reason number 1.

    The second incentive reason, are the various businesses that are allegedly utilizing the illegaI immigrants to do work for them, apparently under the table? 

    Now, what might be the odds that some of those businesses might refrain from allegedly utilizing some of the illegal immigrants to do work for them?

    I'm guessing that those above examples of why there are some immigrants, who might decide to apparently enter the United States illegally through the southern border? 
    Applesauce
  • Just to point out to Executive officer Trump and others. The Nation Panama has a canal and there is still issues of immigration which effect both Mexico and America from South America. A fence/wall is an unconstitutional money trap that is less than a canal in practicality, spending Federal Notes on foreign land. With all due respect to the Oval Office, America first. Bigger canal is bigger constitutional principle and a bigger first while hammering international issue.
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    I'm pro wall, pro border wall security, pro community, I'm pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro second amendment, I'm pro legitimate facts oriented. 

    "Are you pro-everything?'

    Can you answer the above question, being that you posed it?

    Why would I answer a question directed to you?

  • “So what everyone is thinking but not saying is.” Even though a canal isn’t working well in Panama, a much smaller wall/fence is better and will work great in the United States? In a game of chance and skill involving money this is where house said anti-up people, or fold. Stakes have been raised.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch