As far as I know, theres's not a single country in the world with true open borders. Since it will have ZERO effect on legal immigration, why on earth are some people so vehemently against the wall?
Nuff Said.
I know Trump compares his wall to the Great Wall of China. I laughed when he said if they could build that wall we could build ours. The Great Wall was built over the course of 1000 years by different dynasties. So unless we plan to finish Trumps wall in 2917 its not a good comparison
Secondly imo the wall would not stop the immigration problem
Keyser, have human beings managed to climb to the top of Mount Everest?
Just how high do you plan to make this wall. If we can climb Mount Everest then a 20 foot wall can certainly be scaled.
Only by manning the wall with guards for the entire 3000 miles complete with barbed wire and weapons would you have any real chance of the wall being successful at cutting down illegal immigration
Besides the huge cost in labor...armed guards with barbed wire sounds strikingly like a prison
BTW dont forget you can come from Mexico by taking a boat. Gonna put up a seawall along the Pacific and Atlantic also?
Quote: KeyserDo you leave the doors to your house or car unlocked when you're not home or at night?
As far as I know, theres's not a single country in the world with true open borders. Since it will have ZERO effect on legal immigration, why on earth are some people so vehemently against the wall?
Waste of money, solves nothing.
compared to what?Quote: SM777Waste of money, solves nothing.
$4 trillion dollars R spent.
what is waste and not?
Oh, don't ask that!
18B is less than 1/2 cent. we ALL waste at least 1 cent every year.
yes we do
well, ok , my hubby doesn't
but I due!
Sally
build the wall now!
pay for it later!
Quote: billryanAs I travel this great country, I can see many far better ways to spend twenty billion dollars.
Nuff Said.
I say your wrong. But, to each his own.
ZCore13
Will the wall be effective? Will immigrants just react, divert means to other areas?
Will it harm wildlife and migration and the environment?
Unlike Trump supporters, the majority of Americans believe in more personal freedom and responsibility. The Wall goes completely against those values.
Also unlike Trump supporters, most Americans are against this sort of big government intervention and government waste. The Wall will do absolutely nothing about people who simple overstay their visas, which now exceeds the number of people who cross the border without authorization. The $20 billion is also the figure for building the wall. How much money is Mexico going to give to Trump for maintenance?
Quote: onenickelmiracleWill the wall be effective? Will immigrants just react, divert means to other areas?
Will it harm wildlife and migration and the environment?
I cannot see how it would be effective, but I am sure we need to agree on the definition of 'effective' before further discussion.
Will immigrants just react...? Can you take a boat from the Bahamas/Cuba to Florida? Can you cross from Canada?
Will it harm wildlife and migration and the environment? I cannot imagine how it would improve.
With a Wall, can you come to visit and not go back?
Quote: KeyserDo you leave the doors to your house or car unlocked when you're not home or at night?
As far as I know, theres's not a single country in the world with true open borders. Since it will have ZERO effect on legal immigration, why on earth are some people so vehemently against the wall?
To intelligently answer your question, you've answered your own. What would be the best way to keep your home safe from burglars?
- Some people simply move to somewhere safe.
- Some people buy a gun to defend themselves.
- Some people put bars on their windows and get extra locks to deter entry
- Some people invest in a burglar alarm.
- Some people invest in higher technology to keep cameras on their homes.
- Some people erect their wall around their home.
The question is effectiveness and the value of protecting yourself. To most of us, a wall would not be cost effective, yet most of us erect attractive and inexpensive fences to keep people out of their back yards, and use a combinations of protections to keep away burglars based on a number of factors.
I would argue that a wall is not effective. You can climb over it, fly over it, dig under it, drive through it (border crossings) and swim around it. It is mostly symbolic, and the people with means will find ways around it. This includes the drug trade who have lots of money and ingenuity to get around the wall, and the immigrant smuggling trade who will just charge more to get people into America and will use that money to invest in the alternate means to get people into the country despite the presence of a wall. Instead, a wall harms the vulnerable (people who actually come to the United States, illegally mind you, to seek a better life) who cannot afford to or not smart enough to use the alternate means. Those people are far more likely to die in their efforts.
Without questioning Trump's mandate (which is another story altogether), and assuming that you follow his narrative that the southern border should be closed, then there are other methods that are likely far more cost-effective, including infrared sensors, drones, passive and active surveillance.
For example, many of us have gone to technology by installing cameras at our doors as a form of monitoring as an augmentation to burglar alarms, fences, guns, etc. That is a smart approach that we take. We recognize that a physical wall has its drawbacks. The president should do the same.
It's a dream come true for the 1%. Neither party will ever make an earnest effort to address the situation.
Trump's current stated goals: integrating non-criminals who are here, and tightening the boarder sound good. Though, you also have to expand legal immigration probably. And what you REALLY have to do is drop a massive hammer on businesses that make a practice of hiring illegal immigrants. This would be like if we could easily make it so heroin doesn't get you high.
Not sure if he's serious.
To me, the wall seems like more of a symbolic pork project. It's not the kind of symbolism I like. It seems dystopian to live in a country surrounded by walls.
Anyway, like I said, if he really wanted to stop it, just fine the living crap out of employers who regularly break the laws. Make it -ev for them. Create a revenue stream instead of a yuge expense.
There are what, like 300-330M people in the USA? How many of them pay taxes? Let's go with an absurdly low number, 25M taxpayers. That's $800 a person. That's assuming we're using the American 'billion' (9 zeros) and not the British 'billion' (12 zeros). I spend more than that on Chipotle a year.
Ain't ya never seen the tee shirts: We all have to believe in something and I believe I'll have another beer. Its the same thing with 'we all have to be against something too.Quote: Keyserwhy on earth are some people so vehemently against the wall?
Ya draw a line in the sand and make your choice.
You want pot holes repaired first? So what? You want your cousin hired on the wall contract? Then gotta have that wall contract.
What you expect to stand up and campaign for? Pablum? Gotta campaign for something that hits them in the gut. Good or bad, don't matter.... just not pablum.
Quote: Rigondeaux
Anyway, like I said, if he really wanted to stop it, just fine the living crap out of employers who regularly break the laws. Make it -ev for them. Create a revenue stream instead of a yuge expense.
Yeah well, he is not going to fine himself...so the wall it is.
But, walls are effective, look at the walls in Mexico and Israel.
When somebody can stroll through the desert, its far easier than walking hundreds of miles to the end of the wall and then hoping to get a secret boat around the wall.
That being said, I have no issue with the wall, it would help in someways, that is not debatable. But, the better answer to stop illegal immigration is stop incentivizing people to come here. People only will risk their lives to come here if there is a reason to do so. Whether that be state benefits, free education for their kids even if they are illegal, opportunities to skip the line and get citizenship fast, etc....
The best "wall" would be to make getting here as unrewarding and miserable as possible. Cut off all benefits regardless of how many anchor babies they have. All illegals get sent to a super-max work camp. Strict employer citizenship test for all new hires. Any employer who is found knowing hiring illegals get 20 years to life. If you make it impossible for them to live here, we will not need a wall, they will stop coming.
Oh, and no more of this English as a Second Language Free Education nonsense....... Even for legal immigrants that is obnoxious. Go to a private school if you want people to favor your language..... If I move to Mexico I would have to pay for my Kids to attend a Private English Speaking School, the Government would laugh at me if I asked for "Spanish as a Second Language".......
Quote: RS$20B for a wall sounds pretty damn cheap to me.
There are what, like 300-330M people in the USA? How many of them pay taxes? Let's go with an absurdly low number, 25M taxpayers. That's $800 a person. That's assuming we're using the American 'billion' (9 zeros) and not the British 'billion' (12 zeros). I spend more than that on Chipotle a year.
A billion is the same both in Britain and the USA: 1,000,000,000.
$21.6 billion is the actual estimated cost. That works out to about $70 for each US resident.
Of course, if you don't care about $22 billion, how about restoring CHIP then, which provides health care to 9 million children of low income families to the tune of $17 billion a year?
Or even better yet, use the $22 billion saved by not building a wall and just pay off 0.1% of the national debt.
Quote: GandlerMexico Has a Wall on its Southern Border (with much stricter militant enforcement than we have, you should see what they do to their illegal immigrants, which is something left-leaning people never want to hear when talking about how badly we treat the country of Mexico....)
But, walls are effective, look at the walls in Mexico and Israel.
When somebody can stroll through the desert, its far easier than walking hundreds of miles to the end of the wall and then hoping to get a secret boat around the wall.
That being said, I have no issue with the wall, it would help in someways, that is not debatable. But, the better answer to stop illegal immigration is stop incentivizing people to come here. People only will risk their lives to come here if there is a reason to do so. Whether that be state benefits, free education for their kids even if they are illegal, opportunities to skip the line and get citizenship fast, etc....
The best "wall" would be to make getting here as unrewarding and miserable as possible. Cut off all benefits regardless of how many anchor babies they have. All illegals get sent to a super-max work camp. Strict employer citizenship test for all new hires. Any employer who is found knowing hiring illegals get 20 years to life. If you make it impossible for them to live here, we will not need a wall, they will stop coming.
Oh, and no more of this English as a Second Language Free Education nonsense....... Even for legal immigrants that is obnoxious. Go to a private school if you want people to favor your language..... If I move to Mexico I would have to pay for my Kids to attend a Private English Speaking School, the Government would laugh at me if I asked for "Spanish as a Second Language".......
It seems you think Mexico does things right and the US does it wrong. An easy solution would be to allow open immigration so that people like you can move to Mexico and live in a country that shares your values. But that would mean the government would have to give freedom and responsibility to its citizens, something that is about as likely to happen as Trump building The Wall
Quote: RS$20B for a wall sounds pretty damn cheap to me.
There are what, like 300-330M people in the USA? How many of them pay taxes? Let's go with an absurdly low number, 25M taxpayers. That's $800 a person. That's assuming we're using the American 'billion' (9 zeros) and not the British 'billion' (12 zeros). I spend more than that on Chipotle a year.
Why would you divide the cost of The Wall by Americans or American tax payers instead of Mexicans or Mexican tax payers?
Why? Been goin' on for decades.Quote: SOOPOOWhat I am sure of it is should be a national priority to try and eliminate illegal immigration.
And now the Smugglers are bringing people from Asia and Africa into Latin America and then into the USA because the route from Africa into Europe is getting too expensive and time consuming.
Quote: SOOPOOThis is an easy one for me. I am 'against the wall' unless it is the best way to use our resources to stop illegal immigration. If it is more effective than sensors, more agents, drones, etc..., then I am for the wall. My guess is I am against the wall, but I am not well informed enough to really be sure. What I am sure of it is should be a national priority to try and eliminate illegal immigration.
We very easily could end illegal immigration tomorrow if we wanted to. All we would have to do is increase legal immigration. But that would go against the American values of big government intervention, wastefulness, and restrictions on freedom
Quote: GandlerMexico Has a Wall on its Southern Border (with much stricter militant enforcement than we have, you should see what they do to their illegal immigrants, which is something left-leaning people never want to hear when talking about how badly we treat the country of Mexico....)
But, walls are effective, look at the walls in Mexico and Israel.
When somebody can stroll through the desert, its far easier than walking hundreds of miles to the end of the wall and then hoping to get a secret boat around the wall.
That being said, I have no issue with the wall, it would help in someways, that is not debatable. But, the better answer to stop illegal immigration is stop incentivizing people to come here. People only will risk their lives to come here if there is a reason to do so. Whether that be state benefits, free education for their kids even if they are illegal, opportunities to skip the line and get citizenship fast, etc....
The best "wall" would be to make getting here as unrewarding and miserable as possible. Cut off all benefits regardless of how many anchor babies they have. All illegals get sent to a super-max work camp. Strict employer citizenship test for all new hires. Any employer who is found knowing hiring illegals get 20 years to life. If you make it impossible for them to live here, we will not need a wall, they will stop coming.
Oh, and no more of this English as a Second Language Free Education nonsense....... Even for legal immigrants that is obnoxious. Go to a private school if you want people to favor your language..... If I move to Mexico I would have to pay for my Kids to attend a Private English Speaking School, the Government would laugh at me if I asked for "Spanish as a Second Language".......
+10000
Unfortunately, liberals will never go for that, since they'd rather see their nation crumble to pieces than possibly offend someone.
Quote: boymimboA billion is the same both in Britain and the USA: 1,000,000,000.
They used to be different, that's what I was referring to.
Quote: boymimbo$21.6 billion is the actual estimated cost. That works out to about $70 for each US resident.
Of course, if you don't care about $22 billion, how about restoring CHIP then, which provides health care to 9 million children of low income families to the tune of $17 billion a year?
Or even better yet, use the $22 billion saved by not building a wall and just pay off 0.1% of the national debt.
We know not all residents pay federal taxes (children, elderly, low income / unemployed, and illegals), so breaking it down by residents is not going to be accurate on how much it'll cost me. Even breaking it down by those who pay taxes, it still wouldn't be accurate since we all have different incomes, and I'd probably be paying higher than the median taxes.
I think the money is better spent on keeping illegals out. Like (I think SooPoo said), whether that be drones, upgrades, putting men on the border, or if it means building a wall. I also don't think it's the federal government's responsibility to take care of its citizens for health care, welfare, etc. etc., while it is the fed's responsibility to protect the nation (as a whole) from illegal immigration.
Quote: TomGWhy would you divide the cost of The Wall by Americans or American tax payers instead of Mexicans or Mexican tax payers?
If the cost is gonna be eaten by Mexico, then why the hell are people b****ing about it?
Quote: RSIf the cost is gonna be eaten by Mexico, then why the hell are people b****ing about it?
A better question is why isn’t anyone bitching about Trump going back on his promise to build it?
Quote: TomGIt seems you think Mexico does things right and the US does it wrong. An easy solution would be to allow open immigration so that people like you can move to Mexico and live in a country that shares your values. But that would mean the government would have to give freedom and responsibility to its citizens, something that is about as likely to happen as Trump building The Wall
Mexico would never let me do that. And, if they did let me do that, they would have an immigration policy that I no longer respect. I respect their immigration policy because they are strict about keeping people out and strictly punishing them if they do break in.....
Second, providing social programs brings people out of poverty and increases safety and happiness. If you spend money, for example, on after-school programs and take someone out of the criminal justice system, that person becomes a valuable part of society instead of jail-ridden scum. The same is true for other programs that lend a helping hand that makes the person productive later in life. It's an investment with a measured return. Same goes for healthcare.
Third, America needs legal immigration for skilled workers and for work that Americans won't do (picking grapes, being your maid, and other crappy jobs). I am a Canadian working in the United States with a valid work Visa. I pay taxes, contribute to social security and Medicare, and besides my contributions to this forum, have been a productive part of America as a visitor. The US is virtually at full employment and unless you plan on raising the retirement age again (maybe necessary to afford Social Security) or encourage people to have children you need immigration for the nation to have economic growth.
Walls are symbolic instruments for simpletons. An immigration policy needs to include an approach that dissuades illegal immigration and yet allows people to come to America to live the American dream, whatever that is.
Quote: boymimboMexico will not pay for the wall. Why would they?
Second, providing social programs brings people out of poverty and increases safety and happiness. If you spend money, for example, on after-school programs and take someone out of the criminal justice system, that person becomes a valuable part of society instead of jail-ridden scum. The same is true for other programs that lend a helping hand that makes the person productive later in life. It's an investment with a measured return. Same goes for healthcare.
Third, America needs legal immigration for skilled workers and for work that Americans won't do (picking grapes, being your maid, and other crappy jobs). I am a Canadian working in the United States with a valid work Visa. I pay taxes, contribute to social security and Medicare, and besides my contributions to this forum, have been a productive part of America as a visitor. The US is virtually at full employment and unless you plan on raising the retirement age again (maybe necessary to afford Social Security) or encourage people to have children you need immigration for the nation to have economic growth.
Walls are symbolic instruments for simpletons. An immigration policy needs to include an approach that dissuades illegal immigration and yet allows people to come to America to live the American dream, whatever that is.
+10000
You said it better than me
Quote: boymimboMexico will not pay for the wall. Why would they?
Second, providing social programs brings people out of poverty and increases safety and happiness. If you spend money, for example, on after-school programs and take someone out of the criminal justice system, that person becomes a valuable part of society instead of jail-ridden scum. The same is true for other programs that lend a helping hand that makes the person productive later in life. It's an investment with a measured return. Same goes for healthcare.
Third, America needs legal immigration for skilled workers and for work that Americans won't do (picking grapes, being your maid, and other crappy jobs). I am a Canadian working in the United States with a valid work Visa. I pay taxes, contribute to social security and Medicare, and besides my contributions to this forum, have been a productive part of America as a visitor. The US is virtually at full employment and unless you plan on raising the retirement age again (maybe necessary to afford Social Security) or encourage people to have children you need immigration for the nation to have economic growth.
Walls are symbolic instruments for simpletons. An immigration policy needs to include an approach that dissuades illegal immigration and yet allows people to come to America to live the American dream, whatever that is.
They would if we threaten tariffs and cuting all foreign and medical aid. Or we can simply tax all money sent there.
As for social programs, I agree with most of those statements, and I do not think many would argue, I and most on my side would only say none of those benefits should go to illegals, I do not care how many anchors they have.....
You say we need legal immigration for both skilled and unskilled labor. We do not. For one thing this argument is racist of itself why should there be "some jobs Americans should not have to do". If the positions are really that hard, employers will be forced to keep raising wages and offers until an American does take the job. As for jobs in America where we need more workers of a certain skill, that is a fair statement. Most countries, especially countries with extremely small amounts of room for immigrants will only take you (regardless of what country you are from) if you are in possession of a skill the country needs or will be beneficial to the economy (IE You have a lot of money)..... Most countries do not let people wander in and get free housing and collect welfare.......
Quote: GandlerThey would if we threaten tariffs and cuting all foreign and medical aid. Or we can simply tax all money sent there.
As for social programs, I agree with most of those statements, and I do not think many would argue, I and most on my side would only say none of those benefits should go to illegals, I do not care how many anchors they have.....
You say we need legal immigration for both skilled and unskilled labor. We do not. For one thing this argument is racist of itself why should there be "some jobs Americans should not have to do". If the positions are really that hard, employers will be forced to keep raising wages and offers until an American does take the job. As for jobs in America where we need more workers of a certain skill, that is a fair statement. Most countries, especially countries with extremely small amounts of room for immigrants will only take you (regardless of what country you are from) if you are in possession of a skill the country needs or will be beneficial to the economy (IE You have a lot of money)..... Most countries do not let people wander in and get free housing and collect welfare.......
Why do so many people think applying for welfare is really simple and easy?
I personally know people who were born here who were turned away. They make you show lots of identification and then make you work for your benefits
Seems a lot of people have serious misconceptions. They just imagine free money is being handed out with a blindfold on or something
Quote: darkozWhy do so many people think applying for welfare is really simple and easy?
I personally know people who were born here who were turned away. They make you show lots of identification and then make you work for your benefits
Seems a lot of people have serious misconceptions. They just imagine free money is being handed out with a blindfold on or something
It is easier for some people than others. Remember, some states now issue Driver's License and State IDs to Illegals. It has become harder in recent years, but one reason it is so hard for real citizens is because of people abusing the system back when there was virtually no checks. But, an even bigger money drain is Education, Emergency Rooms, etc...... Again people only come here if they think they are going to an improved life, if you make it so there is zero chance of government benefits, zero change of a legal and a high chance of a federal prison sentence, we would see far fewer.
Also, what I wanted to post in that post but forgot, is we need to legalize Marijuana, and decriminalize most drugs, and that would end the vast numbers that come here to sell drugs....
Maybe they won't be shorter order cooks or maids for $4/hr and no labor laws. In fact, they can't because it's illegal.
For $18 or $20? You bet your ass they would.
It's weird so many liberals cheer on wage suppression and undermining of labor laws. And the destruction of public education.
But that's what happens when you listen to people like the Clintons.
Quote: darkozWhy do so many people think applying for welfare is really simple and easy?
I personally know people who were born here who were turned away. They make you show lots of identification and then make you work for your benefits
Seems a lot of people have serious misconceptions. They just imagine free money is being handed out with a blindfold on or something
Tell them to apply in Massachusetts/ California/ Connecticut and check the boxes. They will want for nothing. Different states do have VERY different rules. Don't assume everywhere is run the way you're familiar with. It's possible you have some misconceptions.
Quote: WBGambleTell them to apply in Massachusetts/ California/ Connecticut and check the boxes. They will want for nothing. Different states do have VERY different rules. Don't assume everywhere is run the way you're familiar with. It's possible you have some misconceptions.
They will "want for nothing"?
Seriously i doubt anyone on public assistance (and only public assistance not talking about scammers) who will say they receive so much that they "want for nothing"
Seems like its you who have misconceptions
Quote: WBGambleTell them to apply in Massachusetts/ California/ Connecticut and check the boxes. They will want for nothing. Different states do have VERY different rules. Don't assume everywhere is run the way you're familiar with. It's possible you have some misconceptions.
So here is a perfect example of disconnect
Massachusetts was your first state suggestion for people to easily apply for welfare?
https://www.sapling.com/8500863/welfare-eligibility-massachusetts
Read these requirements. They are as stringent as anywhere
I dont even need to look up the other states. The BS is already apparent
EDIT: if you are an illegal alien you do not qualify for benefits in Massachusetts. Go figure!
Looking at government pension and supplement. Is it a good life with that. I guess not.
China's Great Wall is just a symbol now. It does not serve any practical purpose at all. So use it as a tourist attraction is fine.
I read some article long time ago claiming A DOLLAR YOU SPEND ON EDUCATION TODAY WILL SAVE YOU 10 DOLLARS ON PRISON TOMORROW.
Preventive medicine provides a better life and save a lot of money for the government.
Confrontation does not make a country better. Living a good life within a wall is just another form of prison life.
$20 billion to achieve security of our southern border would be money well spent if that's what it achieved and that was all it cost. The true cost is more than I am willing to support if you include the abandonment of a valuable piece of America, loss of agriculture, flood damage, harm to wildlife and the cost of defending law suits for all of the above.
Most of the border is defined by rivers. A wall needs to be located far enough from the bank to allow for flood conditions. How far is difficult to say because the size of floods is unpredictable, but a flood plane boundary has been established. So what is between the wall and the river? In the case of the Rio Grande there are vegetable farms, cattle ranches inherited from the king of Spain, many homes and three wildlife preserves as well as a rich biodiversity. The wall would cross thousands of creeks and arroyos some of which are dry for years at a time only until flooding calls them into action to drain the country into the river. The wall would act as a dam causing flooding. This is already happening with the existing fence when it gets clogged with debris.
DHS has been allowed to waive all federal laws impeding their progress by a 2005 law. They are under no obligation to engineer their way around these problems. The wall is more than a waste of money, it's massively destructive.
National Environmental Policy Act
Endangered Species Act
Clean Water Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Air Act
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Noise Control Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Antiquities Act
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
Wilderness Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Administrative Procedure Act
Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999
California Desert Protection Act
National Park Service Organic Act
National Park Service General Authorities Act
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Eagle Protection Act
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
National Forest Management Act of 1976
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960
Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977
Heck, even the Berlin Wall couldn't stop people from escaping, and that was in the middle of a city and constantly guarded by the military.
You forgot the way that 80% plus of immigrants come to the US illegally... They fly on a plane over the wall then overstay their visa. The wall would be 110% WORTHLESS and an eyesore of racism to the US... not to mention the billions of dollars wasted. The wall is literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and yet somehow people eat that sh%t up. I think the thread should be: "What mathematical, logical, or sane reason could you possibly want the wall for???"Quote: TigerWuWaste of time and money unless we also want to front the manpower to guard every square inch of it 24/7. Otherwise people are just going to climb over it, dig under it, or plow right through it.
Heck, even the Berlin Wall couldn't stop people from escaping, and that was in the middle of a city and constantly guarded by the military.
Quote: RomesYou forgot the way that 80% plus of immigrants come to the US illegally... They fly on a plane over the wall then overstay their visa. The wall would be 110% WORTHLESS and an eyesore of racism to the US... not to mention the billions of dollars wasted. The wall is literally the stupidest idea I've ever heard, and yet somehow people eat that sh%t up. I think the thread should be: "What mathematical, logical, or sane reason could you possibly want the wall for???"
I’m good with no wall in exchange for no visas. Problem solved, win/ win for everyone.
Same as it ever was.
Quote: JimRockfordThe true cost is more than I am willing to support if you include the abandonment of a valuable piece of America, loss of agriculture, flood damage, harm to wildlife and the cost of defending law suits for all of the above.
If the wall prevents even one piece of dung like This Useless POS from entering the country, it's worth every penny.
Quote: TankoIf the wall prevents even one piece of dung like This Useless POS from entering the country, it's worth every penny.
Was he from Norway?
Personally, my neighborhood needs more roving gangs of Swedish girls.
Quote: RogerKint
Personally, my neighborhood needs more roving gangs of Swedish girls.
That's an immigration policy I can get behind.
If we're going to waste money on a wall for Mexico, let's dump a few billion more on a bridge to Scandinavia!
30 ft seems to be the recommended height to be most effective. Maybe it will make people happy when we have to go rescue seriously injured people who fall. That will add to the overall cost. Healthy hombres will make it over, like gang members.
Quote:The highly trained testers scaled 16 to 20 feet (5 to 6 meters) unassisted but needed help after that, said the official, who described the assaults on the wall prototypes to the AP. Testers also expressed safety concerns about getting down from 30 feet.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/border-wall-tests-find-heights-should-keep-out-crossers/ar-AAuTKPs?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz
Just for fun, here's a guy coming down a 40ft ladder in a couple seconds.