▲
0
0
▼

What's True and What's Not, About Trump's Wall ?


 invite response                
2019 Jan 19, 2:15pm   7,775 views  44 comments

by marcus   ➕follow (7)   💰tip   ignore  

For starters we have something like 700 miles of "wall" on the southern border already. Here's an interesting piece about Tijuana that desribes the 2 walls that helped redifine the city decades ago.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/25/us-mexico-border-wall-works-tijuana-218835

It's interesting. I've never been there, but I heard about it back in the day (1980 or so).

Here's another one that the liars that say democrats are for open borders need to read.

Democrats aren’t saying no to physical barriers on the border. They are saying no to Trump.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown


Some quotes for the lazy:

“No matter how you put lipstick on this pig, [the wall] is still a campaign promise that he has failed to deliver because he lied about it,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), who represents a border district.

:
:
:
When Pelosi says Democrats will never vote for “the wall,” she is not saying that Democrats will forever oppose funding physical barriers on the southern border. After all, between 2007 and 2015, Customs and Border Protection spent $2.3 billion building and maintaining 654 miles of physical barriers on the southern border, which Democrats supported, and Democrats have voted for funding as recently as 2018. As one top Democratic aide said, they would support physical barriers again, if it “makes sense.”

What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform. That’s where Trump and Republicans misunderstand Pelosi and Democrats’ position on the government shutdown and border wall fight. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Democrats can call the wall whatever they like, as long as they give him the money to build it.

:
:
:
:
:
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), a more conservative Democrat from a border district, has some sketches of physical barriers that he said would also serve as a flood deterrent and community space on the Rio Grande river in Laredo, Texas. He says it’s the kind of compromise Trump should be talking about.

But Cuellar wants to be clear: He continues to be staunchly opposed to “the wall,” calling it a fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of the southern border. In fact, all nine lawmakers who represent the nation’s southern border in the House, including Republican Rep. Will Hurd, have opposed every iteration of Trump’s border wall.

Almost all of them have supported physical barriers on the border in some form. But they say that can’t be the centerpiece of the proposal.

:
:
:
:
Trump has made “the wall” mean many things since entering office. On the 2016 campaign trail, it quite literally meant a 50-foot concrete wall along the 2,000-mile border. Over the past two years, the wall has become “see-through” and perhaps less contiguous (there are canyons and rivers, after all). In the past several months, Trump has called for “steel slats” or “concrete.” He doesn’t care what Democrats call the physical barrier. To Trump, it’s all a wall.

For Democrats, that’s the problem.

When Trump talks about physical barriers, he’s talking about a lot more than just the material that barrier is made of. Democrats are refusing to give Trump the political win.

“It’s a political gimmick, and we shouldn’t justify it,” said Rep. Peters. “The wall is more of a symbol instead of a structure. It is a symbol of racism. The message is still a racist dog whistle. It’s not a wall.”

Trump’s case for a border wall isn’t based in real data. Instead, he likes to remind people that he made a campaign promise to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it in 2016 and won.

Even when Trump tried to make a humanitarian appeal — citing the record number of children coming to the border and saying his plan includes an “urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support” — the wall he promised on the campaign trail was still the centerpiece of his proposal.

« First        Comments 6 - 44 of 44        Search these comments

7   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 3:21pm  

The wall has been authorized since the 1990s. It's time to get it done.

It's the equivalent of spending $60 once out of a $45,000 annual budget. One third of NASA's budget.

The only reason to oppose is purely political.
8   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 3:50pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The only reason to oppose is purely political.


More lies. Did you read any of what I posted ? Trumps "position" is purely political.

Does your emotion about all things Trump prevent you from being objective for even a minute ?




marcus says
When Pelosi says Democrats will never vote for “the wall,” she is not saying that Democrats will forever oppose funding physical barriers on the southern border. After all, between 2007 and 2015, Customs and Border Protection spent $2.3 billion building and maintaining 654 miles of physical barriers on the southern border, which Democrats supported, and Democrats have voted for funding as recently as 2018. As one top Democratic aide said, they would support physical barriers again, if it “makes sense.”

What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform. That’s where Trump and Republicans misunderstand Pelosi and Democrats’ position on the government shutdown and border wall fight. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Democrats can call the wall whatever they like, as long as they give him the money to build it.


The least you could do is be aware of the nuances of what's going on.

You really want future Presidents to cry like little babies and shut down the government if congress doesn't give them what they want ?
9   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 3:54pm  

jazz_music says
Oh it's not like they would ever reduce their opposition to a strawman because they have no real justification for a fucking wall to begin with.


Yep. Suddenly they think it's totally cool for a President to shut down the government to get congress to give him what he wants (when what he wants is just an extra $20 or $30 billion (or at least a 5.7 billion down payment to satisfy his base) on something the government has slowly (and intelligently) but surely been implementing for decades).

For some reason (NOT RACISM) it's SO important that the center piece of border security (WHICH HAS GROWN MASSIVELY IN RECENT DECADES ) be a symbolic and expensive physical wall that will cost tens of billions of dollars.
10   MrMagic   2019 Jan 19, 3:55pm  

marcus says
What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform. That’s where Trump and Republicans misunderstand Pelosi and Democrats’ position on the government shutdown and border wall fight. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Democrats can call the wall whatever they like, as long as they give him the money to build it.


What Trump is trying to do is give the Border Patrol (you know, the EXPERTS in knowing what's going on), the tools and structure that they are asking for, to do their jobs.

Why do the Democrats want to hamper the Border Patrol, and not give them the "tools" that they want and need?
11   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 3:59pm  

jazz_music says
that strawman that arrived while I was typing about the use of strawman to cover for the lack of a factual argument


He has a reputation to live up to.
12   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 4:10pm  

marcus says
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The only reason to oppose is purely political.


More lies. Did you read any of what I posted ? Trumps "position" is purely political.
marcus says
Democrats aren’t saying no to physical barriers on the border. They are saying no to Trump.

Sounds like politics to me.
13   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 4:19pm  

Onvacation says
Sounds like politics to me


Yes, but that doesn't mean that the $5.7 billion spent on the very beginning of a 20 or 30 billion dollar project is an intelligent (let alone the most intelligent) investment in border
security we could make right now.

Or that even more so, what Trump wants here is political.

Again, be aware that you guys are advocating a Presidents tantrum to shut the government over congress not giving him what he wants.
14   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 4:26pm  

marcus says

Again, be aware that you guys are advocating a Presidents tantrum to shut the government over congress not giving him what he wants.

That's one difference between you and us "guys" we don't care if the government is shut down. We wish it would stay closed and stop picking our pocket. One of the few jobs of government is to protect the border.

Can you give any reasons for NOT putting up a barrier to stop illegal trespassers? As if there were legal trespassers.
15   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 4:29pm  

marcus says
advocating a Presidents tantrum

What tantrum?
Trump has been acting presidential. Much better acting than Bush or Obama and at least as entertaining as Clinton.
Don't forget that it's all political theatre and as long as we fight each other, the swamp wins.
16   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 4:32pm  

marcus says

More lies. Did you read any of what I posted ? Trumps "position" is purely political.

Does your emotion about all things Trump prevent you from being objective for even a minute ?


Like I said, there is no fiscal reason not to fund the wall. The amount is minimal and multiple previous Congresses have already Authorized.

Furthermore, the Dems are being offered DACA concessions in return.

Their unwillingness to concede is pure politics. This is the objective analysis of the situation.

You're under the mistaken impression that not agreeing with you != incomprehension.
17   theoakman   2019 Jan 19, 4:32pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
marcus says

More lies. Did you read any of what I posted ? Trumps "position" is purely political.

Does your emotion about all things Trump prevent you from being objective for even a minute ?


Like I said, there is no fiscal reason not to fund the wall. The amount is minimal and multiple previous Congresses have already Authorized.

Furthermore, the Dems are being offered DACA concessions in return.

Their unwillingness to concede is pure politics. This is the objective analysis of the situation.

Denying it is emotionial partisanship.


Dems don't actually want to help DACAs. If they did, they wouldn't have any more innocent victims to use for their opposition.
18   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 4:33pm  

Onvacation says
marcus says
Democrats aren’t saying no to physical barriers on the border. They are saying no to Trump.

Sounds like politics to me.


That's literally why it's political. It's because Trump wants it, that they don't want it.
19   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 4:37pm  

Onvacation says
Can you give any reasons for NOT putting up a barrier to stop illegal trespassers? As if there were legal trespassers.


Did you read ?


marcus says
When Pelosi says Democrats will never vote for “the wall,” she is not saying that Democrats will forever oppose funding physical barriers on the southern border. After all, between 2007 and 2015, Customs and Border Protection spent $2.3 billion building and maintaining 654 miles of physical barriers on the southern border, which Democrats supported, and Democrats have voted for funding as recently as 2018. As one top Democratic aide said, they would support physical barriers again, if it “makes sense.”

What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform. That’s where Trump and Republicans misunderstand Pelosi and Democrats’ position on the government shutdown and border wall fight. On Friday, Trump told reporters that Democrats can call the wall whatever they like, as long as they give him the money to build it.


The best reason is that we have a system of governance - so called "checks and balances, " with 3 branches.

The way we do things is through negotiation, and taking into account what all the full time experts in border security think. Not just giving the baby what he wants - which sure seems like something little more than symbolic from his campaign.

If what the experts say is true, that the wall would be inefficient, and not the best investment we can make right now (in border security) then the full 20 or 40 or whatever it is billion dollar wall will never be built, and the $5.7 initial part would be money wasted.

Can you give a reason why Trump shouldn't work with congress to simply continue building and maintaining and investing the walls and all the guards, technology, and other assets they already have, but then also to instead spend money on ports, and amnesty courts etc., that is to have some sort of balanced spending on border security which Trump alone does not get exclusive credit for ?

He could get a deal on border security. But it wouldn't be a $5.7 billion down payment on his wall. And it would be something that was negotiated collaboratively, you know with committees that have put 1000s of hours into this stuff.

Remember this is America, not some third world dictatorship.
20   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 4:43pm  

marcus says
The best reason is that we have a system of governance - so called "checks and balances, " with 3 branches.


Yep.

marcus says
The way we do things is through negotiation, and taking into account what all the full time experts in border security think. Not just giving the baby what he wants - which sure seems like something little more than symbolic from his campaign.


Full Experts on the Border Security - not Low Wage Employers (such as Bezos and the Koch Brothers) and Political Activist Groups (such as La Raza, CATO, etc) with ulterior motives other than Border Security. The full time Border Experts want it.
http://ktar.com/story/2389421/border-patrol-union-chief-sees-necessity-of-trump-wall/

Therefore, Marcus, since you insist that Full Time Experts on Border Security be the primary sources of advice, there you go.

As for negotiation, the offer to exchange DACA actions for Wall Funding was made and rejected with no counter-offer.

What Border Security are the Dems offering? Not checkpoint security, the entire border.
21   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 4:59pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
What Border Security are the Dems offering? Not checkpoint security, the entire border.




22   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 4:59pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
since you insist that Full Time Experts on Border Security be the primary sources of advice, there you go.


Full time wasn't my point. My point was that a lot of people have spend a lot of time - and actually have careers thinking about this stuff.

That union chief is one person. He doesn't weigh all the different issues and objectives and come up with the best use of finite funds. He's saying Trumps wall would make their job easier or better.

It's interesting though, that he's not worried that the wall will hurt their job numbers.

"$5 billion question: How border-security experts would spend money Trump wants for a wall"
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/2019/01/08/wall-experts-give-best-ideas-5-billion-border-spending/2515167002/
23   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 5:03pm  

marcus says
Did you read ?

Please summarize
Onvacation says
Can you give any reasons for NOT putting up a barrier to stop illegal trespassers? As if there were legal trespassers.

Just ONE simple reason for not putting up barriers to trespassers besides Trump wants it done?
24   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:07pm  

IT's clear you have no interest in reading and even less reason in comprehending any answer I give you. What I've given you is already very concise and easy to understand.

marcus says
If what the experts say is true, that the wall would be inefficient, and not the best investment we can make right now (in border security) in which case the full 20 or 40 or whatever it is billion dollar wall will never be built, and the $5.7 initial part would be money wasted.

Can you give a reason why Trump shouldn't work with congress to simply continue building and maintaining and investing the walls and all the guards, technology, and other assets they already have, but then also to instead spend money on ports, and amnesty courts etc., that is to have some sort of balanced spending on border security which Trump alone does not get exclusive credit for ?

He could get a deal on border security. But it wouldn't be a $5.7 billion down payment on his wall. And it would be something that was negotiated collaboratively, you know with committees that have put 1000s of hours into this stuff.

Remember this is America, not some third world dictatorship.
25   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 5:08pm  

marcus says
Can you give a reason why Trump shouldn't work with congress to simply continue building and maintaining and investing the walls

Yes, becasue congress refuses to work with Trump. All of the wall's opponents supported it with words before the actuality of a president who would do the deed.
26   Bd6r   2019 Jan 19, 5:14pm  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
By the time the eminent domain hearings start

This is the $TRILLION question - landowners will fight eminent domain for years
27   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:17pm  

Onvacation says
All of the wall's opponents supported it with words before the actuality of a president who would do the deed.


This is a lie - Fox NEws propaganda.

What they supported was what they have done in the past couple decades which does include 700 miles of wall, and massive increases in border security. This was the result of previous negotiated policy on southern border security.


Some might have talked about a wall (again which they built) but show me one case of a democrat currently opposing Trumps wall, advocated a $20 to $40 billion on a wall ?
28   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 5:17pm  

marcus says

marcus says
If what the experts say is true, that the wall would be inefficient, and not the best investment we can make right now (in border security) in which case the full 20 or 40 or whatever it is billion dollar wall will never be built, and the $5.7 initial part would be money wasted.

Can you give a reason why Trump shouldn't work with congress to simply continue building and maintaining and investing the walls and all the guards, technology, and other assets they already have, but then also to instead spend money on ports, and amnesty courts etc., that is to have some sort of balanced spending on border security which Trump alone does not get exclusive credit for ?

He could get a deal on border security. But it wouldn't be a $5.7 billion down payment on his wall. And it would be something that was negotiated collaboratively, you know with committees that have put 1000s of hours i...


To summarize: Wall bad BecaSue tRump like.
29   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:19pm  

Better summary. You are unable to take in any real factual based or nuanced reasoning.

I'm not denying the political aspects of this on either side.
30   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 5:21pm  

marcus says
I'm not denying the political aspects

And it's disgraceful that the dems are putting politics ahead of border security.
31   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:23pm  

Another Fox News lie.

Objectivity man ! It's a thing.
32   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 5:27pm  

marcus says


The GOP increased the BP around 300% between 94 and 2006. Good work, GOP!
33   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 5:29pm  

marcus says
Full time wasn't my point.


Those are your words!

marcus says
That union chief is one person. He doesn't weigh all the different issues and objectives and come up with the best use of finite funds. He's saying Trumps wall would make their job easier or better.


The Union Chief heads an organization of people whose FULL TIME job is to be worried about border security.

"Weigh all the different issues" = "Cheap labor, more voters! Pack 'em in my slum 5 deep!"
34   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 5:31pm  

marcus says

"$5 billion question: How border-security experts would spend money Trump wants for a wall"
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/2019/01/08/wall-experts-give-best-ideas-5-billion-border-spending/2515167002/


LOL, the very first "Border Expert" isn't interested in security, but from the Migration Policy Institute, and interested only in increasing the skyhigh, excessive, already 500% more than the 2nd and 3rd biggest immigration destinations, level of immigration even higher by speeding up the Asylum Courts.

He's not "weighing all the different issues", he's pushing for more immigration.

Here's an analogy. "Let's ask Full Time Crime Enforcers how they feel they should proceed. Let's start with this article, that starts with an interview with a BLM Activist."
"How about a Cop?"
"Naaah, we need somebody who is weighing all the different issues. Here's what she said:

All cops are White Supremacists, Jamal dindu nuttin wrong when he pistol whipped the pregnant teller and took the cash. Da 5-0 was wrong to shoot him when he pulled out a Tec-9"
35   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:34pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
he's pushing for more immigration.


OR is it saving lives.

You say Potato.
36   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 5:35pm  

marcus says

OR is it saving lives.

You say Potato.


You just said "Border Security". Now it's saving lives?
37   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 5:38pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
You just said "Border Security". Now it's saving lives?


NO but dealing with a back up of people (some legitimate) seeking asylum is a part of a total package or border issues that need to be dealt with. Even Trump wants to claim that the humanitarian aspect of this is important.

Putting up a wall doesn't deal with so many aspects of our southern border problems. Including illegal immigration even !

But again - just a reminder we have 700 miles of wall and recent massive increases (before Trump) in manpower and technology dedicated to minimizing illegal immigration.
38   HeadSet   2019 Jan 19, 5:51pm  

What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform.

This is why the left is distrusted. Trump is not "anti-immigrant," he is anti ILLEGAL immigrant. The way the left ignores the difference between illegal and legal immigration in their rhetoric, plus the sanctuary cities and drivers licences for illegals, indicates the left opposes any method that would hamper illegal immigration. That includes the wall, and would include E-Verify and HxB visa rules should anyone try to actually enforce them.
39   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 7:02pm  

marcus says
NO but dealing with a back up of people (some legitimate) seeking asylum is a part of a total package or border issues that need to be dealt with. Even Trump wants to claim that the humanitarian aspect of this is important.


Absolutely nothing to do with the wall. You can request asylum at any US embassy or checkpoint. You don't need to sneak over border.
40   Onvacation   2019 Jan 19, 7:52pm  

HeadSet says
What Pelosi is saying is that Trump doesn’t get to shut down the government as a way to fulfill a campaign promise — especially one that carries the baggage of his anti-immigration platform.

This is why the left is distrusted. Trump is not "anti-immigrant," he is anti ILLEGAL immigrant. The way the left ignores the difference between illegal and legal immigration in their rhetoric, plus the sanctuary cities and drivers licences for illegals, indicates the left opposes any method that would hamper illegal immigration. That includes the wall, and would include E-Verify and HxB visa rules should anyone try to actually enforce them.

Quoted so I could like it again.

Well said!
41   Bd6r   2019 Jan 19, 8:38pm  

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
You don't want to live in a country in which they can't or won't.

agreed 1000%. Texans axed Transamerican transport corridor or whatever it was called some time ago because it was encroaching on their land. Hope they can shut down this land grab also. Note that many elected R's of border counties are not fans of WALL! as well.

I don't care much for or against WALL! (other than thinking that other methods for preventing entry of/kicking out illegals may be more efficient, see Eisenhower), but taking away private land is not OK.
42   marcus   2019 Jan 19, 8:55pm  

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Absolutely nothing to do with the wall. You can request asylum at any US embassy or checkpoint. You don't need to sneak over border.


It has to with money allocated or budgeted nationally for border related expenditures.. Trump wants $20 to 30 billion or more to go a wall, with the first $5.7 billion now, OR ELSE !!!

You're going to tell me we have just as much money for dealing with security of ports and asylum courts and other border security national expenditures if we spend $30 billion on a wall ?
43   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jan 19, 10:12pm  

marcus says
It has to with money allocated or budgeted nationally for border related expenditures.. Trump wants $20 to 30 billion or more to go a wall, with the first $5.7 billion now, OR ELSE !!!


We already have the highest intake of immigrants than any other country in the world. #2, Germany, has a FIFTH of the rate we do (rate, not raw numbers)

We need to control our borders as we now share one with a failed narcostate. That is a priority.

Again, prohibiting any household member from working or spending simply because one member demands a one time $60 item of $47,000 is really stupid.
44   kt1652   2019 Mar 9, 7:54pm  

I got nothin’, bro. They’ll just hop the wall with drones.
www.youtube.com/embed/WCbGwxYiWug?t=1014

« First        Comments 6 - 44 of 44        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste