(01-09-2019 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not always, but no one is arguing that the CURRENT walls and fences around the major areas are not working or not necessary. My point is that we don't need much more in the way of a wall then what we already have. The alleged crisis pushed by this administration, drugs and gangs, is occurring at designed points of entry where walls and fences already exist. I'm fine with increasing the budget to fortify those locations and improve security and screenings.

The idea of a wall from one end of the border to the other is wasteful. But walls do work in certain areas, and some significant extensions/additions are probably justified.

When the choice is one of two extremes--open borders or a wall--I tend to come down more on the side of the wall. But what we really need is a rational comprehensive immigration policy. Wall or no wall, without a rational immigration policy, we're setting ourselves up for nothing but dueling soundbites about "women and children" versus "rapists and murderers." The bottom line is that there are some of both, and we need a rational policy that distinguishes between them.

The only thing I take issue with here is the notion that anyone in a position of power is working toward a totally open border. There's NO realistic chance of that EVER occurring, so why even mention it as a "choice"?