Maybe it is time to split the Wall from the rest of the Get Trump stuff. This seems to be a sober, fearless pursuit of the topic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck...li=BBnb7Kz

I have always opposed a wall if it is from San Diego to Brownsville. But it appears that there are some places where, if combined with better patrol and enforcement, a wall could do some good.

I think enforcement of our immigration laws is good, as is knowing who is in our country. I oppose open borders.

Some will try to make this a racial or xenophobic thing. it is neither, on the part of myself and nearly every other person involved.

FYI, one of my cousins was recently appointed a Federal immigration judge.

Well, I thought the Prsident’s Offer was reasonable. The Pelosi-led Resistance rejected it out of hand. So much for compromise and working together.

One thing I haven’t heard anybody comment on was the three year extension of protections. Three tears would extend them deep into the next Presidential term. Maybe the Dems are not so confident they will control the WH then.

(01-19-2019 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I thought the Prsident’s Offer was reasonable. The Pelosi-led Resistance rejected it out of hand. So much for compromise and working together.

One thing I haven’t heard anybody comment on was the three year extension of protections. Three tears would extend them deep into the next Presidential term. Maybe the DMs are not so confident they will control the WH then.

This means McConnell is willing to kick off things in the Senate. No reason for the D's to negotiate until the Senate passes legislation. The sausage machine is grinding again.

Bottom line: Democrats don't want to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. Along as they view a steady stream of illegal aliens as a steady stream of future democrat voters, they do not want to reduce or eliminate illegal; immigration.

Disagree? Fine, start by explaining the democrat plan to reduce illegal immigration.

(01-19-2019 08:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Democrats don't want to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. Along as they view a steady stream of illegal aliens as a steady stream of future democrat voters, they do not want to reduce or eliminate illegal; immigration.

Disagree? Fine, start by explaining the democrat plan to reduce illegal immigration.

THAT would be something to see.

(01-19-2019 08:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Democrats don't want to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. Along as they view a steady stream of illegal aliens as a steady stream of future democrat voters, they do not want to reduce or eliminate illegal; immigration.

Disagree? Fine, start by explaining the democrat plan to reduce illegal immigration.

The last president deported more illegal immigrants than anyone previous. It was exactly as ineffective as the wall idea. These grandiose tactics dont work. Its play acting like the TSA - lots of drama, no tangible results.

So no, it's not like one side has a genius solution and the other doesnt. Both have had equally stupid ideas that are better left in campaign rhetoric than actually see the light of day.

(01-20-2019 12:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 08:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Democrats don't want to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. Along as they view a steady stream of illegal aliens as a steady stream of future democrat voters, they do not want to reduce or eliminate illegal; immigration.
Disagree? Fine, start by explaining the democrat plan to reduce illegal immigration.

The last president deported more illegal immigrants than anyone previous. It was exactly as ineffective as the wall idea.

Not exactly. If you do some checking, I think you will find that they changed their method of counting. Previously only people who had gotten into the country and were apprehended and deported were counting. They changed and began counting those turned away at the border too. So you're talking apples and oranges.

Quote:These grandiose tactics dont work. Its play acting like the TSA - lots of drama, no tangible results.

Agree, it's kind of kabuki immigration control now.

Quote:So no, it's not like one side has a genius solution and the other doesnt. Both have had equally stupid ideas that are better left in campaign rhetoric than actually see the light of day.

So what is your plan? What is--or should be--the democrats' plan?

I oppose the wall because it simply will not work. Read some of the El Chapo testimony- drugs and illegal smuggling (including people) arent coming in because the unpatrolled areas dont have a wall; loads comes through legal crossings.

Building a wall will have the efficiency of the TSA. Meaning they are more porous than a sieve; a few years ago, 76 out of 77 items made it through the TSA in a red team exercise, including semtex and a pistol.

The wall is rah-rah campaign rhetoric. It's time to move on. Otherwise it will be like the Rice EZF... a building that people hung their hopes on to solve things, only to be much poorer and bitterly disappointed.

(01-20-2019 12:35 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I oppose the wall because it simply will not work. Read some of the El Chapo testimony- drugs and illegal smuggling (including people) arent coming in because the unpatrolled areas dont have a wall; loads comes through legal crossings.
Building a wall will have the efficiency of the TSA. Meaning they are more porous than a sieve; a few years ago, 76 out of 77 items made it through the TSA in a red team exercise, including semtex and a pistol.
The wall is rah-rah campaign rhetoric. It's time to move on. Otherwise it will be like the Rice EZF... a building that people hung their hopes on to solve things, only to be much poorer and bitterly disappointed.

Understand. Not a wall fan myself. But we don't need to talk about what NOT to do. What about what to do INSTEAD?

I like Will Hurd's SMART Wall idea. And I like a merit-based immigration system, like Canada for one. And I support permanent guest worker status for those already here illegally who are working and keeping their noses clean. Among others.

(01-20-2019 12:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So what is your plan? What is--or should be--the democrats' plan?

Eliminate birthright citizenship for children of non citizens.

This would still allow the country to be immigrant friendly, while keeping it in control. All while having a billion times more impact than a wall could dream of.

(01-20-2019 12:40 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 12:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So what is your plan? What is--or should be--the democrats' plan?

Eliminate birthright citizenship for children of non citizens.
This would still allow the country to be immigrant friendly, while keeping it in control. All while having a billion times more impact than a wall could dream of.

I would say eliminate birthright citizenship if the parents are not here legally. That would be slightly less restrictive. I added several thoughts to my post.

Im still lost as to why a wall is 'immoral'.

(01-20-2019 05:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still lost as to why a wall is 'immoral'.

You're the first person in this thread to use immoral, moral or any variation on the word.

What are you referring to?

(01-20-2019 12:35 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I oppose the wall because it simply will not work.

At least one border security professional with plenty of experience, and not from Trump’s camp, disagrees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...08a94ae0e7

A wall by itself is useless.

A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.

I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.

But some places, a wall could be of use.

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.

A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.

I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.

But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?

You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

(01-21-2019 12:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.
A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.
I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.
But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?
You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

I don't know that I'd go to the extreme of calling a wall "beyond idiotic." But I do agree that it won't be the panacea that it does appear many Trump supporters expect it to be. I would guess most people who expect it to be the end-all solution have not spent much time on the border.

Also, a wall patrolled by men and technology means something very different than the Berlin Wall. I think OO threw that out as an extreme case, but I think you adapted to your sarcastic question somewhat disingenuously. Do you seriously believe anyone is legitimately suggesting that? I do no believe agents will be ordered to shoot to kill, but I would expect some cases where that will be the outcome, particularly when the agents' safety is threatened, just as now. I would expect a wall to reduce, rather than increase, such situations. I do find it somewhat troubling that in all this, the one set of voices that seems to be going unheard, or at least unrelied upon, is that of the agents themselves. Build what they think will help the most. I think that answer is something like Will Hurd's SMART Wall combination of barrier, technology, and manpower.

The real reason why I don't think a wall is the answer is that, without a rational and comprehensive immigration policy, I don't see how it could be utilized properly. We need a policy that expands legal immigration on a merit base, and removes incentives for illegal immigration. And I don't think democrats want a sensible immigration policy. Any sensible policy would not permit a steady stream of illegals to enter, and as long as democrats see that stream as a steady stream of democrat voters, they do not want to end it. That's a perfectly rational team over country strategy, and entirely consistent with, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat."

The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous. We have lost focus on the one area of the world that should be within our sphere of influence, to focus on an area that largely does not matter to our self-interest any more. And make no mistake, China and Russia are filling the gap. If we don't start paying attention, the future impact will make this immigration problem pale beside it.

(01-21-2019 12:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.

A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.

I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.

But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?

You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

Thank you for your willful misinterpretation of my comments. How leftist of you! Nancy would be so proud.

I have listened to the explanations that there are some places that a wall works, and I have listened to the BP agents talk, and so have modified my position. In left-speak, I have evolved.

A lonely wall in the wilderness will stop nothing and nobody. A wall is just a roof, and a tool without a person using it accomplishes nothing. A wall, patrolled by an adequate force of men with adequate technology can be effective. If you don’t like the examples I gave, think of the walls around our embassies around the world or the wall around the WH.

I think a wall in so,e places may be useful, if patrolled. We already have some of those, voted in and paid for by Democrats. Do you propose we tear those down? Why are they not immoral?

C,e down to one thing - the RESISTANCE. IF trump is for it, then they are against it. It is opposition that Trump, not not a wall. Just dirty politics as usual.

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.