Poll: Do you favor a border wall across our southern border in areas where Border Patrol leadership and Homeland Securty have deemed it necessary? This poll is closed.
I favor significant improvement in border security, including a wall or barrier where the border patrol leadership says that's the best answer, and other means including technology, equipment, and manpower. The political trade that I would try to make is increased legal immigration in exchange for reduced or eliminated illegal immigration.
I don't think that will fly with democrats, but I would try it. Democrats do not want to end illegal immigration, because they se a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters. Their words may not say that, but the policies they favor do say that--sanctuary cities, catch-and-release, eliminate ICE, give non-citizens the vote.
(02-04-2019 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I favor significant improvement in border security, including a wall or barrier where the border patrol leadership says that's the best answer, and other means including technology, equipment, and manpower. The political trade that I would try to make is increased legal immigration in exchange for reduced or eliminated illegal immigration.
I don't think that will fly with democrats, but I would try it. Democrats do not want to end illegal immigration, because they se a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters. Their words may not say that, but the policies they favor do say that--sanctuary cities, catch-and-release, eliminate ICE, give non-citizens the vote.
Trump said he only wants the wall and nothing else.
(02-04-2019 12:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: If I'm the democrats I'd just keep offering the 1.3 billion for border fencing and security...that's the compromise.
(02-04-2019 11:32 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote: Do you favor a border wall at our southern border in areas where the border patrol leadership states it is needed?
Not only the wall, but deploying the military to guard our border from unwanted invaders.
(02-04-2019 12:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: If I'm the democrats I'd just keep offering the 1.3 billion for border fencing and security...that's the compromise.
(02-04-2019 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I favor significant improvement in border security, including a wall or barrier where the border patrol leadership says that's the best answer, and other means including technology, equipment, and manpower. The political trade that I would try to make is increased legal immigration in exchange for reduced or eliminated illegal immigration.
I don't think that will fly with democrats, but I would try it. Democrats do not want to end illegal immigration, because they se a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters. Their words may not say that, but the policies they favor do say that--sanctuary cities, catch-and-release, eliminate ICE, give non-citizens the vote.
Incorrect. Trump has publicly stated that he wants the wall along with increased numbers of Border Patrol personnel, electronic security, immigration reform measures, etc.
Trump said he only wants the wall and nothing else.
Some of you Libs seem to think ICE is some type of jobs program like you do with everything the FedGov does. This is about securing the border with a passive system known to work and hopefully REDUCING the manpower needed, not adding to it.
(02-04-2019 11:32 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote: Do you favor a border wall at our southern border in areas where the border patrol leadership states it is needed?
(02-04-2019 11:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I favor significant improvement in border security, including a wall or barrier where the border patrol leadership says that's the best answer, and other means including technology, equipment, and manpower. The political trade that I would try to make is increased legal immigration in exchange for reduced or eliminated illegal immigration.
I don't think that will fly with democrats, but I would try it. Democrats do not want to end illegal immigration, because they se a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters. Their words may not say that, but the policies they favor do say that--sanctuary cities, catch-and-release, eliminate ICE, give non-citizens the vote.
Correct. Democrats want open borders. They want to import more poverty as they see the poverty stricken as a built-in Democrat constituency. Their logic is more US citizens mired in poverty equals more democrat votes.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2019 02:17 PM by Attackcoog.)
(02-04-2019 01:49 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote: Some of you Libs seem to think ICE is some type of jobs program like you do with everything the FedGov does. This is about securing the border with a passive system known to work and hopefully REDUCING the manpower needed, not adding to it.
This. As I’ve said before, it’s a force multiplier. If CBP and ICE aren’t spending an inordinate amount of time chasing guys through deserts and having to drive in endless circles over vast hundreds of miles they can be redeployed to do the other stuff Fransicko NaN claims to want.
More manpower at ports of entry, actual shipping ports, chasing down the visa overstays, busting up the birth tourism rings and alllllll the other problems our crap immigration system seemingly allows.
Build the damn “physical barrier”. Call it whatever you’d like.
(02-04-2019 02:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: "good fences make good neighbors"
Trump should take the 1.3 Billion for border fencing and keep America open for business.
Mexico is a failed state. There ain't a fence capable of making them a good neighbor.
Mexico is middle-to-upper-middle class among world nations.
Depending on the ranking, Mexico is around 60-70th out of about 200 countries in GDP/capita. That's about 35th percentile.
If you take out tiny countries, Mexico is about 20th percentile.
Its a failed state. The drug lords control Mexico and the state is powerless to stop them. In fact, much of the "government" is corrupt and in bed with the cartels. If ISIS or Al-Qaeda were as prevelant as the cartels in a nation---most would likely consider it a failed state.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2019 03:15 PM by Attackcoog.)
I used to be for a physical wall, then I read about Arizona's legislation directed at employers. The result of that legislation was self-deportation of illegals.
That made me realize a physical wall wasn't needed.
Then I thought about it some more.
A wall is but one part of a comprehensive border security package.
A physical wall does make it much more difficult for illegals to cross into this country than no wall. Walls can be built at trouble points. A wall slows the progress of border crossing.
A wall can include detection systems which alert Border Patrol to trouble spots. This will allow more rapid response, quite possibly while the illegal crossing event is occurring.
There are other components to comprehensive border security.
1. End Catch-and-Release immediately.
2. Illegal crossings should negate the possibility of ever being able to obtain legal status of any type.
There are other items to include as well.
Since the Border Patrol agents overwhelming agree that a physical wall will tremendously help them to do their jobs (which can turn deadly by the way) then I defer to their assessment.
Because of that, I frankly don't care what a national poll says. This isn't a democracy. Thank goodness.
As far as compromise goes between the parties, I would be willing to postpone building additional sections of a physical wall if we:
1. Immediately end Catch-and-Release
2. Identifying those caught crossing illegally as never being allowed back in the U.S. for any reason.
But as it turns out, the Democrats' idea of "compromise" is adding more ports of entry for herding people in.
