Trump's America

[StPaulHusker]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

If you're going to approve fencing, why not just approve a wall? (political grandstanding is the answer) Sure, it may cost more money, but it will also be more effective, because it's a concrete/steel wall versus a fence. 

 

 

There is zero factual proof that a wall is more effective than the current fencing methods they are using.  In fact, Mr Ortiz has said out of 453 apprehensions, only 27 of them came from the area of fencing.  Oh-and the people were apprehended.  So the fencing was enough of a deterrent to slow the people down enough to get caught.

 

Don't forget-They aren't doing anything illegal in the US until they are actually in the US

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

So one guy working there is now how we determine whether to build multi-billion dollar walls? I respect his opinion, but I think the evidence shows he's wrong.

 

What part is wrong about? The wall's supposed effectiveness?

[RedDenver]

Here's what some experts are saying:

Trump’s arguments for necessity of border wall have already been broadly debunked

Experts say there is no security crisis, but there is a simple way to fix immigration — and it's not a wall

“It simply isn’t true”: former top terrorism official says there’s no terror crisis at the border

Migration Policy Institute Senior Fellow Fact-Checks Trump's Border Wall Claims

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

So, if one guy working in my shop comes in and proclaims that it would be helpful if I spent a million dollars on something.....I should just listen to him and not even question it.

 

  You really think he's the only one? Because he's not.

 

 

1 minute ago, StPaulHusker said:

There is zero factual proof that a wall is more effective than the current fencing methods they are using.

 

Don't forget-They aren't doing anything illegal in the US until they are actually in the US

 

 

 

- It's common sense. If you were tasked with penetrating a chain-link fence, or a steel/concrete wall, which one would you choose to take on?

 

- They can wander up, and down the other side of the fence/wall all they want.

 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

What part is wrong about? The wall's supposed effectiveness?

Need for the wall, effectiveness of the wall, cost of the wall - all those are wrong, so pick your poison. It's simply a terrible idea. If we're going to spend billions on border security, let's beef up the ports of entry to help catch smugglers and/or apportion more funds for immigration courts which are WAY overcrowded with cases.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Here's what some experts are saying:

Trump’s arguments for necessity of border wall have already been broadly debunked

Experts say there is no security crisis, but there is a simple way to fix immigration — and it's not a wall

“It simply isn’t true”: former top terrorism official says there’s no terror crisis at the border

Migration Policy Institute Senior Fellow Fact-Checks Trump's Border Wall Claims

 

The Head of U.S. Border Patrol seems to think we need it.

 

https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/13/border-patrol-chief-wants-wall-agents-say-democrats-need-fund-it

 

So does Obama's Border Patrol Chief

 

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/07/obama-era-border-patrol-chief-mark-morgan-says-border-walls-work

 

 

And so did Chuck, Obama, and other Democrats before it was a focus of Trump's campaign.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

  You really think he's the only one? Because he's not.

 

 

 

- It's common sense. If you were tasked with penetrating a chain-link fence, or a steel/concrete wall, which one would you choose to take on?

 

- They can wander up, and down the other side of the fence/wall all they want.

 

Look at the image above - the wall can be breached with a $10 hack saw. It's lunacy to spend billions when it's obviously not going to work.

[StPaulHusker]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

It's common sense. If you were tasked with penetrating a chain-link fence, or a steel/concrete wall, which one would you choose to take on?

Common sense tells me that if a fence can deter illegal crossings at a rate of 94% and I and I have zero proof that a wall that costs substantially more will do any better, I go with what is working.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Need for the wall, effectiveness of the wall, cost of the wall - all those are wrong, so pick your poison. It's simply a terrible idea. If we're going to spend billions on border security, let's beef up the ports of entry to help catch smugglers and/or apportion more funds for immigration courts which are WAY overcrowded with cases.

 

Let's do both. 

 

Every time the "cost of the wall" is brought up, I can't help but laugh a little. Since when does the government give a s#!t about where, and how much they're spending our money? Sure the Republicans like to criticize what the Democrats are spending it on, and vice versus.

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Look at the image above - the wall can be breached with a $10 hack saw. It's lunacy to spend billions when it's obviously not going to work.

 

I've seen the picture.... 

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

  You really think he's the only one? Because he's not

 

So, if every employee in my shop comes in and says it would be helpful if I spent a million dollars on something.....I shouldn't even question it.

[RedDenver]

Plus the entire idea of any barrier, no matter how effective, doing much to effect immigration is terribly flawed because most illegal immigrants entered the country legally.

Most immigrants who enter the country do so legally, federal data shows

 

There's also been a huge decline in illegal border crossings:

[StPaulHusker]

So we know we will not get 100% security of the border with a wall.  Can we all agree on that?  

 

McAllen, TX-Where Ortiz is in charge--100 people cross the border

 

6 cross the border where there is prohibitive fencing and then are apprehended-The fence and the CBP did a good job

 

94 cross where there is NO Fencing and are apprehended by the CBP-The CBP did a good job.  

 

 

So I still don't see the logic of needing to spend not just $5B for a wall.  Because it is going to be more than that.  But for what?  An extra 2-3 apprehensions?  Maybe?

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

5 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

So we know we will not get 100% security of the border with a wall.  Can we all agree on that?  

 

McAllen, TX-Where Ortiz is in charge--100 people cross the border

 

6 cross the border where there is prohibitive fencing and then are apprehended-The fence and the CBP did a good job

 

94 cross where there is NO Fencing and are apprehended by the CBP-The CBP did a good job.  

 

 

So I still don't see the logic of needing to spend not just $5B for a wall.  Because it is going to be more than that.  But for what?  An extra 2-3 apprehensions?  Maybe?

 

 

 

My point is that if you're going to have a consistent physical barrier on the southern border, why not make it as impenetrable as possible? The more unlikely it is that you'll get across when you arrive at the border, the more likely it is that you won't make the trek to begin with. For the record, I would be fine with a large fence if that's the route they go, but since money isn't an option (and it isn't with the government), why not go in with the best possible application?

[StPaulHusker]

16 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

Trump is a moron, but it was the right move. Fix what's in-house before making pointless trips abroad. 

I agree that Pelosi should not go on a trip at this point.  But, once again, Trumps logic as to WHY is flawed when hours after he said, “In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate,”

 

The fist lady uses an AIR FORCE plane to fly to Mar-A-Lago.  Not commercial.......

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, StPaulHusker said:

I agree that Pelosi should not go on a trip at this point.  But, once again, Trumps logic as to WHY is flawed when hours after he said, “In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate,”

 

The fist lady uses an AIR FORCE plane to fly to Mar-A-Lago.  Not commercial.......

 

And not at all surprising.... I don't doubt it was a move out of pettiness, and pride from The Donald. I just think it was the right move.