Jump to content


Trump and His Wall


Recommended Posts

Exclusive - Trump border 'wall' to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: internal report

 

 

 

President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

 

The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

 

A boondoggle that is escalating in cost and that won't actually secure the border. And Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it?

 

What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking?

 

Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo.

 

 

In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well.

 

Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option.

 

In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined).

It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

Link to comment

Your post is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, you ask if there is a better option to address "hopefully...drug...trafficking". But then you also state, "If the drug cartels haven't been stopped by regular police and immigration police, then I doubt they ever will...". That's an acknowledgment that the wall won't be effective, which is particularly the case as drug smuggling is performed using tunnels and other means for large shipments far more than overland. Admittedly, for sex trafficking there is a slight possibility that the wall may have a significant beneficial effect, the the reality is that sex trafficking results most often against people already in the country - and runaways and teens, rather than illegal immigrants - the by far the most common victims.

 

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

If the argument is that we need to secure the boarder from possible terrorists, then the fallacy is that just the wall between the U.S. and Mexico will do that. Take a look at the terrorist acts that have been committed against the U.S. over the last 50 years. Then, look at the entry points for those who were not born in this county who committed those tasks. Entry from Mexico is not the problem.

 

Given all of this, the question is what is the motivation behind this? Other than the color their skin, I can't see any.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

That was not an aknowledgment that the wall won't help, although it admittedly is a disappointing option, it was more of an acknowledgment that the US military has far better resources, technology, and numbers/man power than Mexican police, boarder patrol, or us police. Who better for the job of curtailing illegals and smugglers?

 

The point is not whether or not they are good people or fit in culturally.... If they can fit in culturally and keep their noses clean as illegals then they should be able to accomplish the same legally, saying it is better as it is currently is a thin argument imo. We absolutely need to give motivations for people to enter legally - maybe a wall and/or military patrol helps.

 

 

I wouldn't use the word "terrorist" because in today's world that implies some sort of explosion or mass-killing. But Mexican cartels have beheaded, bribed, or coerced enough people to be consider a real criminal (terroristic) threat, everyone from police and politicians to poor average Joe's and tourist have been effected. It may only happen one or two murders at a time, and pass under the radar for that reason, but it's criminal terrorism. And by ignoring the boarder, we are ignoring the issues that the cartels pose.

 

Debate race all you want, your missing the point. I believe an increased focus on Mexico/cartels would greatly improve the lives of American and mexican citizens alike.

Link to comment

Here's an idea after this stupid wall is built. Make it very easy for immigrants to become citizens. However, I propose a 1/1 exchange. For every 1 Mexican that we let into the US who (the vast majority) are hard working, family oriented and just want to better their lot in life and take care of their families, we send TO Mexico a piece of crap white trash that doesn't provide any noticeable benefit to society.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Here's an idea after this stupid wall is built. Make it very easy for immigrants to become citizens. However, I propose a 1/1 exchange. For every 1 Mexican that we let into the US who (the vast majority) are hard working, family oriented and just want to better their lot in life and take care of their families, we send TO Mexico a piece of crap white trash that doesn't provide any noticeable benefit to society.

 

But I don't want to move to Mexico.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Here's an idea after this stupid wall is built. Make it very easy for immigrants to become citizens. However, I propose a 1/1 exchange. For every 1 Mexican that we let into the US who (the vast majority) are hard working, family oriented and just want to better their lot in life and take care of their families, we send TO Mexico a piece of crap white trash that doesn't provide any noticeable benefit to society.

If you left the term "white" out of that idea, it would help to make opponents to the wall who claim racism as a motivator to this wall seem less racist themselves. It creates a level of hypocritical-dismissal from some - which is unfair to both sides of the argument.

 

Edit. I'm not trying to imply that you guys are racist, I'm just saying that by argueing that this is a race issue is creating a race issue. It's polarizing, creating two sides oppossed to each other, while the solution is likely somewhere in the middle.

 

I won't argue that there aren't definitely racist individuals in favor of the wall - although I'm confident in saying that there are probably some racist individuals against it too.... However, to claim that it is the main motivator for everyone undermines the fair arguments in opposition imo.... My best friend is married to a 2nd gen Mexican immigrant, and I'm a God father to one of their sons, I would do anything for them - and I'm supportive (as are they) of an increased focus on Mexican boarder policies. Are we racist?

Link to comment

My best friend is married to a 2nd gen Mexican immigrant, and I'm a God father to one of their sons, I would do anything for them - and I'm supportive (as are they) of an increased focus on Mexican boarder policies. Are we racist?

Those qualities don't preclude you from being racist. My uncle was racist as hell, told racist Mexican jokes all the time, among others. He married a lady of Mexican descent. Does marrying her make him not a racist? Clearly not - it just means he was confused as hell. :D

Link to comment

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it?

 

What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking?

 

Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo.

 

 

In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well.

 

Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option.

 

In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined).

It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

The wall is based on the assumption that:

  1. a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border
  2. the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints)
  3. the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles)

Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance?

 

And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that.

 

And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.)

Link to comment

 

My best friend is married to a 2nd gen Mexican immigrant, and I'm a God father to one of their sons, I would do anything for them - and I'm supportive (as are they) of an increased focus on Mexican boarder policies. Are we racist?

Those qualities don't preclude you from being racist. My uncle was racist as hell, told racist Mexican jokes all the time, among others. He married a lady of Mexican descent. Does marrying her make him not a racist? Clearly not - it just means he was confused as hell. :D

Lol, I've met some people with similar hypocrisies/confusion.

 

I was more trying to just make the point that not everyone in favor of this is racist, so it creates a level of discredit and dismissal to play the race card as the ONLY motivator.

Link to comment

 

Here's an idea after this stupid wall is built. Make it very easy for immigrants to become citizens. However, I propose a 1/1 exchange. For every 1 Mexican that we let into the US who (the vast majority) are hard working, family oriented and just want to better their lot in life and take care of their families, we send TO Mexico a piece of crap white trash that doesn't provide any noticeable benefit to society.

 

But I don't want to move to Mexico.

 

Can Cun? Puerta Vallarta? Cozumel?

Link to comment

 

Here's an idea after this stupid wall is built. Make it very easy for immigrants to become citizens. However, I propose a 1/1 exchange. For every 1 Mexican that we let into the US who (the vast majority) are hard working, family oriented and just want to better their lot in life and take care of their families, we send TO Mexico a piece of crap white trash that doesn't provide any noticeable benefit to society.

If you left the term "white" out of that idea, it would help to make opponents to the wall who claim racism as a motivator to this wall seem less racist themselves. It creates a level of hypocritical-dismissal from some - which is unfair to both sides of the argument.

 

Edit. I'm not trying to imply that you guys are racist, I'm just saying that by argueing that this is a race issue is creating a race issue. It's polarizing, creating two sides oppossed to each other, while the solution is likely somewhere in the middle.

 

I won't argue that there aren't definitely racist individuals in favor of the wall - although I'm confident in saying that there are probably some racist individuals against it too.... However, to claim that it is the main motivator for everyone undermines the fair arguments in opposition imo.... My best friend is married to a 2nd gen Mexican immigrant, and I'm a God father to one of their sons, I would do anything for them - and I'm supportive (as are they) of an increased focus on Mexican boarder policies. Are we racist?

 

Why aren't we building a wall along Canada's border?

Link to comment

 

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it?

 

What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking?

 

Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo.

 

 

In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well.

 

Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option.

 

In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined).

It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

The wall is based on the assumption that:

  1. a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border
  2. the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints)
  3. the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles)

Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance?

 

And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that.

 

And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.)

 

 

 

I agree that a wall doesn't fix the entire problem.

 

The US military has been involved in civilian disputes/affairs and boarder-patrols for decades, just not on US soil. Further more the entire purpose of having a military is to secure the boarders of our own country. What is the purpose of a military if not to maintain the legitimacy and security of our own boarders?

 

At what point should the US military get involved in US boarder disputes/violence?

 

Thanks for the link on the Aircraft Carriers, good to know! I was confused, and thought they had plans for several $40b ships.... However that still doesn't undo my opinion that the military is likely the only entity that has the budget and man-power to guard our boarders.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...