The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: Evenbob

and far cheaper than constantly
paying the manpower it takes.

Typical conservative planning. They expect an unguarded wall to work. They won't want to keep enough money flowing to guard it probably 2 months after it's built.

Illegal immigration is not far worse.

If you don't want to man the entire wall, then you might as well use land mines instead. That's the only way it will be effective.

Quote: rxwine

If you don't want to man the entire wall, .

It's going to be manned by electronics
and drone surveillance. State of the
art stuff, 24/7. Armed stations
responding to problems as
needed.

This whole argument is silly. It's
like the people who were opposed
to spending the money to build
Ellis Island so immigrants could
be screened for disease without
entering the actual mainland. Of
course they built it (built an
island with fill) it was a 'duh'
decision.

Of course the wall will get built,
another duh situation.

This could be worth a read when it hits my library.

I know the towns in this article well. And it hits the nail on the head. Trump is the first to care about these places since PA had as many EC votes as CA did. Since then they have been ignored. And it really is a case of looking around and seeing the disaster even if you are not the one unemployed or on heroin.

And it is in these areas where I have heard some businesses started to boom as soon as days after the election.

Quote: Evenbob

Haven't heard a single good argument
on why the wall would be the wrong
thing to do. It's a one time deal,
built and you're done. It's effective
at keeping the border secure,
and far cheaper than constantly
paying the manpower it takes.

It was fine when Clinton, Bush,
Obama talked about it. The
crisis is far worse now, makes
you wonder how many people
in congress are on the cartels
payroll. Always follow the money.

I refer you to the post I made sometime back:
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/685/564/#post94010

1. It's ineffective. It is routinely crossed using ladders made of 2x4s

2. It violates private property rights
2. It cuts off productive farms and ranches from access to the river
3. It causes flooding
4. It interferes with wildlife migration
5. The Department of Homeland Security is exempt from laws that require them to even consider the harm done by the project.

Quote: JimRockford

I refer you to the post I made sometime back:
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/685/564/#post94010

1. It's ineffective. It is routinely crossed using ladders made of 2x4s
2. It violates private property rights
2. It cuts off productive farms and ranches from access to the river
3. It causes flooding
4. It interferes with wildlife migration
5. The Department of Homeland Security is exempt from laws that require them to even consider the harm done by the project.

1. It is effective. The wall near San Diego is especially effective. Like any security measure, it will be part of more security.
2. No.
2(sic) Will have to be dealt with.
3. How on earth will it cause flooding? No.
4. Wildlife will adapt.
5. GOOD! We study too many things to the death. We could have fought WWII 2-3 times in the time it took to get Keystone XL approved, the new WTC site approved. No need to study every possible little detail.

Quote: AZDuffman

1. It is effective. The wall near San Diego is especially effective. Like any security measure, it will be part of more security.
2. No.
2(sic) Will have to be dealt with.
3. How on earth will it cause flooding? No.
4. Wildlife will adapt.
5. GOOD! We study too many things to the death. We could have fought WWII 2-3 times in the time it took to get Keystone XL approved, the new WTC site approved. No need to study every possible little detail.

If 40% of undocumented workers are arriving on regular commercial flights and overstaying their tourist visas... why shut down the US government to build a wall? If illegal immigration is a genuine national emergency, why hasn't Trump closed this tourist visa loophole? Building a wall costs billions of dollars; closing this loophole wouldn't. This is the easy, low-hanging fruit of immigration reform.

Trump waited for Pelosi to take over the House of Representatives, rather than close the tourist visa loophole while Paul Ryan was still running the House. Trump should've told Paul Ryan: "I won't sign any tax cut bills or install any conservative judges until we close the tourist visa loophole and build a wall." Paul Ryan is spineless + submissive, he would've done whatever Trump instructed him to do. Pelosi has all sorts of motivations to sabotage the Trump presidency. Call her mean, vindictive, nasty, unreasonable, stubborn, deceptive, dishonest... call Pelosi anything you want to call her. But don't call her stupid.

Quote: reno

If 40% of undocumented workers are arriving on regular commercial flights and overstaying their tourist visas... why shut down the US government to build a wall? If illegal immigration is a genuine national emergency, why hasn't Trump closed this tourist visa loophole? Building a wall costs billions of dollars; closing this loophole wouldn't. This is the easy, low-hanging fruit of immigration reform.

Trump waited for Pelosi to take over the House of Representatives, rather than close the tourist visa loophole while Paul Ryan was still running the House. Trump should've told Paul Ryan: "I won't sign any tax cut bills or install any conservative judges until we close the tourist visa loophole and build a wall." Paul Ryan is spineless + submissive, he would've done whatever Trump instructed him to do. Pelosi has all sorts of motivations to sabotage the Trump presidency. Call her mean, vindictive, nasty, unreasonable, stubborn, deceptive, dishonest... call Pelosi anything you want to call her. But don't call her stupid.

What "loophole?" It is already illegal to overstay a tourist visa. But I am all for tightening up here. Also for no pregnant women may enter on a tourist visa. That one is on track to really come back and bite us.

What did Ryan have to do with confirming judges?

Quote: AZDuffman

1. It is effective. The wall near San Diego is especially effective. Like any security measure, it will be part of more security.

Barriers in urban areas such as Dan Diego, El Paso, Laredo, Brownsville can be effective, but those walls are already there. In remote areas where law enforcement response times are long they are ineffective. If you're athletic you don't even need a ladder. It is a growing sport to see how fast you can climb to the top and back down, check youtube. However to get a family across requires a ladder. As I said, it's routine

Quote:

2. No.

(Private property rights)
This process is not new. Some 650 miles of steel bollard fence was built a decade ago. The abuses by Homeland Security are well chronicled.
https://www.texastribune.org/series/the-taking/
"An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune shows that Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens."

Owners have learned from the last round. The first contact is a request for survey. Many are refusing and lawyering up early.

Quote:

2(sic) Will have to be dealt with.

(farmers and ranchers cut off from river)
When will that happen? The barrier is set back from the river by as much as two miles depending on local terrain. Landowners are then cut off from their land that is situated south of the fence but north of the border. As a result of lawsuits some owners were granted access to use gates located well off of their property in order to access their own land. They found it impractical and unsafe to farm that way. Gaps were left in the fence for some owners to use. Smugglers like that solution best.

Quote:

3. How on earth will it cause flooding? No.

I guess you didn't read my previous post. Try this article
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/trumps-border-wall-cause-deadly-flooding-texas-federal-officials-planning-build-anyway/
Building barriers along rivers is tricky. In 2008 Nogales, AZ / Nagales, Mexico were flooded when debris clogged the fence blocking water that would have normally expanded into the flood plane. The same mechanism caused flooding 150 miles away in Lukeville, Az. They spent millions to install gates that could be opened during floods, but the area continues to flood. After those floods, engineers at Customs and Boarder Security (CBS) issued a report stating that planned fencing in Star County, Texas was too dangerous "Mitigating the impacts of flooding from the U.S. side of the border is unattainable". The Star County fence is now fully funded and green lighted with no alterations.

Quote:

4. Wildlife will adapt.

No, they will not. Ocelots really suck at building ladders.

Quote:

5. GOOD! We study too many things to the death. We could have fought WWII 2-3 times in the time it took to get Keystone XL approved, the new WTC site approved. No need to study every possible little detail.

Sure let's give government agencies broad authority, immense power and no accountability. When has that ever gone wrong?

Quote: AZDuffman

Also for no pregnant women may enter on a tourist visa. That one is on track to really come back and bite us.

I read the following the other day, but can't confirm the accuracy. Any woman giving birth on a plane within 12 nautical miles of the US can claim US citizenship for the baby.