Discussion in 'Current Events' started by turgy22, Dec 24, 2018.
In favor, opposed, don't care or neutral (but more in a tentative way than in an apathetic way)?
Would it be too impertinent for me to go with "None of the above"? It's not that I don't care, but that I think border control policy is an enormously complex subject and I believe I only have a partial grasp of the nuances involved. I want smart decisions on this subject to be made with contributions by people with expertise in the relevant fields. So I'm kinda neutral on this, but more in a tentative way than in an apathetic way.
I think the whole topic of borders/immigration is used as a propaganda tool by politicians far more than they are trying to make sincere improvements to the system.
I updated my original post to reflect a wider spectrum of opinions.
Not that I disagree with anything else you say, but this is the quote that led me to like your post.
I want to see if anyone else chimes in before responding further.
The Wall as put forth by Trump?
I pretty much echo Oversoul's statements, but a flat NO for Trump's proposal/wants.
The wall is a symbol, not a solution.
If they really wanted to "secure" the border, they would build a panama canal from the Gulf to the pacific right along the border. But, even that wouldn't be 100% effective.
A good example of why that wouldn't work would be Miami. They have a sixty mile "border" of water between them and Cuba and the "undocumented" immigrants still find their way across...
By which you basically prove building a wall doesn't solve the problem. Or you should build a wall around Miami as well. Considering the expected sea level increase that might not be a bad idea...
That's actually comparing apple to oranges because Cuban immigrants were treated much differently than other Latin American immigrants due to the "Wet Feet, Dry Feet" policy up until January 2017. And most likely due to those changes, the number of Cubans trying to cross has actually *fallen*, from 5600+ in 2016 to 1600+ in 2017 to 200(!) through Aug. 4, 2018 (these are the ones picked up and noted, although it defies credubility that the numbers for those not counted would have risen since all other factors seem to be the same, in terms of patrolling the seas for example).
So actually, now since Cubans are treated like all other Latin American immigrants, the "border of water" does seem to be acting as a more major obstacle - the risks aren't worth it to cross as before.
While I do not actually advocate for preemptive seawall construction cutting off major cities, it sure would be funny!
So a chunk of the federal government has now been shut down for 12 days.
Can someone explain to me how not paying border patrol agents is good for border security?
I just read it'll take years. Poor spidey.
I think Shabbaman was talking (somewhat facetiously?) about the federal shutdown situation.
I know... I guess he isn't aware of the other thread where I said it didn't affect me
Oh, good for you!
Yep, I'm pretty lucky in that regard
In favor of better border security for all. Completely opposed to this wall concept our president is pushing.
A wall doesn't solve any issues with border security. Reports have shown that we receive illegal immigrants by two main ways: tourists who decide to stay (and who mainly travel by air) and legal immigrant workers who then overstay their visas. The main argument I hear after that is that this would significantly reduce drug trafficking. However, many reports have shown that the drug market gets into the country via tunnel systems that stretch for miles. These can be destroyed and shut down, but a Wall does nothing to stop this. Not that a wall would not stop the drug trafficking that gets into our country via the seas. Could a wall stop a migrant caravan? Well, depends on how you ask. Are you referring to the migrant caravans who tried to enter the country legally declaring asylum (who only resorted to extreme measures once it became apparent how poorly resourced that border checkpoint was to handle more than 60 applications per day). If so, then yes because of course it will slow down legal entry. But the purpose of this wall is to stop illegal entry. To paraphrase John Oliver, all a 30-foot wall will lead to is an increased demand in 31-foot ladders. After reaching the top, Trump already has suggested how one could get down from that height: "Maybe a rope."
All in all, my opinion is that any constructed wall would be an ineffectual waste of Taxpayer money.
Ransac, cpa trash man
The few reports I've read (mostly fact-checking reports from Trump's address) actually say the majority of drugs comes through legal ports of entry, just (obviously) hidden in various forms of transportation or on people.
Separate names with a comma.