Mexico Preparing for War Against Trump?

[ChrisL]

Who is going to pay for this ginormous project? Taxpayers? I'm sure THAT will go over well. It would be an extremely expensive endeavor. There is labor, materials, etc. to consider.

The estimated cost is a little over $20 billion. That's a lot less than what I-10 cost. Labor, materials etc. are all considered in the cost.

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

 

[bripat9643]

The estimated cost is a little over $20 billion. That's a lot less than what I-10 cost. Labor, materials etc. are all considered in the cost.

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

It's easily feasible. The claim that it's not was coined by Hillary douche bags and NeverTrumpers.

 

[pismoe]

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

It's easily feasible. The claim that it's not was coined by Hillary douche bags and NeverTrumpers.

------------------------------------------------------- agree , been lots of opposition to a wall for years and years for all sorts of made up or trivial concerns like animal migration and other silly excuses . Hopefully the TRUMP will ignore the B.S. and build that wall . Secure the borders no matter the cost , secure the borders for the future of American kids and Grandkids and to also deny liberal democrats more power and voters .

 

[pismoe]

because with the example of this last election . WE , the supposedly uneducated kicked the azzez of the supposedly educated . The Wall and very good border and immigration controls plus deportation will help stop importation of democrats and liberals . 2020 is fast approaching and WE the supposedly uneducated have got to stick together and deny imported reinforcement democrat liberal voters to the democrats . -------------------------- Build that WALL , Stop family reunification immigration for third worlders , stop the ability to drop a baby on USA soil and then get the reward of citizenship . Do these things for the children , do these things for American children !!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The estimated cost is a little over $20 billion. That's a lot less than what I-10 cost. Labor, materials etc. are all considered in the cost.

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

Build a wall where the terrain allows, patrol where you can and actually stop people from coming across, instead of letting them in and giving them a bus ticket to the interior.

Anytime an illegal alien makes contact with government, send them back.
That would be a 10000% improvement over the current bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

Trump was not talking about whores. His statement, "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." This is the opinion of the president of United States? Wealth and power will allow you to do whatever you want to a woman. If this was just an isolated statement in a locker room, we might be able to just ignore it. However, when you put it in context of the Howard Stern tapes and his tweets on a variety of subjects, it becomes clear that we have elected a man to the presidency that's a self centered bully, totally lacking in empathy, who disrespects women, and believes wealth and position give you the right to take advantage of others less fortunate.

As Trump has said, "I can play nice" and that is exactly what he's doing now, trying very hard to convince the world that he can be presidential, a statesman, and a gentlemen. However I'm confident the real Donald will once again emerge and when it does, it will be a sight to see.

------------------------------------------------------ TRUMP seems to have empathy for Americans as he sees their and his kids and Grandkids country being destroyed and taken over by special interest groups and foreigners !! I want to see the TRUMP be a Gentleman that is ready to switch to being a stern American President and Leader carrying a big yuuuge stick that he can use when he needs to . Personally , I want the world and its wusses to be scared of the Trump Flopper .

Believe me. They are going to be scared of Trump. I think he is exactly what you want, or at least what you think you want. Trump makes risky bets that sometime pay off big and sometimes are disasters. I certain wish him luck because there will be a lot more at stake than building a wall or deporting some Mexicans or reducing some insurance premiums.

Yep... so Trump wants to deregulate the banks, allow banks back into securities, and then privatize Social Security. Wow what a disaster would that be? All the elderly then have their money put into Wall Street, who is all of a sudden free to run willy-nilly to do whatever they want. So then what happens when all those elderly people lose their nest eggs?

To quote Donald when asked about the money his investors lost in his failed businesses,"They should have known better. They had other options"

He's kind of right. Investment is risky business, and investors are or should be well aware of the risks when they VOLUNTARILY invest their money into projects or businesses.

He sold them on these investments and promised large returns then when the businesses went South, he sucked out millions in salary. When the businesses went under, he tells the press how well he came out of bankruptcy with only minor losses while his investors lost everything. The more appropriate comment might have been that I'm deep sorry, but that's not Trump. He follows the advice of his close friend and mentor Roy Cohn, "Never apologize, never defend, attack, attack, attack!"

 

[Spare_change]

------------------------------------------------------ TRUMP seems to have empathy for Americans as he sees their and his kids and Grandkids country being destroyed and taken over by special interest groups and foreigners !! I want to see the TRUMP be a Gentleman that is ready to switch to being a stern American President and Leader carrying a big yuuuge stick that he can use when he needs to . Personally , I want the world and its wusses to be scared of the Trump Flopper .

Believe me. They are going to be scared of Trump. I think he is exactly what you want, or at least what you think you want. Trump makes risky bets that sometime pay off big and sometimes are disasters. I certain wish him luck because there will be a lot more at stake than building a wall or deporting some Mexicans or reducing some insurance premiums.

Yep... so Trump wants to deregulate the banks, allow banks back into securities, and then privatize Social Security. Wow what a disaster would that be? All the elderly then have their money put into Wall Street, who is all of a sudden free to run willy-nilly to do whatever they want. So then what happens when all those elderly people lose their nest eggs?

To quote Donald when asked about the money his investors lost in his failed businesses,"They should have known better. They had other options"

He's kind of right. Investment is risky business, and investors are or should be well aware of the risks when they VOLUNTARILY invest their money into projects or businesses.

He sold them on these investments and promised large returns then when the businesses went South, he sucked out millions in salary. When the businesses went under, he tells the press how well he came out of bankruptcy with only minor losses while his investors lost everything. The more appropriate comment might have been that I'm deep sorry, but that's not Trump. He follows the advice of his close friend and mentor Roy Cohn, "Never apologize, never defend, attack, attack, attack!"

Got to love your naivete .... really disappointed in your lack of pragmatism.

 

[Flopper]

The estimated cost is a little over $20 billion. That's a lot less than what I-10 cost. Labor, materials etc. are all considered in the cost.

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

If we actually want to improve boarder security we might listen to Homeland Security who says we need to complete a 200 mile fence not build a 2,000 mile wall, create a vista tracking system so we will know who is in the US and are able to enforce vista expiration, and provide training and support for technology we have in the field.

 

[bripat9643]

------------------------------------------------------ TRUMP seems to have empathy for Americans as he sees their and his kids and Grandkids country being destroyed and taken over by special interest groups and foreigners !! I want to see the TRUMP be a Gentleman that is ready to switch to being a stern American President and Leader carrying a big yuuuge stick that he can use when he needs to . Personally , I want the world and its wusses to be scared of the Trump Flopper .

Believe me. They are going to be scared of Trump. I think he is exactly what you want, or at least what you think you want. Trump makes risky bets that sometime pay off big and sometimes are disasters. I certain wish him luck because there will be a lot more at stake than building a wall or deporting some Mexicans or reducing some insurance premiums.

Yep... so Trump wants to deregulate the banks, allow banks back into securities, and then privatize Social Security. Wow what a disaster would that be? All the elderly then have their money put into Wall Street, who is all of a sudden free to run willy-nilly to do whatever they want. So then what happens when all those elderly people lose their nest eggs?

To quote Donald when asked about the money his investors lost in his failed businesses,"They should have known better. They had other options"

He's kind of right. Investment is risky business, and investors are or should be well aware of the risks when they VOLUNTARILY invest their money into projects or businesses.

He sold them on these investments and promised large returns then when the businesses went South, he sucked out millions in salary. When the businesses went under, he tells the press how well he came out of bankruptcy with only minor losses while his investors lost everything. The more appropriate comment might have been that I'm deep sorry, but that's not Trump. He follows the advice of his close friend and mentor Roy Cohn, "Never apologize, never defend, attack, attack, attack!"

Millions of people lose money on their investments every year. Are you claiming the people who provided them are criminals? Any investment comes with an associated risk. That's one reason it pays a return when it's successful.

 

[bripat9643]

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

If we actually want to improve boarder security we might listen to Homeland Security who says we need to complete a 200 mile fence not build a 2,000 mile wall, create a vista tracking system so we will know who is in the US and are able to enforce vista expiration, and provide training and support for technology we have in the field.

We should listen to the Obama head of Homeland Security?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Anathema]

Now would not be the time to visit Mexico....and I feel for those people who have vacation/retirement homes down there.

I don't. There hasn't been any legitimate reason for an American to step foot in Mexico since General Winfield Scott left Mexico city at the end of the Mexican-American War.

 

[Spare_change]

I really doubt that any wall is going to be built. Besides, if we remove incentives for them being here, then they won't be clamoring to come here, so a wall is really not necessary. AND, I think people would just be able to find a way to get around it. They have all kinds of "drug tunnels" as it is right now.

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

If we actually want to improve boarder security we might listen to Homeland Security who says we need to complete a 200 mile fence not build a 2,000 mile wall, create a vista tracking system so we will know who is in the US and are able to enforce vista expiration, and provide training and support for technology we have in the field.

Damn ---- you guys sure get hung up on a word, don't you???

I'm guessing that if I were to put up a wall of high energy lasers, I wouldn't have to lay a single brick.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, maybe I'm coming across wrong, but I don't support the wall.

There are much more cost effective ways to secure the border than building a WALL that can always be compromised. Today our electronics can pick up anyone trying to cross if they have warning in advance. Frankly I don't know why we can't situate National Guard all along our borders for training purposes instead of them being located within states.

When G.W. Bush put the National Guard on the border "attempted crossings dropped by 67%. IOW if they know they're there they won't even attempt it.

I would prefer an armed border.
Have all military personal do a stint on the border as part of their enlistment.

They don't even need that. What they need is what DHS has been asking for, more technology, more trained technicians and about 200 miles of fencing and a visa tracking system. What we're doing on the southern boarder is working. We have over three times the number agents patrolling the Southern boarder as we did in 2000. Apprehensions are down 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak in FY 2000 peak.

What we are not doing is enforcing our visa expiration's which now are the largest source of illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we do about the wall, visa expiration's are a bigger problem than illegal boarder crossings. If we don't enforce visa expiration's, we have open boarders. To enforce it we need a comprehensive visa matching system covering land, sea, and air. Such a system would be expensive, would require legislation and would probably result in longer lines at land boarder crossings.

Stats and Summaries | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dude I lived near the border and it's a fucking sieve.
Military and tech ran by the military would be cheaper than a wall and wouldnt be as disruptive to people or wild life.
Add that to zero government funds for illegals and stiff penalties to companies that hire them and the problem is gone.

Penalties aren't enough. Incarceration needs to be added.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Nothing will stop illegal hiring except confiscation without compensation of any business that hires them. This will be sold to competent patriotic businessmen who can make a decent profit without greedily hiring cheap illegal labor. So driving out these reconquista Azatlan invaders will actually turn a profit for the government, as all wars should.

 

[Spare_change]

There are much more cost effective ways to secure the border than building a WALL that can always be compromised. Today our electronics can pick up anyone trying to cross if they have warning in advance. Frankly I don't know why we can't situate National Guard all along our borders for training purposes instead of them being located within states.

When G.W. Bush put the National Guard on the border "attempted crossings dropped by 67%. IOW if they know they're there they won't even attempt it.

I would prefer an armed border.
Have all military personal do a stint on the border as part of their enlistment.

They don't even need that. What they need is what DHS has been asking for, more technology, more trained technicians and about 200 miles of fencing and a visa tracking system. What we're doing on the southern boarder is working. We have over three times the number agents patrolling the Southern boarder as we did in 2000. Apprehensions are down 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak in FY 2000 peak.

What we are not doing is enforcing our visa expiration's which now are the largest source of illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we do about the wall, visa expiration's are a bigger problem than illegal boarder crossings. If we don't enforce visa expiration's, we have open boarders. To enforce it we need a comprehensive visa matching system covering land, sea, and air. Such a system would be expensive, would require legislation and would probably result in longer lines at land boarder crossings.

Stats and Summaries | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dude I lived near the border and it's a fucking sieve.
Military and tech ran by the military would be cheaper than a wall and wouldnt be as disruptive to people or wild life.
Add that to zero government funds for illegals and stiff penalties to companies that hire them and the problem is gone.

Penalties aren't enough. Incarceration needs to be added.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Nothing will stop illegal hiring except confiscation without compensation of any business that hires them. This will be sold to competent patriotic businessmen who can make a decent profit without greedily hiring cheap illegal labor. So driving out these reconquista Azatlan invaders will actually turn a profit for the government, as all wars should.

You can't be fucking serious.

Are there really people who think like this?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I do feel bad for the GOOD people of Mexico, but just like we can't take in every stray cat or dog, we cannot take care of all their people. They need to make some positive changes in their own country. That is the ONLY way things will get better there.

A very small part of Mexico's 122 million people enter the US illegally. There are about 6 million undocumented Mexican immigrants in the US. About 3 million entered the US illegally and the rest overstayed their visas which means a relatively small percent of the people are entering the US illegally. It doesn't make any sense to them that the US, as wealthy as it is can't protect it's own boarders. This is why they went ballistic when Trump wanted them pay for a wall.

That is TOO many. Entered the US illegally or are residing in the US illegally -same fucking thing.

Actually it's not the same thing. Entering the US without proper documentation is a criminal offense and you can be charged with a misdemeanor. You can be charge as a felon for repeated offenses and jailed

Overstaying a visa is a status violation. If you leave the country within a month of expiration, nothing happens. However if you stay long enough then you are subject to deportation and you can be barred legal entrance for 10 years. Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense and there is no penalty. You can not be jailed. You can be detailed by the INS up to 30 days if you are flagged for removal. Local police can't usually hold you more than 24 hours unless you are charged with a crime and an expired visa is not a crime. Deportation which is referred to as removal is not consider punishment because there is no crime.

Our tracking system of visas is so poor, that we often don't know if or when many people with visas leave the country.

The "Rule of Law" Is the Law of the Rulers

Change all those laws made by traitors who should be living in fear as much as those who are deservedly living in shadows. Make every violation a burglary felony.

 

[bripat9643]

There are much more cost effective ways to secure the border than building a WALL that can always be compromised. Today our electronics can pick up anyone trying to cross if they have warning in advance. Frankly I don't know why we can't situate National Guard all along our borders for training purposes instead of them being located within states.

When G.W. Bush put the National Guard on the border "attempted crossings dropped by 67%. IOW if they know they're there they won't even attempt it.

I would prefer an armed border.
Have all military personal do a stint on the border as part of their enlistment.

They don't even need that. What they need is what DHS has been asking for, more technology, more trained technicians and about 200 miles of fencing and a visa tracking system. What we're doing on the southern boarder is working. We have over three times the number agents patrolling the Southern boarder as we did in 2000. Apprehensions are down 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak in FY 2000 peak.

What we are not doing is enforcing our visa expiration's which now are the largest source of illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we do about the wall, visa expiration's are a bigger problem than illegal boarder crossings. If we don't enforce visa expiration's, we have open boarders. To enforce it we need a comprehensive visa matching system covering land, sea, and air. Such a system would be expensive, would require legislation and would probably result in longer lines at land boarder crossings.

Stats and Summaries | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dude I lived near the border and it's a fucking sieve.
Military and tech ran by the military would be cheaper than a wall and wouldnt be as disruptive to people or wild life.
Add that to zero government funds for illegals and stiff penalties to companies that hire them and the problem is gone.

Penalties aren't enough. Incarceration needs to be added.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Nothing will stop illegal hiring except confiscation without compensation of any business that hires them. This will be sold to competent patriotic businessmen who can make a decent profit without greedily hiring cheap illegal labor. So driving out these reconquista Azatlan invaders will actually turn a profit for the government, as all wars should.

That appears to be your main goal with every policy you support. As a communist, confiscation of all businesses is your ultimate goal.

 

[bripat9643]

I would prefer an armed border.
Have all military personal do a stint on the border as part of their enlistment.

They don't even need that. What they need is what DHS has been asking for, more technology, more trained technicians and about 200 miles of fencing and a visa tracking system. What we're doing on the southern boarder is working. We have over three times the number agents patrolling the Southern boarder as we did in 2000. Apprehensions are down 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak in FY 2000 peak.

What we are not doing is enforcing our visa expiration's which now are the largest source of illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we do about the wall, visa expiration's are a bigger problem than illegal boarder crossings. If we don't enforce visa expiration's, we have open boarders. To enforce it we need a comprehensive visa matching system covering land, sea, and air. Such a system would be expensive, would require legislation and would probably result in longer lines at land boarder crossings.

Stats and Summaries | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dude I lived near the border and it's a fucking sieve.
Military and tech ran by the military would be cheaper than a wall and wouldnt be as disruptive to people or wild life.
Add that to zero government funds for illegals and stiff penalties to companies that hire them and the problem is gone.

Penalties aren't enough. Incarceration needs to be added.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Nothing will stop illegal hiring except confiscation without compensation of any business that hires them. This will be sold to competent patriotic businessmen who can make a decent profit without greedily hiring cheap illegal labor. So driving out these reconquista Azatlan invaders will actually turn a profit for the government, as all wars should.

You can't be fucking serious.

Are there really people who think like this?

Unfortunately, yes. They are called "communists."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I would prefer an armed border.
Have all military personal do a stint on the border as part of their enlistment.

They don't even need that. What they need is what DHS has been asking for, more technology, more trained technicians and about 200 miles of fencing and a visa tracking system. What we're doing on the southern boarder is working. We have over three times the number agents patrolling the Southern boarder as we did in 2000. Apprehensions are down 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak in FY 2000 peak.

What we are not doing is enforcing our visa expiration's which now are the largest source of illegal immigrants. Regardless of what we do about the wall, visa expiration's are a bigger problem than illegal boarder crossings. If we don't enforce visa expiration's, we have open boarders. To enforce it we need a comprehensive visa matching system covering land, sea, and air. Such a system would be expensive, would require legislation and would probably result in longer lines at land boarder crossings.

Stats and Summaries | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Dude I lived near the border and it's a fucking sieve.
Military and tech ran by the military would be cheaper than a wall and wouldnt be as disruptive to people or wild life.
Add that to zero government funds for illegals and stiff penalties to companies that hire them and the problem is gone.

Penalties aren't enough. Incarceration needs to be added.

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Nothing will stop illegal hiring except confiscation without compensation of any business that hires them. This will be sold to competent patriotic businessmen who can make a decent profit without greedily hiring cheap illegal labor. So driving out these reconquista Azatlan invaders will actually turn a profit for the government, as all wars should.

You can't be fucking serious.

Are there really people who think like this?

Parrots Are Birdbrains

You doormats only think you think. You just mindlessly repeat whatever those who call themselves your superiors tell you to preach to free minds.

 

[Flopper]

The drug tunnels are only there because we refuse to commit the funds necessary to solve the problem. Ground penetrating radar, as well as heat sensors, can accurately plot the locations of the tunnels in a single aircraft pass. It's not a question of capability - only of will.

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

If we actually want to improve boarder security we might listen to Homeland Security who says we need to complete a 200 mile fence not build a 2,000 mile wall, create a vista tracking system so we will know who is in the US and are able to enforce vista expiration, and provide training and support for technology we have in the field.

We should listen to the Obama head of Homeland Security?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, you should listen to a real estate developer who learned all he needed to know by watching CNN.

 

[bripat9643]

But we wouldn't need to do all of that if we just remove the incentives. If there is nothing here for them, they aren't going to come.

And terrorists who'd like to walk over our southern border, how do we remove their incentives?

I'm not saying that we abandon border security altogether. I just don't think building a 2000-mile long wall is going to be a feasible option.

If we actually want to improve boarder security we might listen to Homeland Security who says we need to complete a 200 mile fence not build a 2,000 mile wall, create a vista tracking system so we will know who is in the US and are able to enforce vista expiration, and provide training and support for technology we have in the field.

We should listen to the Obama head of Homeland Security?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, you should listen to a real estate developer who learned all he needed to know by watching CNN.

He makes a lot more sense than some Obama hack who didn't know a thing about border security when he was handed the job.