Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

Plenty of people care that Drumpf conned his idiot supporters. Theres no need to punish Mexico if they are going to willingly cut a check like Drumpf claimed they would. Now if he has this in the form of a promissory note then we can punish Mexico.

Mexico's economy is less than 1/10 the size of the US economy. The entire budget for Mexico would be little more than a rounding error in the US budget. The chance of Mexico paying for a 35 billion dollar wall that they wouldn't even own is about zero. Trump says what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Any relationship to the truth is purely coincidental.

Thats pretty much what I thought when I heard that idiot gibbon say Mexico was going to pay for the wall. You can imagine my surprise when Drumpfs supporters actually believed him. Thats when I knew stupid is not just an airborne disease. It affects digital networks as well.

To be honest, we don't care who pays for it. After all, what Trump originally asked for was half of what we spend on food stamps every single year. We were not obsessed with who was going to pay for it, only the leftists are now. We were sold that there would be a wall.

Hey, you guys bought the BS that nobody making less than 250K a year would see a tax increase of any kind. And what was the first thing Ears did once he invaded the White House? He instituted a huge sin tax; a tax that mostly affects the poor and middle-class. Afterwards, he got a bill passed that kept income tax refunds of people that didn't have health insurance, again, a tax that only affected the poor and middle-class.

But now you complain that Mexico is not giving us the 5 billion dollars we want, and Congress has to fund it instead? People in glass houses................

Regardless of the revenue source, congress must fund it. The president can't just look under a rock and say, Look, I found 35 billion dollars. I'm going to building a wall."
Revenue for any project is always an issue but the overriding issue is do we want it, not what it cost. 70% of the American public say the wall is not a priority and over half say it should not build. There is opposition in congress among republicans not just democrats.

We should not built the wall, not because of the cost but because it's not practical. Even the most optimistic estimates put the time to complete the wall as 15 years, but 20 would be more realistic since a republican congress has never put any money in budget for it. If you think that's nuts, remember it took 6 years to complete 500 miles of a fence and the fencing project was far simpler than the Trump wall and had much less opposition. Long before the wall is finished, immigration, national priorities, and ideology of the parties will have shifted along with funding of the wall.

When we enter into a project of this size we should be looking at the future, not the past. The number of illegal immigrants in the US have been falling since 2008. With economic improvements in Mexico, particular the growing shortage of farm labor, it is quite likely that the illegal immigration problem will solve itself.

Years ago I was listening to the radio when the host was interviewing Marlo Thomas. Marlo was a 70's actress who starred in a show and the daughter of a very famous actor by the name of Danny Thomas. She was promoting her book on advancing in life. In her book she interviewed a Doctor and her path to becoming a clinician.

The Doctor said she attended college and became a teacher. After some years of teaching, she became a little depressed about the career she chose. Her father realized something was wrong, and she told him of her thoughts. So he asked what is it she'd really like to do? She said she'd really like to be a medical doctor. So he suggested that she do just that! She told her father she was stuck in this career, and by the time she'd get out of college, she would be 42 years old. He looked at her and said "Well you're going to be 42 anyway!" On her fathers advice, she became a doctor and has never been happier.

This migrant problem isn't going away anytime soon no matter what you speculate. There will always be desperate people south of us, gang members who want to get in, terrorists looking for an easy way to sneak in, and people that want to take our money and send it back home. 10 or 15 years? It's going to be 10 or 15 years no matter what we do, so there is no time like the present to get started. Because every year that wall is being built, our border becomes more secure.

Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.

I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:

Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.

Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.

BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND opposing the over-reach of eminent domain. Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side. My how times have changed!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.

So?????

I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:

Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.

Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.

Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides. In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers. So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans. That's like blaming the woman who got raped.

Drugs have been around my entire life. Opioid use was very rare however. You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.

But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days. That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there. If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.

So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics. You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross. It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.

 

[dblack]

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.

BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND opposing the over-reach of eminent domain. Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side. My how times have changed!

Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you substituted the word "hate" for jealousy. Few people actually hate the US. After all, who is the most giving to foreign nations than the US? I'm not just talking about government aid, but private donations to charities and organizations.

Jealous I'm more likely to believe. There are few places in the world where a nobody can become a somebody. For instance perhaps the French may say they hate the US because our gasoline is 2/3 cheaper than their gasoline, but again, it's envy and not hate.

As far as the wall is concerned, we know it would work. How? By other places that did (or now have) walls. While it doesn't solve 100% of the problems in most cases, it greatly slows it down. After all, from time to time, even prisoners break out of jail.

Is there something I think that would work just as good if not better than a wall? Yes there is. Make being in the US illegally a first degree felony carrying a minimum of five years in prison. That would solve our border problem as well as our expired VISA problems.

The Bible says that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1 : 8

You sound much like the former conservative that unwittingly adopted a socialist point of view. If other countries are jealous of the United States, it boggles the mind that you would make an argument for something that supposedly "worked" in another country.

Walls work for communists in communist countries. They work in dictatorships. They work temporarily when you are at war. But they will not work with our form of government. For that reason, you cannot show an example of a wall being built that culminated in a free society.

Israel is not a free society? The United States is not a free society?

Just because countries with other forms of government are different than ours doesn't mean they don't have good ideas. After all, the left is constantly bringing up how great Europe is because of gun bans and socialized medicine. They boast how the government restricts massive wealth for individuals.

True story: Many years ago some middle-easterners bought a closed down Dairy Mart and opened up their own convenience store around the corner from my house. I always patronize the little guy, and one night when I walked in, the cops were walking out.

I asked the young clerk if everything was alright? He said some drunk came into the store, stole some cigarettes off the counter and left. He told me the police advised him if the guy comes back, to give them a call and they'll kick him out. He said this is why the US has such a theft problem.

He went on to explain how where he was from, there was virtually no theft. People have outdoor stands and sell their products on the street. They have picnic tables set up so that customers could rest. He said that if a woman lay her purse on a table and mindlessly left, people would actually cross the street to be nowhere near it.

He said where he was from, if you got caught stealing, the police came and chopped off your hand. Steal again, the other hand comes off, and I don't mean in a hospital. There is no third time. The very few people with no hand are shunned from society; at times are attacked and beaten up. A thief is the lowest from of life in their society.

Am I saying that's what we should do here? No, but just pointing out that a strong enough deterrent has results. Here, criminals steal police cars and rescue squads and little happens to them.

The Israelis are in a protracted WAR with their neighbors - just like I told you earlier. You want to try again?

America is in the shape it's in because of adopting the socialist policies of foreign nations. BEFORE we changed the original interpretation of the Constitution, our crime rates were quite low as well.

No, the Israel Palestinian thing is a conflict, not a war. If you consider that a war, then the US is at a war with SC America. And what socialist foreign policies do you speak of? What ruined our country is liberalism in general, not social programs. The removal of God from our society and replacement with guys wearing dresses and kissing each other in the park in front of our children.

Okay, people lobbing everything from rocks to grenades at each other is not a war. You DID say something that is very revealing, however since you interjected the Bible. In Genesis 16: 10 through 12, the Bible reads:

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

That is a continuation of God's words from Genesis 3: 15 which reads:

15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In both instances, the seed or offspring God's chosen line was to be marked with enmity (which means hostility and hatred according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.) Mainstream Churchianity (as opposed to Christianity) mistakenly thinks that sandpit the Israelis and descendants of Ishmael bicker over is the promised land. You inadvertently admitted that it is not.

My argument has been that other than the Israelis and their war, the only countries that have employed walls are communists and dictatorships. Thank you for admitting there is nothing special about that relationship in the Middle East. Still, we do not have a relationship with our neighbors to the south marked by enmity, hatred, and hostility. Therefore, the wall would be an inappropriate response when what you have are people on BOTH sides willfully engaging in otherwise lawful pursuits.

There is an estimated 20 million plus illegals in this country; more coming all the time. They are taking American jobs that Americans should have. They are lowering or stagnating our wages. Because they work for low wages and stuff 10 people in a two bedroom apartment or house, they are destroying neighborhoods. They are turning our country bilingual which is not the will of the people here. They are going to our emergency rooms and of course, not paying anything which increases cost to Americans who need those ER's. They are hampering our children progress in school because their children don't understand the language.

If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it. When people invade a country against their laws, they are the enemy. Enemies need to be defeated.

 

[dblack]

If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.

If you DO call this a war, what would you call it if we are attacked by a real military? Because it's clearly not the same thing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Our nation will NOT be more secure because you build a wall. Quite the converse will be true. A wall would create more tension between our neighbors to the south.

So?????

I realize that you have your perspective, but the answer to any problem lies in considering all the differing perspectives. Unless you are willing to argue that our neighbors to the south are genetically predisposed to gangs, poverty, and violence I would hope that you hear me out on this:

Drug cartels, gangs and the violence that ensues exist because the people in the United States are the world's primary consumers of drugs. If we quit supplying the drug users, there then is no need for drug cartels.

Furthermore, if people come to the United States and engage in lawful pursuits AND we pass laws to make sure that things like education and welfare are the benefits and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, there is no incentive for them to stay here. They can make some money and go home, invest their savings and ultimately become independent enough so that they don't feel a need to be in the United States.

Stopping drug dependency is like trying to stop drunk drivers, people gambling, littering, and suicides. In other words, it's an impossibility unless we do what Singapore does and execute drug users and sellers. So we can't use that as an excuse for people from other countries coming here and killing Americans. That's like blaming the woman who got raped.

Drugs have been around my entire life. Opioid use was very rare however. You could find pot when I was young, but now that I'm pushing 60, I can honestly say I've never seen heroin in my life. It simply wasn't around back then mostly because of cost.

But today, opioids are around for younger people nearly as much as pot was in my teen days. That wouldn't be the case if the supply wasn't there. If it's ready available, more people are likely to experiment with it and end up hooked.

So we need to make efforts to reduce the supply of recreational narcotics. You can't do that with an open border just about anybody can cross. It's not the only step necessary, but a very large step in this fight.

An open border does not create drug addicts.

Let me walk you through this once:

Parents and schools have turned the rearing of children up to the government. You cannot spank your children, reprimand them nor restrain them in any way.

The government's solution is to start at a very young age, giving children Ritalin or Adderall for nonexistent problems. Children are "anxious and / or hyperactive because they eat too much, sugar, live in a home where there is a lot of drama and instability; they don't get the right diet, enough or too much sleep and no exercise.

But, we don't fix it. We make drug addicts out of children and they eventually end up on opioids and / or SSRIs. Many will then venture into illegal drugs. Millions quit school and go through life with no job skills, no education, no work history, no high school diploma, and a criminal record. By the time they hit their mid 20s, they are taken off their parents insurance and they resort to selling drugs to the next generation in order to live and feed their drug habit.

Rather than us do anything about it, we blame foreigners.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.

BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND opposing the over-reach of eminent domain. Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side. My how times have changed!

Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.

I voted for Trump. When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is. He is not going to be re-elected.

 

[Thinker101]

Yup, and we don't even want to stop half of them...dumbass.

Your board name does not match your response.

We have an immigration problem. We could resolve it without a wall. We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.

Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.

The founders did it.

Really?! Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?

If people are crossing the border and getting any handouts, that is YOUR fault.

WTF, are you the village idiot?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your board name does not match your response.

We have an immigration problem. We could resolve it without a wall. We could resolve the pretexts for building a wall AND address the 60 percent of foreigners that are not affected by the all ALONG WITH those from Mexico and south of there.

Yup, sounds like one heck of a plan.

The founders did it.

Really?! Did they also have to deal with thousands of illegals crossing the border expecting hand-outs?

If people are crossing the border and getting any handouts, that is YOUR fault.

WTF, are you the village idiot?

I don't feel the need to denigrate others in order to explain my position. I dare not challenge you for your title. You're doing an exemplary job.

 

[pismoe]

the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY . The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from . And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA . But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .

 

[pismoe]

And then someone mentioned or asked if these invaders are thought to be genetically predisposed to violence . Look back 500 years and see the violent human sacrificing societies that they built when the mexican indians were building societies on their own . And see the MODERN SOCIETIES that they have built in the last 500 years since they were conquered by the 'spaniard' .

 

[pismoe]

If you don't call this a war, then I don't know what you'd call it.

If you DO call this a war, what would you call it if we are attacked by a real military? Because it's clearly not the same thing.

---------------------------- Its a WAR on the SOVEREIGNTY of the USA DBlack .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY . The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from . And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA . But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .

Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons. The battle cry is generally about border security. But, let's stop again and address this concern.

The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government. Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal." This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship. The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration. The reality is, most non-white nations are third world. The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.

I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship. Hope you understand that.

When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue. You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.

 

[pismoe]

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.

BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND opposing the over-reach of eminent domain. Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side. My how times have changed!

Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.

I voted for Trump. When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is. He is not going to be re-elected.

---------------------------------- yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later Porter .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Even if it were environmentally friendly, which it isn't,
or it didn't take land from good Americans, which it does,
all you need to do is build a ladder one foot longer.

BEFORE the globalists flipped the right on the nutty wall idea, civilian militias were protecting private property AND opposing the over-reach of eminent domain. Today, those in favor of the wall are on the globalists side. My how times have changed!

Indeed they have. Fascism is a resilient meme, and it's found a home in the Republican party. I'd like to think the NeverTrump people will, at some point, reassert themselves pull the party back from the edge - but there are plenty of idiots ready to sign up. It's not looking good.

I voted for Trump. When he stood against the Second Amendment, he proved what he really is. He is not going to be re-elected.

---------------------------------- yeah , i don't like the Ban on the Bump stock and one or 2 other things that i have heard about but he is the best that we have with no one any better in sight so i support him for now and maybe later Porter .

I can respect your position. But, just as the wall is the litmus test of a person's loyalty to this country, the Bill of Rights is my litmus test. Once Trump signed onto the bump stock ban, he lost me for good.

When even the NRA is willing to compromise on your unalienable Rights, we are headed toward the end of our era as a Republic.

 

[pismoe]

the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY . The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from . And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA . But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .

Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons. The battle cry is generally about border security. But, let's stop again and address this concern.

The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government. Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal." This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship. The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration. The reality is, most non-white nations are third world. The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.

I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship. Hope you understand that.

When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue. You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.

----------------------------------------------- to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty . Feck the 'chamber of commerce' Porter .

 

[pismoe]

4th Amendment --- --- Fourth Amendment ---

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the thing with the WALL to me is simply to assert SOVEREIGNTY . The WALL will help prevent entry into the USA of third worlders who sometimes end up becoming citizens with voting rights that they will use to change the USA into where they came from . And of course it will Stop some drug flow into the USA . But to me the entire issue is simply asserting SOVEREIGNTY .

Everybody in favor of the wall has their own personal reasons. The battle cry is generally about border security. But, let's stop again and address this concern.

The real issue with me is that those who want a border wall believe that rights are granted by a God / government. Therefore, the only avenue they see whereby foreigners come here is through some process they call "legal." This terminology, generally speaking, is code for citizenship. The reality is, our immigration laws were written to encourage non-white immigration. The reality is, most non-white nations are third world. The reality is, once those people become citizens, they outvote you at some point and all this drivel about sovereignty goes out the door.

I am AGAINST wholesale citizenship. Hope you understand that.

When you nullify the Bill of Rights, especially starting with the Fourth Amendment; when you tell the employer the government is going to dictate who he can and cannot hire; when you attack the free enterprise system; when you demand to build a government so big that it cannot be resisted when it enforces tyrannical laws, you lose me on this "sovereignty" issue. You can have sovereignty and not have a militarized border.

----------------------------------------------- to me the only issue is ASSERTING Sovereignty . Feck the 'chamber of commerce' Porter .

Building a wall does not assert sovereignty. It is the moral equivalent of the declaration of war - a war that the people of the United States initiated. Given the decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the trend America has taken toward the left, you're like a little boy that is using a small stick to taunt a lion.

"If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble" Johnny Cash in the song The Farmer's Almanac

 

[Porter Rockwell]

4th Amendment --- --- Fourth Amendment ---

Do you have a point?