How to fund building a wall to protect our borders?

Jump to Last Post 1-35 of 35 discussions (627 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 9 months ago

    This forum discussion is to find solution to our current immigration crisis. The wall is one component but not the only method.
    The topic of funding this wall is in the news. What is the best way to build the wall?
    President Trump has said Mexico should pay for it.
    Practically speaking, who should fund it, how much, and how best to pay for it?

    Here are a few ideas some have come up with...
    1. Gofundme campaign.
    2. Congress appropriation - $5 billion.
    3. Wall Bond - just as in the past, a war bond to help with WWII.
    4. Tax on money transfer from US to Mexico.
    5. A Millionaire tax.
    6. Use part of our defense budget to build the wall.

    My personal preference is to have Congress pay for it with our tax dollar. It would be a better use of my tax dollar than some of the money wasting schemes...which doesn’t work. At minimum, at the end of the day, we have a physical wall to show for it.

    My logic is - a wall is not just a physical barrier but a symbol. It shows we are serious about tackling this issue.

    I also believe all politicians, when running for Congress must sign a pledge. It is like a contract or oath. Either they support a wall or they don’t. They cannot just say they support it when running and after the election go back on their word.
    We had too much of this deception.
    We need a legal contract.
    If a member of Congress ran on building a wall, and he later vote against it or against funding it, they should be made to resign.
    We need accountablility in all levels of our government.

    1. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. crankalicious profile image92
          crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          How am I being ridiculous? These people coming over the border are vermin - murderers and rapists. We need to protect innocent Americans from them.

          A wall isn't going to stop anything. What I am proposing will definitely stop illegal immigration.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I think you may be on to something here.  What this situation needs is not government bureaucracy but the entrepreneurial spirit!  I say open it up to non-NRA members as well as NRA members, but give the NRA members a bit of a discount.  Have them purchase a shooting pass by the day with a five day maximum...they can only come once every five days.  Then we open up sponsorship of the event to gun manufacturers as well as ammo makers and all the gun and ammo as well as hunting magazines and other gun related products.  Who needs Congress?  This will get enough money to fund the wall within weeks.  I think this would definitely have an effect on illegal boarder crossings. It is a win win situation.

          2. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            There you go again...distorting what Trump said. Go back and read the transcript of what he actually said. He said “some” are criminals and drug smuglers and rapists...  he was talking about the people doing the human trafficking...and the criminal elements mixed in the group...
            Why do you insist on believing and selective portions of what he said?
            Why don’t you just read the whole speech and understand what he is actually trying to say? And stop believing the biased media which twist everything into the worst...

          3. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Here is exact part of Trump’s speech -

            “Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      2. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        That is about the sickest thing I've ever read.  Unfortunately,  with ignorant statements like this being indicative of the divide a liberal believes exists in the discourse we can expect no reasonable compromise will  happen.  Not until the liberal mind that creates such drivel actually learns some respect for diverse ideas.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Even though it was undoubtedly sarcasm it is so far removed from any reality at all that the statement is worthless...outside of inciting anger and disgust.  If that was the reason it was posted, it succeeded.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I reported it. I think others should too. There are maybe a total of 5 people in these politics forums who aren't an embarrassment to this website and affiliate networks.

          2. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I get the impression that some are obtuse enough to make such statements because they believe them. It's difficult to take anything else they say seriously, when they have such a disgusting disregard for others. Only a vicious person could imagine such a scenario and imagine other humans would act that way.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this
    2. profile image75
      Hxprofposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Congress should yank 25 billion from the military budget for next year, and build the freakin' wall.

    3. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      All we have to do is enforce the existing law and fine the businesses that keep hiring them.

      it will raise a hugely amount of money and build an amazing wall.

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Or we can do what President Obama did...
        Remember, he found $150 billion to give to the Iranians to sign the nuclear deal.
        He used his pen and excutive order...
        No one in Congress said a peep.

        Now Trump is asking $5 billion for a wall for border security and they say it is too expensive and we don’t need it and they want to shut down DC.
        I say fine, lets keep it shut. Let the American people see what these people actually do that is so important they they just keep spending our tax money...

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          While we are on the subject, I want an audit on every member of Congress. I want them to account for their time working and legislating...
          When I was working, I had a 40 hour work week. That is how I was paid.
          Apparently, they spend very little time working and 90% of the time fund raising for the next election.
          Also, these CR is a joke. Why don’t they have a budget like the rest of America? They need to spend what they have and that is all. These constant raising of the debt ceiling is make us poor. We need better fiscal management from our government.

        2. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Really jackclee, that is your response? He "found" $150 billion?

          Surely, (yes, I know your name isn't Shirley), you do know that $150 billion was frozen Iranian money. There was no "finding" involved. The whole political world knew that Iranium money was there.

          So how is it that to you Pres. Obama "found" that money to bribe the Iranians to sign the deal?

          Geesh, you would think that with all the claims you make, you would think before offering that response.

          GA

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            There was 400 million in cash that was flown there on a private jet...and hostages released soon after...
            Where did the cash come from?
            https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics … index.html

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Wait, before I check out that CNN link about $400 million, let's settle this $150 Billion claim.

              If it was known Iranian money, what do you mean Pres. Obama "found" $150 Billion to give to the them?

              Considering the context of the conversation: finding funding, it sure seemed that you were implying the money could be found in other budgetary areas.

              Was that a mis-impression on my part? What did you mean -- in the context of the conversation -- when you said Pres. Obama "found" that money?

              GA

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The premise of this thread is based on the assumption that there is currently a crisis in illegal border crossings.

      Apprehensions for illegal border crossings nationwide have seen a downward trend for multiple decades, from 1.7 million in 2000, to a low of around 311 thousand in 2017.

      For those who like pictures, I've created this chart showing illegal border crossings from 1925 - 2017(1).

      https://hubstatic.com/14338736.png

      The red line shows the current levels relative to previous years. Current Illegal border crossings are lower than at any time between 1949 - 1955, and at any time during all of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s (so far).

      The "crisis" is in the backlog of asylum seekers currently waiting for their applications to be processed (697,777 as of 3/31/2018)(2), not the number of people crossing into the country illegally.

      (1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
      (2) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … ovdelivery

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        You are wrong... the crisis is ongoing...
        Any person crossing our borders adds to our nation’s distress and has been going on for 30 years.
        We loose on jobs, wages, benefits, infrastructure, healthcare, schools...and welfare benefits and housing subsidies...
        We also loose in crime, people like Kate Steinle and many others have lost their lives due to crimes commited by illegsls.
        We loose on the drug front and human trafficking and a host of other criminal behaviors.
        We also loose on terrorists crossing out borders.
        A chart that shows it going down slightly does not remove the crisis building for 30 years. That is not to mention the DACA and anchor babies and chain migration problems...

      2. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Just to be fair and clear, I am not saying it is all bad. There are some that came here are hard workers and added to our economy and picked our fruits and vegetables and took care of our lawns and make the beds in hotels and wash the dishes in restaurants...
        They pay taxes and social security under false documents...
        They are doing the hard work. However, these work can be done by Americans just like in the old days...America was build by people who are hard working and self reliant. It is just in recent years, the social safety net has change the balance.
        I as one citizen, would rather pay more for my vegetables and fruits and other services so that all are getting a fair wage and without exploitation of the undocumented workers.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Whatever you feel about the issue of illegal immigration, it is a fact that there are fewer illegal border crossings now, than at any time in the last 50 years(1).

          In contrast, the number of immigration cases being closed by the courts per year has lagged below the number of new cases being opened each year(2), so the backlog of open cases continues to grow significantly(3).

          In other words, the issue is not that the border is being swamped by the number of people crossing illegally. The issue is that the volume of people claiming asylum (which is perfectly legal) has gone up, and the immigration system has not only failed to keep up, it's actually gotten slower(3).

          That's a process issue, not a border security issue. The number of people crossing the border illegally could be zero, but that still wouldn't eliminate the current capacity gap.

          I understand that calling for a more efficient administrative process is not as exciting as calling for a big wall, or a steel fence (with spikes!) but the facts suggest making the asylum process more efficient, along with a general overhaul of the immigration system itself, would  be of greater benefit.

          (1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
          (2) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … ovdelivery (New Cases & Total Case Completions)
          (3)ibid (Total Pending Cases)
          (4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Budget.pdf (p. 14, Management Measures)

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Don, That may be true but it does not solve our overall problem in the long term. Just because the flow is slowed does not mean it is not a systemic problem.
            It makes no sense...so if no one is breaking into your home, you can leave the door unlocked?
            What kind of logic is that?

            The border and wall is a state of mind as well as a physical barrier.
            If people south of our borders know that we are serious about enforcing our immigration laws, they will try and come here legally. That is exactly what we want. By not enforcing our borders, and with wink and nod, we are encouraging more people to jump the line. Don’t you get it?
            It is human nature. It is not a race issue. It is a sovereignty issue.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Here, Milton Friedman makes the case beautifully -

              https://openborders.info/friedman-immig … are-state/

              You can have open borders or a welfare state, but you cannot have both.

              1. crankalicious profile image92
                crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Except we don't have open borders. Not even remotely.

                Here's a little experiment: fly to Mexico. While there, set your passport on fire. Then see how hard it is for you to get back into the U.S.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  That is just it. You are making my point. Our system is so broken and lop sided that a legal person without papers had a harder time than an illegal or undocumented.
                  It is a similar case when a citizen of a state has to pay out of state tuition to attend a state college while an undocumented immigrant pays in-state tuition. Who came up with this policy?

                  1. crankalicious profile image92
                    crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    This assumption that illegal and undocumented people have it easy is a complete myth. It's not easy to get into this country and it's not easy to stay here.

                    And I haven't heard of any undocumented immigrants getting in-state tuition. I've heard of children of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years sometimes getting it, but not always.

                    Again, the solution to this problem is easier than building a wall. Any business who hires undocumented workers is put out of business. Easy.

                2. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  We have both according to Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic party. She wants no wall, but wants benefits for all. She wants compassion and yet she is all for abortion on demand. She wants higher taxes while making millions for her self and her husband...she want to help the homeless and not surprising there are more homeless in her home city...
                  The irony is so obvious.

                  1. crankalicious profile image92
                    crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Way to go off topic and conflate a bunch of different issues.

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Your analogy is misleading. It implies the border is unprotected, which is not the case.

              The DHS has an ongoing mission to protect the borders, and resourcing for that mission continues regardless of what's happening with the wall. E.g. in 2017 the DHS received:

              "$292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence along the Southwest border.
              $79 million for border technology
              $16 million for an additional multi-role enforcement aircraft
              $32 million for six additional light enforcement helicopters
              $44 million for continued deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers
              $19 million for the small unmanned aerial system program
              "(1)

              For the Fiscal Year 2018, the DHS received:

              "$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall
              along the Rio Grande Valley, 14 miles of new border wall system that will
              replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector.

              $975.8 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements to provide a layered defense at the border . . .
              "(2)

              That's not to say border security can't be improved. Of course it can. But again, a wall cannot eliminate the capacity-gap between the volume of cases the system can handle and the volume being presented.

              That disparity is not a product of illegal border crossings, it's the product of an inefficient, antiquated system, and it's detrimental in terms of cost and the integrity of the system.

              (1) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
              (2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            It's interesting that you claim illegal border crossings are far below what they were, and provide a link showing that apprehensions of illegal aliens is down, as if you're trying to insinuate that because we caught fewer people meant that fewer people were crossing illegally.

            This is followed by statistics purportedly showing that amnesty cases are growing by leaps and bounds, but somehow you neglected to put the two together. If a person sneaks across the border and, having been coached intensively by the UN or even US citizens with their heads on wrong, claim asylum they are not apprehended, but still crossed the border illegally.

            Personally, it strikes me that if these idiots are going to abuse the system and the good will of the United States, then it should be simply shut down and those asylum seekers can go to Europe for their freebies.  We might want to even provide some cross Atlantic transportation for them, just as the UN has provided transportation to our border.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Besides, you don’t need any statistics to tell you our immigration is out of control...just go to any large cities in America...NY, LA, San Francisco, and small cities across the Coasts...
              Open your eyes and see how many immigrants are working here...many are undocumented and many do not even speak English...
              Don wants to believe it is a small leak problem when your eyes can tell you it is a huge hole.

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I'm using the same standard the government agency responsible for border protection uses to measure illegal border crossings:

              "In FY17, CBP recorded the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration on record, as measured by apprehensions along the border and inadmissible encounters at U.S. ports of entry"(my emphasis)(1).

              Also, I've seen no evidence to suggest apprehensions are so low because the CBP is bad at catching people. That would be unreasonable to assume, and does a disservice to the hard-working men and women of the CBP protecting the border 24/7.

              If by "amnesty cases" you mean asylum cases, again the number of asylum cases is not a product of illegal border crossings. They are a product of people claiming asylum, which is perfectly legal. Stopping illegal entry will not eliminate the gap between asylum cases closed, and asylum cases presented.

              That's a problem because the longer cases are left open, the more money it potentially costs the government. Having a large number of cases pending also affects the integrity of the system in various ways.

              I'm not saying there is no benefit to improving border security. There is. I'm just saying the facts indicate resources would be better spent improving the asylum process and overhauling the immigration system in general, than on a fence.

              On what grounds do you call an entire group of people "idiots"? Which part of wanting to live somewhere that's objectively safer and more prosperous seems idiotic to you? Disappointing. I think you're better than that wilderness.


              (1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … fy2017.pdf

    5. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Dear All participants...
      I can see how this topic has struck a nurve.
      I wanted this forum dicussion about funding the wall...and it has turned somewhat south into a debate about whether a wall is necessary...
      I tought the wall ideas was a sound response to our current crisis and funding it was the debate...apparently, I was wrong in that assumption. There are many of you who don’t want the wall or are just against anything  this President proposes...

      Here is something you might checkout for Trump’s attitude about illegal immigration.
      It is the same going back to 1996...by Bill Clinton.
      https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flashb … ation-laws

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        A wall is not the answer, Jack. Spending billions on a failed project is not being fiscally conservative.....or it once wasn't.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Randy, what is your solution to keep our country from being overwhelmed from illegal immigrants?  Can we give them your address?

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Randy, While you are at it, maybe you can invite them to stay with you and provide them free education and healthcare and a drivers license...and learn to speak spanish...

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            In 2016 more people became immigrants without authorization as a result of entering the country legally and overstaying their visa (544,676), than as a result of crossing the border illegally (274,000).

            How does a wall address that?

            https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4052772

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I think you mean in 2016 they became "illegal Immigrants."  Saying they became immigrants indicates they are here legally, and that is not the case.  I think the wall would be a deterrent to the thousands of people who would like to illegally cross into our country.  Individuals overstaying their visa is a separate issue.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Use whatever term you want. "Immigrant without authorization" is as accurate as "illegal immigrant" though.

                The point is, if 274,000 people crossing the border illegally is a crisis, then half a million people overstaying without authorization should be even more of a crisis.

                Yet I see no effort to address that issue.

                Likewise, there is currently a backlog of over half a million asylum claims which the antiquated immigration system is failing to cope with. These claims are perfectly legal, but the longer they take to process, the more money it costs the government, and if they're not processed within 180 days the claimant can get authorization to work.

                Again I don't see much effort to address that issue.

                Instead, the current administration has created a narrative that the biggest issue of illegal immigration is the border, and the best solution is spending (at least) $21 billion on a wall. None of the available evidence supports the narrative that it's the most important.

                It makes for a good story though. Unfortunately for some people (as can be seen in this thread) the story has replaced reality.

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Don, I love it.

                  "Use whatever term you want. "Immigrant without authorization" is as accurate as "illegal immigrant" though."

                  And a car thief is a vehicle driver without authorization, a burglar is an unauthorized home items collector, a mugger is an unauthorized monetary collector.  The connotation and denotation of words, I've listened to lectures for hours long on the subject.

                  No matter what words you try to use, they've broken the law, they're illegal.  Just like a car thief, burglar and mugger are criminals.

                  I would suggest if you want to see the numbers of people here illegally who have overstayed their visas drop end sanctuary cities and states.  Turn these people here illegally over to be deported.  Obey the law.   Democrats in these cities and states are the problem.  They care more about the rights of people who are here illegally than the American citizens they represent. 

                  My, how the Democrat party has changed.

                  "In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all."

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ke/528678/

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, use whatever term you want.

                    I'm more interested in the fact that 274,000 people in the country illegally due to crossing the border resulted in an urgent call for action. Yet half a million people in the country illegally due to overstaying their visa in 2016 apparently requires no such response.

                    And in case you think 2016 was unique. In 2015 the figure was 416,500(1). In 2017 it was 421,325(2)

                    To say nothing of the backlog of over half a million asylum claims waiting to be processed because an inefficient immigration system can't cope.

                    I understand calling for a wall to stop "the foreign invasion!" is more exciting than calling for improvements to administrative systems and process ("better process diagrams, now!") but public policy really should be based on reality.

                    All the facts I have seen indicate the border is not the main issue. It's part of the issue, but not the main issue. That's just a narrative being pushed, probably because it's popular with lots of people for whom it reinforces an existing worldview.

                    That's very likely not the best way to make decisions about how to run the country.

                    [edit: apparently people with passports don't smuggle drugs or have diseases, and are not terrorists (or perhaps in this version of reality terrorist's passports are stamped "Terrorist"), so we don't have to worry so much about any of that, like we do "the invasion!" of disease-ridden, drug-mule, terrorists crossing the southwest border. Thanks for setting me straight on that Jack].

                    (1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.7)
                    (2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.iv)

                2. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  That is a false assumption. Those we believe in the wall includes 77 other nations which built walls that worked.
                  The immigration issue is many faceted. One part is the VISA over stay, one part is border crossing and one other part is human smuggling on containers...
                  The VISA over stay, though high in numbers are not as dire because, we have their names and papers, passport...we know who they are and we know they pass physicsl tests so they are jot bringing diseases.
                  The border issue is the most pressing.
                  Not only because of sheer numbers and costs and possible disease and drugs and terrorists...but because they do not have any documentation.
                  They are uninvited guests.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Your xenophobia is just astoundingly saddening.

    6. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Dear All,
      Thanks for your lively participation in this forum topic. I think we have beaten it to death...
      Those that are against the wall will never be convinced that it is for all our collective benefit.
      That is fine by me.
      They have not offered any other solutions. That is what is most disturbing.
      They don’t want a wall and does not see it as a threat...
      It is like the proverbial frog in a pot of water being boiled.
      It will end when it is too late.

      I have given my opinion and will say no more on this topic.
      There are many new topics to explore for a brand new year.
      Happy New Year everyone!

    7. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I think somebody else asked this, but maybe one of the pro-wall people can answer it.

      Remember, Republicans had control of all three legislative branches. If they wanted a wall, why didn't they just pass a bill before this previous election?

      Is the answer: so they could turn it into a political football? Because that seems like what's going on. Not saying they're wrong to target Democrats for not addressing this issue, but if they wanted a wall, they could have passed a bill. It appears that Republicans are more interested in playing political games with this issue than with solving it.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Do you honestly see Trump as having control of the Republican party?  Even now, and it is lots closer to unity now that it was a year and a half ago.  Republican politicians hate the man almost as much as Democrats do; they only go along with him out of partisanship, nothing else.

    8. jordancollins profile image44
      jordancollinsposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I think its bad idea to isolate yourself from world

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I don't think immigration reform is an attempt to isolate anyone from anything.

      2. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Who is isolatiing our selves?
        We have over 1 million legal immigrants that come to our country every year from every part of the world.
        We just don’t want anyone to feel they can just walk over and with no consequences. Is this an unreasonable request?
        How would you like it if some stranger just come to your house and open your door and move in?

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          People can freely walk around my property as I don't have a wall built around my property lines.  Would I inquire if someone was on my property, sure.  Would I call the police on them if they were passing through and not harming anyone?  Definitely not.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Barack Obama has a wall and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerberg all have walls...just because you don’t doesn’t mean it is not needed or whether it works...

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              A wall you say at the Obama's home?  Sure does look like fencing to me, or what we like to call stuff that's been previously included in bills to help border security.

              https://hubstatic.com/14370177.jpg

              And comparing the residences of some famous people who get personal threats made against them and pipe bombs mailed to them by the radical right thanks in part of some angry rhetoric made by an irresponsible Russian puppet residing in the White House, really isn't an equivalency you can accurately make.

    9. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      This is a direct quote from the President on January 30, 2019:

      "We have a tremendous amount of money right now to build a wall. We're building the wall."

      So what's everyone's problem?

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Congress and Nancy Pelosi....does not want a wall and they hold the purse string.

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          The country is running a trillion dollar deficit under Trump and he has the gall to say we have a tremendous amount of money.  Another example of his disconnect to facts and reality.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            Did you say anything about Obama adding 10 trillion in 8 years to the debt?
            Now you say Trump is doing the same...
            The point being, every politician lie. You can focus on the lie or the deeds.
            Obama was a failure because of his deeds, he was a great orator. Trump speaks simply but got the job done,

            1. hard sun profile image86
              hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Perhaps this will add a little perspective to national debt and Presidents: https://www.thebalance.com/national-deb … ma-3306293

              It seems a well-thought out piece that ends with: " When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion..."

              It's interesting that none of the three methods of figuring deficit additions, none of them show $10 trillion over Obama's 8 years.

              No modern-day US politician lie like Trump, but we've had this discussion before.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                This article is biased and borders on fake news.
                The first method is accurate and it is how all past Presidents was judged including Reagan.
                The FACT is Obama doubled the national cumulative debt in his 8 years of reign. Remember, he also passed huge tax increases at the same time.
                So, the real news is Obama, raised record revenues and at the same time
                Spent even more to add to the debt...and his famous legacy would be the 900 million infrastructure bill that was suppose to go to shovel ready projects which never materialized. He even joked about it...
                His second fiscal disaster was investing loans to Solyndra, the solar company and green initiatives which cost the tax payer $500 million. Solyndra declared bankruptcy during his term.

                You heard of the saying...figures don’t lie, but liars figure...

                1. hard sun profile image86
                  hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  No, that article is perspective that can be applied to any Presidency. It even reveals "slight of hand" performed by all Presidents to make their debt numbers look better. Unfortunately, things are not often as simple as people want them to be. That's what's highlighted here.

                  "The CBO found that Obama's largest contribution to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012." Hmm..CBO fake news

                2. hard sun profile image86
                  hard sunposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I wrote a manual on statistics. It's the best thing ever..hugely great stuff.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Is it available? I like to read it.

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Here is one more FACT -
                Obama was generous with our tax money but privately, he only donated 1% of his income.
                Here is the story -
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fa … e32ac91cf3

            2. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Well, yes, I did.  I have an issue with any government that spends more than it takes in in revenue.  What kind of successful business model runs that way?

              Obama's first term is where a majority of that increase was allocated.  Why?  Because he inherited an economy on the verge of collapse.  The deficit averaged 1.09 trillion dollars per year, with some failed ventures in there that wasted taxpayer money, but grew consumer confidence.

              In his second term, with the economy stabilized, his deficits were less than half of his first term at 543 billion dollars.  The reality is that we can thank fiscal conservatives (mostly from the GOP) for reigning in the budget and forcing spending cuts. 

              Trump, elected with a stabilized economy like Obama had in his second term, which is what we should be comparing if we're being truthful about comparing deficits between the two, averages 881 billion dollars per year.  This with a healthy economy.  Why?  Because he increased spending while cutting tax revenue.  Why does a Republican ever think this works?  It fails over and over again.

              So my point, which you failed to counter with any pertinent facts and just tried a whataboutism, was can you prove that with a deficit of a trillion dollars this year, we have plenty of money?   As Trump just claimed in his break from actual fiscal reality.

        2. Sychophantastic profile image85
          Sychophantasticposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Should have thought about this when he had a Republican controlled Congress.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            But they didn’t want a wall either..they couldn't repeal ACA either...

  2. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 9 months ago

    Assuming the $5 billion is a realistic number, it would cost less than $16 for every man, women and child of our nation.

  3. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 9 months ago

    Why I am against private funding efforts? Because it divide us as a nation.
    It is similar to funding a prison. Should we use crowdfunding for our prisons? You would say that’s ridiculous...
    There are some items we need to do unified as a country. Law enforcement is one of them. Border secipurity is one of them. Armed military for self defense.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
      JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/14329138.jpg

      lol, but jackclee, you don't seem to understand that the vast majority of we the people living here in the USA are AGAINST building a useless pile of 2,000 mile concrete which would have been a big mindless waste of tax payer money anyway:

      So, if Bozo who must soon be indicted if we still have valid laws, and the last remaining group of his followers are interested in wasting 50 billion dollars on this archaic, prehistoric pile of rubble then they can have a "Wall-A Thon" and when they raise enough money, and once one of the greatest federal government land grabs in history is completed, which might take decades and the settlement of scores of laws suits, the president whomever that might be in the year 2047, can finally begin construction, unless of course he or she decides to use the funds for something a bit more useful and much more important like healthcare for all:

      Maybe snowflakey republicans who are frightened to death of immigrants and their own shadows should read this: Landowners are FURIOUS with Bozo Trump's plans to "GRAB" their private property for a useless wall:

      "Don’t Mess With Texas Landowners on Border Wall, Lawmakers Warn"

      https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/ap … order-wall

    2. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this
      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        We already have half the nation paying for the needs of the country while the other half provides nothing.  Shall we then proceed down that road and crowdfund new highways, a new airplane for the air force and a mission to mars?  The country can only fill it's needs through donations when enough people decide it is a good thing?

        Shall we fund the Trillions our welfare system goes through via voluntary donations as well?  That'll go over like a lead balloon!

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Agree 100%

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            As usual, wilderness has conflated critical necessities that every country needs to survive like our military, highways, airports and financial assistance for Americans who need it, with a big useless 2,000 mile pile of unnecessary, highly porous concrete:

            If Bozo Trump wants a useless porous barrier, he can get the money from  the filthy rich who he just gave trillions to, lol from Mexico as he promised,  or force what's left of his cult followers chip in and pay for it: But even if that happened, many of them will never see it built because the law suits filed by private property owners in Texas and other border states are mounting against Bozo Trump and his intent to confiscate their private land for the great delusional wall in his head:

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              You know, Jake, just because you think the wall is useless, based on your TDS and hatred of anything connected to our WONDROUS president, does not make it so.

              Reasoning people look around the world at dozens of other countries building border walls and wonder why they are doing it if there is no return.  They look at the massive effort it takes to breach such a wall and wonder how penniless women and children will get through.  And they rightly conclude that it is useful, whether they like the ANGEL on the white house throne or not. 

              But of course they use their brain rather than their hatred to make conclusions with.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                lol: wilderness, I'll take "TDS" over "TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder" any day and just remember, prior to Bozo Trump stumbling into our oval office as the illegitimate, dumbest, most psychologically bankrupt, possibly the most corrupt and un-patriotic politician in our nations history, we were the GREATEST nation on Earth and we became great WITHOUT wasting our tax-payer money on a big, archaic, useless pile of concrete wall which would have never worked, and that's a fact:

                250 years without a wall is proof enough that we endure and prosper with significant help from hard working migrants which your ancestors once were wherever they came from:

                The American people are "ALL in" for building a big concrete wall around the Trumps, in the form of say Alcatraz or Sing Sing, and then maybe, just maybe we can begin to Save, Salvage and Restore this nation back to its previous state of GREATNESS:

                It's unreal that snowflakey republicans are crying profusely about a few immigrants coming here to work, immigrants who will never harm them in a million years yet just the other day on national television, Bozo Trump essentially gloated and cheered in bloated ecstasy when he found out a judge in Texas rendered a preliminary ruling which if not overturned by the appellate court, could strip millions of Americans of their vitally important health insurance and healthcare: The dark soulless weirdo was actually happy to hear the news:

                So, who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? Immigrants coming to the USA to work, or what appears on the public surface to be a pathetic Russian controlled oval office resident SABOTAGING you and your family's HEALTH ??

                I think the answer is quite clear:

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  "250 years without a wall is proof enough that we endure and prosper with significant help from hard working migrants "

                  Of course.  And equally of course, we had tens of thousands of people crossing the border at will every year, people that came into the country to use the freebies we give out today.  250 years we absolutely had free hospitals, free schools and free food to give out, just like we do today.  250 years ago we had car insurance to be paid, too, and the newcomers used all of it while paying the taxes and insurance that didn't exist then any more than all the other costs we associate with the country today.

                  Do you have any idea of how foolish it sounds to say that because it worked in far different conditions 250 years ago it will work today just the same?

                2. profile image75
                  Hxprofposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  "So, who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? Immigrants coming to the USA to work, or what appears on the public surface to be a pathetic Russian controlled oval office resident SABOTAGING you and your family's HEALTH ??"

                  There's this dense facade of unreality settling in over America, and the thinking that you're promoting with these kinds of posts is typical of it.  Most Americans see only the illegal immigration issue,which in itself is significant to America if only because of the financial costs.  There are other costs for a lightly protected border, and that includes terrorists crossing our borders.

                  You can TYPE all the cap letters you wish, suggest all kinds of absurdity that you like, but none of it changes these facts: 1) Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.  2) America's borders need to be far, far better secured to protect Americans from those who want to come in to blow stuff up.

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    lol, conservatives should cut way down on their Sean Hammity and Rush Limbo entertainment, two of the biggest snowflakey weirdos afraid of their own shadows:

                    First of all, terrorists don't hop on a plane, fly thousands of miles to Honduras, join a caravan of women and children and then walk thousands of miles to the border only to be met by border agents: Terrorists simply FLY into an airport located in the USA:

                    Second: When was the last time you had to protect yourself from an undocumented immigrant ?? Probably NEVER:

                    And when was the last time you had to protect yourself and family from CONservative republicans in congress trying to take away your healthcare or retirement benefits or food stamps or other critically important programs designed to help you maintain a life of dignity ?? Americans must mobilize constantly to fight these dregs all the time in this age of Bozo Trump:

                    So who's the greater threat to you and your family ?? It sure ain't Undocumented Immigrants and facts prove that point:

  4. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 9 months ago

    The people coming over the wall are largely the same as the people already here, they idea they are any more likely to commit crimes against people or property has been studied and not supported.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      How about instead of building a wall, we just round them up and send them to Canada? Canada welcomes refugees and they need more people and rhey have very generous benefits...

      After all, isn’t that what Mexico is doing sending people to us with the caravan?

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        For the very same reason the government doesn't round up you and your family and send you to Canada that's why: And who are you or anybody else to persecute other human beings ??

        People like you with all the very same paranoid and fake fears persecuted the Irish, Germans, Asians, Polish and just about every other ethnic group in the past, just like Bozo Trump is today trying to persecute our fellow South Americans: Perhaps because they are much more attractive than he is, stronger than he is and have something he has none of, character:

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          It was a joke...that was what Mexico did...

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Sorry jackclee, but I'm not a mind reader as some around here claim to be and it sure didn't sound like you were JOKING: Your people, wildernesses people, my people and everyone elses ancestors around here were forced to endure the very same insane persecution as immigrants are going through today, no real change in evil intention, just the date and time has ticked forward to a new century and that's just abominable and certainly unholy according to my bible:

            Wait until the Good Lord gets a hold of Tiny Hands Trump and his dwindling masses, his wrath will be a sight to see for sure:

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "Persecute"?  You mean as in "deny access to my home"?

          I guess I'm just like you in that regard.

  5. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48395824_1160602060759338_8042472969252896768_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=22ed41c634029880943ce73c8d016673&oe=5C9D6470

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      So what else is new. For 30 plus years, we heard every politician say the right things and even pass some bills...including, Bush, Clinton and McConnell and Schumer.... The problem is they never meant it.
      It was for the poor masses to consume.
      It took a Trump, with the guts to take on all parties and shut this government down to save our nation from a pending disaster.
      It may be exactly what you want, and do not consider losing our country a disaster, but be clear. Not building the wall has comsequences. I just want people to understand these consequences and not be lied to by politicians who has a different agenda and answers to people with money pulling the strings.

      1. Onusonus profile image75
        Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Trump actually has nothing to do with the government shutting down. That fight is between the house and the senate.

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I'm glad you accept this is Trump's shutdown. Based on trump's own statements, it would be difficult for any sensible person to think otherwise:

        "Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other, whether it's through you, through military, through anything you want to call it, I will shut down the government . . . I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame [the Democrats] for it"(1)

        (1) https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi … story.html

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          That is the main reason he was elected- to secure our borders and stop the invasion.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            You are right, Trump has "shut this government down". Something to keep in mind in the coming days and weeks. 

            But the facts don't support your predictions of "losing our country" because of illegal immigration.

            I have seen lots of over-dramatic, fearful rhetoric like this being offered as a justification for the wall. Very few facts.

            Presumably some analysis has been done on the projected impact of the wall on yearly illegal border crossings (currently at a 50 year low). Likewise, I assume analysis is available that shows the projected financial benefits of the wall relative to the (supposed) $21 billion investment.

            I assume that analysis is what convinced you the wall is such a good idea. Where can I find it?

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I don’t need a study to tell me we have a problem... I don’t know where you live but I live in the suburb of NYC and I travel to florida and california and Arizona extensively. I can tell you first hand we have a huge problem in our cities and in the fast food market...and landscaping and hotel services...
              And in the court system.
              In a nearby town of Ossining NY, if you attend one of the court sessions, you will find a permanent paid translator on their staff conducting business on every court case, whether the defended is Hispanic or not...
              Thst is just one example.
              Another example, in the city of Peekskill, there is a shop that make transfers of money to other countries... I was told by the clerk, pnly Spanish speaking customers allowed...
              This is our country and we are losing it and it is so blind that some refuse to look.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                lol, I live in a border state and interact with undocumented immigrants on a daily basis and I can assure you first hand there is absolutely no problem except the one Bozo Trump is imagining in his little mind: A golf course with Bozo's name on it even HIRED undocumented workers which is just comical in and of itself:

                The retarded old guy in our oval office rants, raves and cries all day long on his twitter machine about immigrants while his company HIRES THEM !!!! Unreal Hypocrisy:

                "Trump's New Jersey golf club employs undocumented immigrants, women say"

                Don W is correct, there's plenty of Hollywood style drama around here produced by snowflakey republicans afraid of their own shadows but lacking in fact based evidence:

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Jake, is exactly the person I am talking about. He fails to recognized how our country is being hurt by illegal immigrants. His job and his kid’s jobs are jeopardized and he doesn’t even know it. He does not have the intellect or the honesty to connect the dots. How illegal immigrants are taking jobs and depressing wages, The only saving factor is probably he is on welfare or on a pension and being subsidized by our government one way or another. He is one of those who refuse to do work at minimum wages... The truth is, he is a willing co conspirator to the death of our nation as we know it.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Your just plain wrong jackclee, if you live here in the USA I don't know where your people came from originally but you can be sure they were persecuted when they arrived here just like immigrants of today are: WHY did you leave your country ?? Probably for the very same reasons immigrants of today are leaving theirs:

                  And let's just get one thing straight here, Immigrants are doing the jobs nobody else wants because people of color are all I see doing these labor intensive, back breaking jobs, like car washing, kitchen work, cleaning hotel rooms lawn mowing, picking agricultural products  etc and they do the jobs at a deep discount, jobs that will never pay a higher wage because nobody will pay $50 for a car wash or $50 for a ham sandwich at the local eatery or $500 for a hotel room or even $20 for a basket of strawberries:

                  I rarely see a light skinned person doing these jobs for obvious reasons, they don't want them period so except on that rare occasion, immigrants are NOT taking high value jobs from anybody and even if they did, they still support the USA with the money they earn by paying sales taxes, property taxes, they buy gas and patronize businesses which is where most of their wages end up: So this ridiculously delusional notion in Bozo Trump's little mind that immigrants just take and don't give back to the community is just dead wrong:

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    This is just false. The main difference is I came here legally. I waited on line 4.4 years.
                    There are plenty of jobs Americans will do. If it cost a bit more, I am happy to pay for them.
                    Other nations have guest workers...why can’t we?
                    Why fo you wish to exploit these people for their cheap labor?

              3. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I didn't ask if you need a study to tell you there is a problem. I asked where I can find the analysis that shows the wall is the best solution.

                $21 billion dollars (at a conservative estimate) is a lot of money.

                What % reduction in illegal crossings is the wall projected to achieve? What does that mean in terms of a dollar amount? How likely is it that the cost will be more than the estimated $21 billion? What would that do to any projected benefits and return on investment?

                Do you know the answers to any of these questions? If so, what's your source? If not, how do you know this is the best solution, and the best value for money? What's that based on?

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  The wall is built in 77 nations by last count. If it does not work, why would other nations do so? At great costs?

                  The 21 billion is small change compare to what our government spend and waste and...scam...

                  The point is we have tried all other suggestions by GOP and Democrats...and none has stopped the tide.

                  If not a wall, I ask you, what do you suggest that is better and cheaper and works?

                  1. crankalicious profile image92
                    crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    If 50% of illegals are made up of those who overstayed their VISA, how does a wall solve that problem?

                  2. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    76 countries also have extreme child labor(1). That doesn't mean child labor is a good solution to manufacturing issues. It just means 76 countries are willing to tolerate child labor.

                    And if you believe public policy should mirror what other countries do, can I assume you want to immediately implement the Paris Agreement, as that was signed by 194 other countries(1). Likewise, 51 countries have universal healthcare(3). Can I assume you think that should be implemented immediately too, purely on the grounds that many other countries have?

                    It comes down to this Jack. You wouldn't agree to buy a car without knowing the price, or its top speed, or what mileage you could expect, or what type of transmission it is, just because a salesman told you to buy. You're not that foolish. And if they suggested something bad will happen if you don't buy it, you'd walk away.

                    Yet you're expecting people to support shutting down the government to get funding for a wall that's going to cost $21 billion and you have no clue, not even have an estimate, of the benefit this proposed wall is going provide, only your belief that it will stop "the invasion".

                    That's just irrational Jack.

                    (1) https://www.maplecroft.com/about/news/c … _2012.html
                    (2)https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetai … mp;lang=en
                    (3) https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cou … -care.html

  6. hard sun profile image86
    hard sunposted 8 months ago

    15 Steps to Better Border Security: Reducing America's Southern Exposure

    https://www.heritage.org/homeland-secur … n-exposure

    Any thoughts on this? The conservative leaning Heritage Foundation seems to think a massive border wall would be a waste of money. I think this shows how much the wall is just a rallying point for Trump fans as opposed to a real effort to control illegal immigration by Trump.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Well that is all well and good but which politician or political party supports this and will fund it and be dilligent?
      None.
      This problem has been going on for 30 years.
      It benefits the rich and powerful to have a permanent under class.
      It also creates a divide among the two parties which is used as a rallying cry.
      The wall is the only answer in my book that have not been tried.
      It may not work but we won’t know will we? It seems some are so dead set against it? Why? It is not about the money. They will print any amount of money for all kinds of crazy schemes but a wall, no.no.no...

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        My advice to President Trump is to get the Democrats and Republican leadership in a room, give them whatever they want in exchange to fund  and build the wall...DACA..., Increase minimum wage to $15, increasing infrastructure to fix the highways and airports...jobs,
        Give them whatever they want...on paper.

        When the wall is built, he can stop the others anytime. It seems our laws have no meaning. Let them cry foul...
        After all, they’ve been doing this all along...
        It happened with the wall in past years and it happened with ACA...and many other legislation which seems to not worth the paper they were printed on. Any judge can just change the meaning of a word and make laws that does not exist. By the same token, Trump can sign a bill and then not follow up on it...
        It seems to be how Washington works these days.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Jack lee, if the Dems agree to make a compromise on the WALL, GOP concessions will have to comprise more than just 'anything on paper'.

          Trump and the Republicans can expect to get NOTHING without MEANINGFUL concessions. We on the left will not settle for anything that he can "just take back" at his convenience.

          He and his clowns are be being blamed for the shutdown, how long can they afford to take the heat?

          Trump better get serious, with a Democratic house waiting for him in January, none of this is going to get any easier.

          1. profile image67
            jackcleeposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            His supported welcome the shut down. It is to demonstrate resolve on this issue. It happened many times before during the Reagan Administration. Reagan was a great President for All Americans and time has proven he was right on so many issues...the media learned nothing from history...it will repeat.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

              But, Jack, I don't care what his supporters think, they are just as daft in their heads as he is in his. Much of the REST of the country have neither been as approving or forgiving.

              We still disagree about the concept of Reagan's relative "greatness". But that is for another forum. I will say that I prefer Reagan over Trump and that is not saying much.

              I still am not hearing as much about penalizing employers who hire illegals, why do you think that this is not as seriously considered as a remedy?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Is this another case of "it's all right for Democrats to do it, but not Republicans"?  Because, you know, their cause is just and right while all Republicans are "daft" and insane?

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "Because, you know, their cause is just and right while all Republicans are "daft" and insane?"

                  Relative to the policies the GOP propose and their political stance in the Era of Trump, YES.

                  This is my opinion, solely, you are free to refer to it " as far Left rhetoric without any basis in reality", if you so desire.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    We're all entitled to our opinions.  Even when they consist solely of "I'm always right, you're always wrong because you are insane".  Doesn't do much to promote rational discussion, though.

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Because we have tried it with eVerify and it had not worked. It is easy to bypass these laws...once the person is here, they can do all sort of ways to by pass any laws regarding work verification. It is easy to buy a fake ID. The employer is covered because they can always plead ignorance. Use your head, which is a better way?
                1. Stop them before they enter our borders?
                Or
                2. Let them in and try and stop them from working?
                The answer should be obvious to a fifth grader let alone an adult or a Congressmen or women...

                Welcome back to the discussion forum...you have been absent for a while.
                Have a happy new year credence2.

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for welcoming me back.

                  I am going go deep with you Jack, I don't buy the difficulty of employers not being able to effectively vet new hires, in this day and age of computers and electronic gadgetry.

                  This amounts to "red meat" as part of culture wars that focuses issues on race, "blood and soil" sorts of concepts. This feeds into the basic psychology of many Trump supporters, racial resentment, what better way to feed the right winged beast than to chase down all those brown non-Anglo-Saxon invaders? This is no different than Right Wing oriented similar movements in Europe. Building a wall is as like stopping flies with a chain link fence. Remove the supply and the demand will disappear for the most part as well.

                  But Trump as well as his constituency would not get to the heart of the matter, because the principle of economic exploitation is part and parcel of a being a Republican in this day and age. Thereby it it easier to sell the chain link fence idea over using technology as a more effective vetting tool?

                  Happy New Year to you for 2019, as the struggles continue......

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "I don't buy the difficulty of employers not being able to effectively vet new hires, in this day and age of computers and electronic gadgetry."

                    You don't buy it...but what do you actually know about it?  Is every legal citizen listed?  Do employers, cities, states and the feds make the effort to include everyone?  What is done to ensure no one on the list is illegal?  How available is the system to employers?  How quickly is verication, if it is present at all, available?  How many false positives or negatives does it produce per 1000 requests?

                    What information I've seen is that the system has quite a ways to go before it is a workable solution to illegal workers holding jobs, even if it is used, and more than a few states have refused to supply data, let alone use it.

                    There is also the tiny problem that there are no teeth - no real punishment - in the law for those that hire illegals.  Without that it is no more than another useless bit of political rhetoric.

                  2. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Credence, as stated many times in discussion forums, the illegal immigration problem is not about race. It was never about race until the detractors bring that up as a first or last resort when they can’t win in the arena of ideas. All Americans belong to one race or another at one time. It was the various immigrant groups like the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Puerto Rican and many other groups that build America, including blacks who came here as slaves in the early history of our nation.
                    Now in the 2018, we are no longer a growing nation like before. We have citizens that are not able to be fully employed. We have a robust welfare state. As stated by Milton Friedman, Novel economist, we can have an open border or we can have a welfare state but we can’t have both. They are not compatible.
                    Since you brought up race, I will tell you how race does play a role here. The fact that so many illegals are here, driving down wages, are causing people on the bottom of the economy to be worst off, and that includes many of the blacks in our community. So by supporting illegal immigration, you are supporting a policy of anti Blacks who are citizens...

      2. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Many Dems and Repubicans got behind the Gang of Eight Bill, and it contained most of these steps. I think this type of thing is one reason why Pelosi said we must talk about reasonable immigration legislation during the infamous Trump taking credit for the shutdown meeting.

        America must make decisions based on the best information available as opposed to what's the only answer in people's "books." Trump appeals to the emotions, but there's absolutely no reason to think just a wall will work.

        Did you read the article where it spoke about the best places for fences? Once again, there is no real discussion here about what works. In no way have we already tried a comprehensive effort such as laid out with those 15 steps.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "...Pelosi said we must talk about reasonable immigration legislation..."

          Unfortunately the Democratic idea of "reasonable" immigration legislation is yet another useless round of amnesty followed by more legislation designed to encourage illegal border crossings even if followed.  Nothing at all to actually clean up the mess they've made OR put a significant dent in the growth of the problem.

          "Trump appeals to the emotions, but there's absolutely no reason to think just a wall will work."

          Come, come.  Trump isn't the one with emotional appeals; that goes to the liberals forever crying that illegal aliens in our country "Just want a better life" and that they are "just women and kids, working jobs that Americans won't take so we can afford vegetables for our table!".

          "Did you read the article where it spoke about the best places for fences? Once again, there is no real discussion here about what works."

          You are certainly correct here: the Democratic statement was "NO wall, not a single foot of it".  No regard for discussion, no intention to find working answers, no discussion of the best place for a wall and where it would produce the best bang for the buck.  Just "NO wall, NO way!".

          1. hard sun profile image86
            hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            No wall, no way? I'm not sure about that. The Secure Fence Act was enacted by Congress in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Dems controlled both the House and the Senate. Maybe the fencing is already there where it really needs to be.

            I agree with the Heritage Foundation's assessment on fencing. So, I don't know that we disagree there wilderness. Yes, Democrats have there emotional appeals as well and that's why the need for solid decision making that results from real information and compromise.

    2. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Hard Sun, Not exactly....

      "In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem. But the cost makes it important to use fencing only in areas with a low "melting point." The melting point is the time it takes for an individual to cross the border and "melt" into a landscape unnoticed. In urban border communities, spending money on physical barriers makes sense because individuals can easily cross the border and sneak quickly into the urban landscape (for example, one can hide in a building or steal a car and drive away). But in other areas, like the middle of the desert, the barren landscape makes it easy for Border Patrol agents to detect border crossers."

      1. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Not exactly what?

        This is stating fences in strategic areas make sense, which is exactly what we've been doing. I quoted the same exact paragraph in another thread about border security.

        I'm just not sure what your point is.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Perhaps the point is that Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?

          As it stands right now Democrats will not even discuss a wall, not anywhere on the border.  They aren't interested in any sort of compromise at all - they are only interested in blocking anything Trump does regardless of the result.

          1. hard sun profile image86
            hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, IDK as that point has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              OK.  Sorry, then, for butting in.

              1. profile image67
                jackcleeposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I am glad most of you are engaged with this discussion and looking for solutions and asking the right questions.

                We need a solution and kicking the can down the road is not an option anymore. In another few years, it will be too late.
                I can make that prediction because we can see what happened in German and France and the UK right now. That is our future and if we don't have the will to do what is necessary, so be it.

                I just want people to understand what we are faced with.
                Don't come crying in 5 or 10 years and say I didn't know this is the result of open borders...
                It is as clear as night and day.

                I am retired and have no personal gain or loss. I am just looking out for my kids and their kids...
                They will have to live in a totally different America as we know it.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I disagree that kicking the can is not an option - a great many people have decided that we are the caretakers (and  the moral guide) for the world and that is exactly the option that most fits with that declaration. 

                  I predict that the America of 50 years from now (my grandkids grown up and with their own grandchildren) will be a far different place.  Quite likely a place of misery and hardship as we continue to feel a moral imperative to support the world and disgust at any improvement in our own social/economic standing.  Building our own future is no longer acceptable, for as soon as we do we must give it away to those that don't build their own.  On top of that our own culture will be consumed by other cultures as we run down the culture that built the greatest nation on earth while elevating that of third world countries that cannot build a decent future for themselves.

          2. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I love how you guys just repost Trump's horrible talking points.  You've already parroted Pelosi out there as your scapegoat.  You do know that the bill passed the house, where Pelosi sits, and failed in the Senate.  You know that she doesn't become speaker until January 3rd, if elected?

            Jump on that misogyny bandwagon buddy!

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              You mean the bill to fund the wall passed Pelosi?  Not that I've seen.  Last I saw was her talking to Trump with another Democrat and they were very plain that not a dime would be funded.

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Of course you didn't see it, your blind hatred of whoever your fuhrer tells you to hate diminishes any capacity for rational thought.  This week, he's telling you to hate Pelosi.  Last week, it was brown people from Mexico.  The week before that, the Muslims.  And you and guys like Jack are eating it up.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I'm open to read/listen to Pelosi proclaiming that she supports any money at all for the wall.  Can you please provide text/video of her saying that?  Or that the house approved funding the wall, with Pelosi voting "Yes"?

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Sixty percent of Americans disapprove of the wall.  It's not her job to jump on board with your's and Trump's xenophobia.  It's her job to represent her constituents.  The bill passed in her branch of government, end of story.  Laying the blame for its failure on her is straight up misogyny, period.  Own it if you're going to be a woman hater.

                2. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  There is no hatred...I am Asian and a first generation legal immigrant.
                  I grew up in NYC, the most diverse population in the nation. I attended a public university and was on a team full of people from all races and religious beliefs...and ethnic backgrounds. we got along beautifully.
                  This border issue is not about hatred of anyone. It is about self preservation of our country and our sovereignty.
                  I have said on numerous occasions, I don’t blame people wanting to come here. If I was in their shoes, I would probably do the same if the host country allows it...

                  You people who try to make this into a race or something else do so at your own detriment. Our country will be less of a country if the border is not secure. You can spin it anyway you want like the dishonest media.
                  It changes nothing. The writing is on the wall...

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "This border issue is not about hatred of anyone."

                    I disagree, at least where the wall is concerned.  It's all about hatred of President Trump and a refusal to allow anything he presents, good or bad, right or wrong.

          3. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            ". . . Pelosi and her buddies are refusing to fund building even a foot of fence, wherever it is or how badly it is needed?"(my emphasis)

            "The Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have proposed no more than $1.6 billion, as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill. The money would not go for the wall but for fencing upgrades and other border security"(1)(my bold)

            Also, for the Fiscal Year 2018, the DHS received:

            "$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction,
            28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley
            and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector
            "(2) (my bold)

            (1) http://time.com/5481566/white-house-bor … -shutdown/
            (2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I'm fine with detail like this. In fact would it too much to ask for a proposal like:

        "Based on historical data, we believe constructing barriers of type x, at locations a, b and c will deliver an x% reduction in illegal crossings at those locations. This translates into $x over x number of years. The locations have been prioritised using criteria d, e, and f. Based on projects of similar scope and type, there is x% margin of error in the estimated project cost. An increase of x% over the estimated costs would change the projected benefit to $x over x number of years.

        But instead we have.

        "Let's spend $21 billion building a wall thousands of miles long! No, we don't know what it will achieve, but . . . invasion!"

        It's idiotic.

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          No one is saying building a wall thousands miles long and without consideration of the terrains. It is estimated the bulk of the crossing is along the texas border. Let’s start there and see how it goes? Shall we?
          Why speculate when we can construct it in pieces and see the progress of results? It seems to me those who are against the wall is not because it is too expensive or too long. People like Pelosi use the argument the wall is immoral...that is what gets me riled up. Why protecting our borders is immoral? Or unChristian? She is the one politicizing this to no end. Taking a vacation to Hawaii while the country is shut down.
          She is no leader and has not shown leadership in many years. The fact that she will be Speaker in January says a lot about where we are as a nation. Shame on us for electing leaders that are clueless.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            https://hubstatic.com/14344789.jpg

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Just another post that proves you don't know a damned thing about what Democrats stand for.  For a guy who claims to be highly educated, you sure do post some asinine things.  What's immoral is using the deaths of children as a reason to fund a wall.  What's immoral is holding the salaries of 800,000 government workers hostage during the holidays to get wall funding.  What's immoral is using false data points like ten terror suspects are apprehended at the border each day (it's ten at all border and airport points in the nation).  Saying it's immoral because Democrats want to protect the ability of immigrants to break our laws is just fabricating the truth, and that post you just made makes you a liar.

              Democrats do want border security.  To prove that fact here are some actual data points - undocumented immigrants went down by a million under Obama, criminals were targeted for deportation, and funds for border security were improved.  Significant results while keeping America's morality.

              1. Onusonus profile image75
                Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                But it's okay for Obama and the Dem party to do the exact same thing when they wanted funding for over priced Obamacare that nobody wanted.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Another false equivalency by the uneducated right. 

                  This time:  The House and the Senate had a bipartisan C.A.R. set to go with up to 1.6 billion in border security until Limbaugh and Coulter shamed Trump on television that led him to call a meeting of his House loyalists who then changed the bill to include his wall funding, knowing it wouldn't pass the Senate during Christmas Break.

                  Then:  The Affordable Care Act had already been passed and the GOP-led Senate tried to strip the funding as a way to undermine the start of the law during the month of October.

                  Two completely different things unless someone passed a law that said America needs to build a specific kind of wall along the southern border and the Democrats are refusing to fund that specifically.

                  1. Onusonus profile image75
                    Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Lets try this again; Democrats shut down the government to get funding for Obamacare, Republicans shut down the government to get funding for border security. Pretty simple.

                    Either way, the same taxes were still collected by our benevolent government. Enjoy watching them squabble over how to spend your money.

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                That is false. Under Obama, they changed the way they count deportation. The number went up but actual illegal entry went up.

                The shut down is temporary and all federal employee will be paid including back pay for the weeks they were out. It happened numerous times under both parties...

                Do tell me what does Democrats stand for? Correct my misconception.
                If you have a better solution than a wall, please enlighten us with your brilliance...

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  They?  Who is your 'they'?  If I know you, it is some deep state conspiracy.  Because the 'they' I researched wrote a report detailing information comparing the data from as far back as 1970 and comparing it to 2000, 2010, and then 2016 when Obama completed his term.

                  Yes, the shutdown is temporary.  Completely unnecessary since Trump didn't have the votes, won't have the votes in either the House or the Senate on January 3rd, and a majority of Americans think the wall is a bad idea.  So it's a useless endeavor that hurts the American economy during a cherished holiday season.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    It only hurt people who are citizens, who have no say in our government because of lying politicians...who say they are for border security and when the time came to vote, they are AWOL...just this week, a police pfficer was killed by an illegal alien. Why?

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            We don't have to speculate about what happens when we ". . . see what happens". In July this year, the US Government Accountability Office published a report called:

            "Southwest Border Security - CBP Is Evaluating Designs and Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key Information"(3)

            The title of one section is called: "DHS Selected Initial Locations for Barriers before Identifying Priorities across the Southwest Border or Assessing Costs"(4)

            Another section is called: "DHS Did Not Analyze Cost When Prioritizing Border Segments"(5)

            This report is from the government's own accountability office, and includes observations like:

            "DHS plans to spend billions of dollars developing and deploying new barriers along the southwest border. However, by proceeding without key information on cost, acquisition baselines, and the contributions of previous barrier and technology deployments, DHS faces an increased risk that the Border Wall System Program will cost more than projected, take longer than planned, or not fully perform as expected"(6)

            and

            "Without assessing costs when prioritizing locations for future barriers, CBP does not have complete information to determine whether it is using its limited resources in the most cost effective manner and does not have important cost information that would help it develop future budget requests"(7)

            So at this juncture, we know:

            The accountability office had to tell the DHS it should work out the best places to build barriers and the cost, before building any barriers; Illegal border crossings (by the government's own measure) are at a 40-50 year low, but the volume of people legally claiming asylum is at an all-time high, indicating it's the latter overwhelming the antiquated, inefficient immigration system, causing misery and costing millions in the process.

            We also know a big wall won't directly address the above issues, and there is no information from the government (that I have found) detailing the benefits of spending billions on a wall. No cost-benefit analysis, no projected payback period. Nothing.

            On the plus side, you say it will stop "the invasion", and lots of other countries have big walls too.

            Looking at it rationally, the facts suggest proceeding with the wall is a bad idea. So we could ". . . see how it goes?" Or we could just make sensible decisions about immigration based on facts.

            I think the latter is a better option.

            (1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf
            (2) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
            (3) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf
            (4) ibid (p.21)
            (5) ibid (p.23)
            (6) ibid (p.33)
            (7) ibid

            1. profile image75
              Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "Looking at it rationally, the facts suggest proceeding with the wall is a bad idea. So we could ". . . see how it goes?" Or we could just make sensible decisions about immigration based on facts."

              Good idea to look more closely at the costs of placing more walls in strategic places - I agree.  Now let's see if the Democratic Party suggests this, a more thorough study of placement and actual cost before approving border wall money.  My bet is they won't, therefore revealing that they don't give a rats butt about securing our borders.

        2. profile image75
          Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Taking a closer look at the costs and possible/anticipated benefits of more walling would be very helpful - I agree.  However, it's also possible to be mired in analysis and over-analysis for years.  Rather than do that, look at one success story along the US/Mexico border: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto … d=5323928.

          A huge reduction in illegal crossing attempts in that sector!  Yes, illegals have moved to other sectors where they're far less likely to be apprehended (they probably have only a 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 chance of being caught), but that's the point: the wall is effective.

          Walling will tend to move the problem elsewhere, but with more places along our border with protection similar to what's near San Diego, we can prioritize the soft spots with the necessary manpower and equipment to minimize the chances of a successful crossing.  This can and should be done.

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            'The wall is effective.'

            Except if you read your own article, it's fencing.  They even call it fencing.  You know, like the thing that was included in the budget Trump refused to sign.

            We Democrats agree, fencing helps, that's why we like that our politicians are putting money in the budget for it.  And if it reduces crossings by 95%, why are we going to spend ridiculous amounts more for a wall that we don't actually need.

            Thank you for making our case for us.

  7. hard sun profile image86
    hard sunposted 8 months ago

    This piece seems to reflect that the Dems voted for a bill that was very close to what the conservative Heritage Foundation says we need as far as fencing along the Southern Border goes. Money for a wall!

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … wall-2006/

    Are Democrats sincere about border control? I doubt it. Is Trump? If he were, it wouldn't be about just $5 billion for a wall. We would be looking at real measures that get real results. I just don't think Trump can read well enough to do such things.

    As far as Dems going against anything Trump wants..well you all know Trump is scum...who wants to negotiate with, or give a man like that anything he wants? His attitude is part of what makes him a horrible negotiator and why he can't get things done even when his own party controls both the House and Senate.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting article, and interesting that Democrats voted for a fence...because it was less effective than other proposed ideas.  That simple fact says quite a bit, don't you think?

      What else should Trump go for?  Everything else has been tried and cannot pass through Congress.  Anything that stands a chance of real control is voted down.

      And finally comes the real kicker - Trump is a horrible person so it's reasonable and acceptable that other horrible people will refuse to accept anything he mentions, good or bad, cheap or expensive, effective or not.  A GREAT way to solve problems, right?

      1. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        The less effective part is opinion, contrary to the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organization opinions.

        A horrible person equals a horrible negotiator. So, you're saying being a horrible person who lies almost continuously is how to get things done? Maybe if you want to go back to the stone ages. 

        I did say Democrats are not likely too serous about border defense, but you just refuse to acknowledge that and go in for the attack as I stated something that you deem counter to the exalted ruler. I guess, that seems to be the only motivation.

        Wilderness, you're taking reasonable attempts at discussion and turning them into nonsense talking points once again. There are a multitude of border control measures that could be passed if we had an adult in the Oval Office. Politics means dealing with people. If you're not good at dealing with people, then you're not going to be a good politician. This simple fact seems lost on the Trump worshipers.

  8. hard sun profile image86
    hard sunposted 8 months ago

    Ground penetrating radar is pretty cool. Also, drones are effective at finding and killing people so why not finding and stopping them from entering the country? We may need some better computer scientists to keep the criminals from hacking them, but DHS could never afford that with a $5.1 billion boondoggle tied up in the courts. I'm not sure we need Musk on this one.
    https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technol … nel-vision

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Assume drones alert to people trying to cross, what can border patrol do to stop them?
      We have over a 1000 miles of border.
      Use your head. No technology can do the job of a physical barrier.
      Once people crosses over, even if they are caught, it is too late. They have won the right to a hearing and ...
      That is our problem. It is real and not imagined. We are our worst enemy. We can’t see the forest thru the trees.
      It bothers me that so many intelligent people cannot see this.
      Jonathan Gruber was right. The stupidity of the American voter is what makes it possible for passing the ACA and similarly for not having a sound immigration policy that protects us.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        The stupidity of SOME American voters who believe a wall will solve the immigration problem enabled this POTUS to cause the present shutdown, Jack.

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          No one has proven one way or another a wall will not work. In fact, where it has been tried and built in San Diego, it has reduced the inflow...
          The problem is people refuse to even try because they know in their heart that it will work and that is the problem...they don’t want a solution. They like it the way it is.
          That is why there will be no compromise on this issue. There is no room to compromise. On one hand is open borders and on the other is border security. There is no such thing as half a fence.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Walls have been built for thousands of years with mixed results, Jack. Remember the Great Wall of China and France's failed Maginot Line? Both were failures despite being very expensive to build and maintain. In the latter case the Germans simply went around the barriers. DOH!  yikes

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Jack you're making an emotional argument, not a factual or rational one. Knowing the effectiveness of border protection, and how that's measured is vital. Evidently Congress thinks so too because it made those measures a legal requirement in 2017.

            The National Defense Authorization Act 2017 says:

            "—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall develop metrics, informed by situational awareness, to measure the effectiveness of security between ports of entry"(my emphasis)(1).

            I'm pleased to say the DHS has complied with the law and published the measures it uses to determine the effectiveness of border protection.

            I know how much you love facts and figures, so here some headlines:

            Unlawful border crosser apprehension rate(2).

            The DHS have moved away from using the absolute number of apprehensions as a proxy of illegal immigration between ports of entry(3).

            Apprehensions are now incorporated into a rate which includes attempted unlawful entries in addition to apprehensions. According to the report, the metric describes ". . . the difficulty of illegally crossing the border successfully"(4). So higher is better:

            "Since FY 2003, the model-based apprehension rate has climbed from less than 35 percent to nearly 65 percent in FY 2016. "(5).

            Another model used for this metric also indicates an upward trend (63 - 79). So evidently it's harder to cross the border illegally now than it has been at any time since 2003. We could have guessed that, but now we don't have to because we have the figures.

            Detected unlawful entries describes ". . . the numbers of migrants detected crossing or attempting to cross the border unlawfully"(6). Lower is better:

            " . . . detected unlawful entries (the sum of apprehensions, turn backs, and got aways) fell from 2.0 million to 624 thousand during this period, a 69 percent decrease"(7). Here's what that looks like:
            https://hubstatic.com/14346557.png

            Estimated undetected unlawful entries describes ". . . the numbers of migrants who completely evade detection and successfully enter the United States unlawfully"(8). Lower is better:

            ". . . estimated undetected unlawful entries fell from approximately 851,000 to nearly 62,000 during this period, a 93 percent decrease"(9)
            https://hubstatic.com/14346568.png

            Turn backs are "An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an illegal entry into the United States, return to the country from which they entered, not resulting in an apprehension or got away"(10). Lower is better:

            "The number of turn backs has decreased by more than 57 percent since FY 2007. This decrease is consistent with numerous other between-[Point of Entry] metrics than (sic) suggest a decrease in flow over the past 10 years"(11).

            Got aways "An estimate of the number of subjects who, after making an illegal entry, are not turned back . . ."(12)

            and

            Total Successful Unlawful Entries "An estimate of the total number of subjects who cross the border unlawfully and who enter the United States without being apprehended"(13).

            For both, lower is better:
            https://hubstatic.com/14346579.png

            There's lots more, which you can see for yourself, including:

            Unlawful Border Crossing Effectiveness Rate
            Probability of Detection Rate
            At-the-Border Deterrence
            Border Crossing Costs (smuggling fees as a reflection of how difficult it is to cross illegally)

            etc.

            In summary, the evidence does not support the narrative of a "crisis" in illegal border crossings. If anything, the data shows the CBP have done a pretty good job over the last decade of reducing attempted crossings, increasing detection, interdictions and deterrence, without Trump's wall.

            What will the proposed wall add? Where is the analysis that shows the impact the wall would have on these metrics?

            All you've offered by way of benefits is: it will stop "the invasion", other countries have big walls too, and people know "in their heart" it will work.

            Evidently my heart is not as attuned to the universe as yours Jack, because I need facts and figures. And so does the DHS it seems:

            "Comprehensive and rigorous performance management data provide DHS leadership with the foundation to support responsible evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation and investments and for operational and mission management"(my emphasis)(14)

            Do you honestly believe the requested allocation of funds for this wall represents responsible evidence-based decision-making? I know what your heart says. Maybe it's time to engage your brain on this issue too. 

            (1) https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ … ubl328.pdf (Section 1092, subsection (C)
            (2)(3)(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.9)
            (5)(6)(7) ibid (p.13)
            (8) ibid (p.15)
            (9)(10) ibid (p.16)
            (11)(12)(13) ibid (p.17)
            (14) ibid (p.2)

      2. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Just offering up a few solutions that people seem to be asking for here. Also, these are solutions suggested by conservative think tanks.

        The matter of a massive border wall expanding the border is clearly a disaster. Real border security would take a combination of many things.

        Use your head? Why so rude? I try to speak others on the Internet the same way I would speak to them in person. If you spoke to many people that way in person, you may have some problems. Just saying, take it easy.

        US Border Patrol Doesn't Want a Wall—They Want Drones and Sensors
        https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-do … 1773661854

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      That does seem to be one bit of tech that could prove very useful.

      The biggest problem, seems to me, is that "stopping them from entering" bit.  Once we find a tunnel what do we do with it?  Fitting a burrowing bomb in each drone doesn't sound like something we want, which means the drone won't stop anything at all.

      And if we merely close the entrance after making sure it is empty we haven't provided much incentive NOT to simply dig another tunnel.  Seems that a better method is to simply collapse the tunnel somewhere in it's length, as far towards Mexico as we can, without concerning ourselves with whether it is empty or not.  Do that a few times and there is suddenly an enormous incentive not to dig any more.

      1. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, OK. That seems reasonable...collapse the tunnels after ensuring no one in them of course. We need more discussion of real border control like this.

        Drones are used to detect where people come in, then you send border patrol to capture them. Check this Out:

        US Border Patrol Doesn't Want a Wall—They Want Drones and Sensors

        https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-do … 1773661854

        Trump is bringing a problem to the forefront with his wall, but this fanaticism associated with "The wall" and holding out for billions of dollars is only setting us back on immigration issues.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          A large part of the problem is that there is no real repercussions to border crossers that get caught.  They're simply collected and sent home, after feeding them, providing any health care needed, etc. 

          Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then?  Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels.

          I fully support drones and sensors, but to make them useful border patrol must catch the crime in action, and when they're an hour or more away that can be tough.  A wall can slow down the crossing to the point that a patrol can be there while they can still be of some value.

          Disagree about the wall setting us back on the issues.  It has been decades since any real effort was made to address this issue, outside of repeated amnesty programs that only exacerbate it.  Nothing else of any real value has been done, and there is exactly zero reason to think it will be done now...without some massive political pressure.  Such as the President demanding money to build a wall.

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            A wall is only going to be as effective as the manpower that can monitor it.  There's these things called explosives that they make that will render a wall pretty meaningless if not manned.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              You are correct, although armed drones COULD be used.

              Which is why reasoning adults see monitoring and manning as a basic part of any wall.  Others use that simple necessity as a method of denying anything coming from the White House, but it isn't a particularly useful or smart tactic.

            2. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              So, by that logic, why do you lock your house? There are exposives and many other means to get into your house illegally? The same applies to our borders.

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, the comparison would be, why don't I build a fifteen foot wall all around my property to keep people from walking around my yard.  It's because I don't live my life in a daily irrational fear that someone hoping for a better life is going to trample my grass.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  The wall is a metaphor for border security. You are arguing from a point of absurdity. There are places where a wall is absolutely the answer, else where, a fence, or another place border patrol, or drones, or whatever else that works... it is as if you have a gate in your house, or a fence around your pool, a lock on your door, and security cameras and all means depending what is needed. I live in a relatively safe neighborhood so I don’t need much security... no one is trying to break in. If I live in the south bronx of NYC, i would have a dog, bars on my windows, a double duty front lock...
                  This obsession with Trump and his wall is just insane. He just want border security whatever means that works...
                  How hard is that for you to understand?
                  The funding of $5 billion is chunk change...we spend much more on many other wasteful ideas...like the bridge to nowhere...

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    It's hard to understand when your boy keeps moving the goalposts, Jack. First it was a big beautiful concrete wall and  now it's down to steel slats or a fence. And Mexico was going to pay for it.....

                  2. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry if many of us don't want to spend 5 billion on a metaphor so you can sleep easier at night thinking people south of us aren't still crossing the border.

                    I can understand wanting border security, it's a bipartisan issue.  The phrase is chump change, and when our country is heading for a trillion dollar deficit this year under his leadership, every billion matters. 

                    But I also believe in measured progress to see if we can achieve the same result at a lesser cost to the American taxpayer, a cost he promised us we wouldn't need to incur over and over again during his campaign.  So use the 1.3-1.6 billion wisely and measure the results and if they are positive, use the money for next year wisely again.  Eventually, we should all reach the same goal, which is to lower the amount of people here illegally.

                  3. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    We spend far more than that "chump change" in supporting illegals and Americans out of a job due to illegals taking it at sub-par wages, not to speak of the cost of court appearances and deportation.

                    At least the cost of constructing the wall will end; the costs of illegals in the country never will unless we close the border.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps you don't do it because you don't already have hundreds of thousands of people doing just that every year.  If you did, you would have that "irrational fear" yourself that the people that are already trampling your grass, killing your livestock and stealing your property will continue to do so.

          2. hard sun profile image86
            hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then?  Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels."

            Huh, well, I guess you could say not incumbent. But, what if there were a hundred children in there. Unintended causalities are only unintended if all efforts are made to not make them casualties. Otherwise, that looks a lot like mass murder and/or terrorism.

            My understanding is that not all illegal immigrants get immigration bond. Either way, I'm talking about a holistic approach that works. According to the Heritage Foundation, there are a slew of things that work better than a wall. I'm with the conservatives, and the studies, on this one.

            You say you disagree about the wall setting us back on the issues, but you proceed to agree with the basics of my statement. I stated Trump's talk of the wall helped bring the issue to the forefront again, but his insistence on throwing billions of dollars into a boondoggle that will make a few people rich is not good.

            The basics are that issues are never as simple as people want them to be. Chanting "build the wall" and "lock her up" were great rallying cries for the masses, but they make zero real world sense. Education and progress will win in the end.

          3. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then?"

            You are advocating murder. I thought you were an advocate of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Here, you are advocating killing people in tunnels, presumably because they are criminals (correct me if I am wrong).

            What if a tunnel contains human traffickers transporting women or children against their will? Just kill ''em, huh?

            Wow.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Trump's rhetoric aims to dehumanize Mexicans and Muslims in a similar way that was seen in WWII.  Is anyone surprised that his supporters are advocating for killing them?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Are you assuming that only Mexicans and Muslims are digging tunnels or entering illegally?

                Sounds pretty discriminatory to me.  Are you sure that it isn't you that is degrading nationalities and religious beliefs?

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Is that the best deflection you have for advocating for the murder of immigrants for trying to illegally enter the country?  That I may have overlooked the French who might be tunneling to the United States?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    You tried to deflect it with your personal hatred of Trump and the evils he does in your mind.  Did I do wrong in following in your footsteps and deflecting once more?  Is it only you that can do that?

                    I don't see the first suggestion from you as how to stop the carnage and deaths from illegal crossings.  Anything that stands a chance of working and of discouraging future crossings.

                    Do you not care about those people dying?  Do you not care about the rapes and violence they undergo in their misbegotten efforts?  Do you not care about the thousands sold into sexual slavery?  Is it more important to degrade your president than to save lives?

                    The topic was how to close the border, and that includes saving the lives and misery of those that cross illegally.  So far you've suggested that Trump is dehumanizing two subgroups of people and so do his supporters.  That's the best suggestion you have to stop the carnage?  Or do you just not care as long as you can defame your president?

  9. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    Walls don't work?
    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48398692_670872699974717_8831095785899687936_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=972f6e0111a9f96a46a0336eee4462d9&oe=5CD9530A

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Yup, another false equivalency.

      'Although sections of concrete wall are most often pictured in the media, these account for only 3 percent of the barrier, primarily in residential areas and along highways where Palestinian snipers had targeted Israeli citizens.

      The remaining 97 percent consists of a double chain link fence flanking a dirt patrol road. Enhanced with electronic sensors that alert the Israel Defense Forces to movement along the fence, its object is less to stop infiltrators than to deter, detect and track them.'

      So, again, it's more fence like what is currently in that pesky budget Trump won't sign.  But let us know when Mexico starts putting snipers on the border and we'll consider a wall.

      1. Onusonus profile image75
        Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        So you agree that a barrier between the two is what is keeping Israelis safe. Thanks for proving my point.

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          The data does back up your point, even though the 1,000 figure was grossly exaggerated.  The decline in violence has dropped significantly.

          What would be more applicable to this conversation was how the Israeli fencing affected immigration between the two countries.  If you had that data, it would help make the case your side is trying to make.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Entrance is the point isn't it?  Regardless of intent, it is entrance that needs solved, not the fake "immigration" and subsequent rape of resources.  After all, does it matter whether the goal is delivery of a bomb or taking resources when it all hinges on illegal entrance to accomplish either one?

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Entrance is one factor, I'll concede that.  Where the sides differ is:

              a.) How much we're willing to spend when the country is already $779 billion in the hole under this elected official
              b.) What has actually been proven to be effective and cost-efficient methods to achieve those goals
              c.) If the country can trust him to use that money appropriately given his history of misusing funds and profiteering

              Again, entrance is only one factor.  Overstaying is just as much of an issue that we could tackle.  Not sure why there aren't resources going to that front when at least 40% are here because of that reason.

            2. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Entrance is one factor, I'll concede that.  Where the sides differ is:

              a.) How much we're willing to spend when the country is already $779 billion in the hole under this elected official
              b.) What has actually been proven to be effective and cost-efficient methods to achieve those goals
              c.) If the country can trust him to use that money appropriately given his history of misusing funds and profiteering.

              Again, entrance is only one factor.  Overstaying is just as much of an issue that we could tackle.  Not sure why there aren't resources going to that front when at least 40% are here because of that reason.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                a) That's because you and others refuse to face what illegal aliens are actually costing us each and every year.  The 5B that Trump wants to start the wall isn't a drop in the bucket compared to what we're already paying as a result of illegal border crossings, even if it's only 60% of the illegals in the country.

                b) Given that we don't seem to have the political will to use other methods, I'm not convinced that there are any more effective.  Certainly, once the wall is built, there are none as cost efficient AND that we are willing to use.

                c) As far as I, or you or anyone else, knows the President has not taken a single dime from the country without every right, both ethical and legal.  Until he has this statement is completely irrelevant.

                Absolutely overstaying is nearly as big an issue.  And we have the tech and knowledge to virtually end it...if we had the willpower and political power to do so.  We don't.  We can't even agree on what to do with DACA kids and to me, at least, that one is completely self evident.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  a.) In the same manner that you and others refuse to face what undocumented immigrants and their citizen children contribute to the economy.

                  b.) We currently do use other methods, specifically the fencing around the San Diego area.  As noted earlier, it has had a marked effect and is what has been budgeted for in certain higher risk areas going forward.

                  c.) We will have to disagree on this one as him journeying to his own clubs and charging the government to use club resources for his protection is one example of him using his position for profit.  I also noted you had no rebuttal for the confirmation that he illegally misused funds earmarked for his charity on his campaign.  Between that and his campaign finance felony, he's twice proven he cannot be trusted with money when it comes to the government.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    a) for which they are compensated.  And still require large amounts in addition.

                    b) Certainly some areas will not require a wall.  And some will.  That goes without saying, seems to me.

                    c) As you point out he has never taken a dime from the countries resources outside of his security forces - that's what I said.  As we have never charged any president for their security, there is absolutely no reason to think this one should pay his own way for the first time ever.  We could, for instance, purchase 100 or so golf carts and transport them to the golf course, but it's far cheaper to rent them.  You should be thanking him, not condemning him for saving the country money. smile

  10. profile image59
    ththrashposted 8 months ago

    I think that the politicians and the people of this country that believe we should open our boarders and just let anybody come into our country. They should all volunteer to take on at least two family's of  immigrants and be responsible for them. It is a sad time for our country. When illegal aliens are put above the people of this country that need help.

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The politicians and people you refer to are the ones that your right-wing media lie to you about existing.  The open borders quote was taken from a speech Hillary made in regards to trade, not immigration.  A little research would help you understand where the term came from and how it's been applied out of context.

      1. profile image59
        ththrashposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        For your info. I'm a conservative. I'm just tired of hearing about illegal aliens having more consideration than the people of this country that need help. So wake up and smell the coffee. I'm all for building a wall.

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I could tell you were a conservative when you couldn't spell border.

  11. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 8 months ago

    It seems that to make a long story short, I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis for putting up a wall verses not putting up one.

    Has there ever been one to support its being built outside of proponents saying that it works in Israel, China or Timbuktu, for that matter?

    Thoughtful posters have been alluding toward this point.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      In a way, you have one: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … ost4052924

      If the wall will cost what is claimed here - 850,000,000 per mile, or 100 times the cost of a 6 lane freeway - it is not possible that it can pay for itself by any stretch of the imagination. 

      Plus, of course, the many claims being bandied about that illegal aliens pay more in taxes than it costs to support them; if true no wall is economically prudent.  This one is dependent on failure to examine all, or even the majority of, costs, but is still being claimed as true. 

      "Has there ever been one to support its being built outside of proponents saying that it works in Israel, China or Timbuktu, for that matter?"

      Has there ever been one to deny the wall outside of those that make zero effort to determine if it works in any of the nearly 70 countries building walls?  Have the deniers every produced evidence of no positive results?  I mean, they claim it, but have they ever studied it (with an eye to truth rather than denying it) and reported their results?

    2. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The benefit is long term. Once you stop an illegal crossing, you save on providing benefits for him and his family...you save on prison incarceration, you save on lower wages for all at the lower economic level, which means less tax revenues to the IRS. You save on court costs and hearings and providing shelter and food for those waiting for court hearings...
      You save on drug induced crimes and tragedies of people addicted.
      How many ways? They are incalculable.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        You're confusing those who enter illegally with those who overstay their visas, Jack. The latter accounts for the majority of the now illegal immigrants and most of the expense as well. A wall won't help this problem in the very least, so it won't pay for the wall either. Good try though..

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Randy, How do you come to the conclusion that those that overstay a visa account for most of the expenses?

          I looked around and couldn't find any support for that contention. I found just the opposite. Very few of the "overstayers" involved families or children that would qualify for entitlements.

          The majority of the overstayers seem, (qualified due to lack of concrete data), to be single folks, not moms and kids that are the typical entitlement recipients.

          GA

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Without an estimate of how many people the wall is likely to prevent or deter from crossing, you can't do a cost/benefit analysis. Therefore you have no idea what benefit the wall would be (if any), long term or otherwise. That's the problem.

        In contrast we know the benefit (and estimated benefits) of actions taken over the last few decades to secure the border:

        Estimated share of migrants who fail illegal entry and don't try again
        https://hubstatic.com/14350142.png

        Probability of detection while crossing
        https://hubstatic.com/14350121.png

        Detected unlawful entries
        https://hubstatic.com/14346557.png

        Estimated undetected unlawful entries
        https://hubstatic.com/14346568.png

        Successful entries
        https://hubstatic.com/14346579.png

        So how about using the $1.3 billion offered for border security to keep doing the things that are achieving these results. That includes improvements to existing border fencing where it's deemed necessary and most beneficial, based on operational knowledge and experience.

        You know that makes sense Jack.

        (1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Yes it make sense only if the results are there...and I don’t see it.
          I see in my own community and around the country increasing immigrant population taking over jobs and keeping wages low and keeping jobs away from teenagers...
          I see crime being committed like the officer killed recently by an illegal protected by our sanctuary city, and Kate Steinle killed for no good reason...
          Talk about walls don’t work...
          Tell that to the Palestinians.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            No one wants to call a spade a spade.
            You don’t like the term wall, call it something else.
            Don’t beat around the bushes...
            It works.

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            But your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by factual information from reliable sources. For example, a review of multiple studies by the National Academies of Sciences says:

            "There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants. In addition, recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment levels)(1)".

            It seems you prefer anecdotes and narratives that reinforce your worldview, over factual information that doesn't. I just prefer factual information..

            If you showed me data from a reliable source showing the proposed wall would significantly improve the issue of illegal immigration, and represent good value for money, I'd support it.

            But you haven't. Most likely because no such data exists. That means the idea of the wall is not supported by factual information. That's not bias, it's reality.

            I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public policy to be based on reality.

            (1) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin … rdID=23550

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              If your italicized quotation refers to illegal aliens (vs immigrants) then it is not possible that there is a hint of truth in it.  This goes back to the false assumption that illegals only work jobs that no one else will, a patently false conclusion that anyone can see with their own eyes...if they choose to.  It doesn't take studies by people advocating illegal or unlimited immigration, and it doesn't take a genius, to understand that when an illegal holds a job, an American cannot hold the same job.

              While the employment picture is very, very good right now, and the statement may be partially true, it won't be long until it swings the other way.  It's been doing it for a long, long time now and there is no reason to think that unemployment will never climb once more...whereupon those jobs held by illegals most definitely means that a citizen is without work.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                The review considers immigration (authorized and unauthorized) and goes beyond assumptions about job-type.

                But this is not rocket science. All that's needed is some data from a reliable source showing that the proposed wall would significantly reduce illegal immigration, and represents good value for money.
                 
                Cost-benefit analysis, projected impact, benefits realization, anything that shows it's worth spending $21 billion on a wall.

                I have seen no such evidence, either within the 15 pages of this thread or outside it. Have you?

                If not, why do you think that is?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  If it concerns itself with actual immigration then it is worthless in any discussion of border control; something designed ONLY for illegal aliens crossing the border.  And includes any cost benefit analysis based on immigration.

                  You probably haven't seen any analysis of the usefulness of a wall, either economic or otherwise, because you haven't looked for historical information on the walls that have already been built around the world.  Plus, of course, you haven't compared the cost of illegal aliens to the cost of a wall, long term.  That one would be rather difficult as we don't have a real handle on maintenance or manpower necessary after it is built.  Guesses don't count, and so far that's all we're getting, mostly from those adamantly opposed to any wall.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Lots of other countries signed the Paris Agreement. The international scientific consensus tells us the agreement is extremely useful. Can I assume you want to implement the Paris Agreement immediately too? Lots of other countries have universal healthcare which has also proven useful. Can I assume you want to implement universal health care immediately also? Or should the government only copy other countries when it comes to building walls? Seems very selective.

                    If you were buying a business and were told you could only see the projected profits for a similar business in a different country, you wouldn't accept that. You'd want the fundamentals for the business you're planning to buy, to help you decide if it would be a good investment, because you're not foolish.

                    Likewise, people shouldn't have to look at other countries to see if this wall is a good idea. The government should be able to demonstrate it, at least on paper. No one in their right mind should spend $21 billion without a business case, including cost-benefit analysis. So
                    you can look at walls in other countries as much you like, but where is the business case for this wall?

                    The government should publish a business case that indicates the projected impact of the wall on illegal flows, crossing detection, interdictions, likely deterrence, what that all equates to in dollar amounts and over what number of years. While factoring in operating and maintenance costs. And it should include the methodology used to determine all those figures.

                    If you haven't seen any of that analysis, then you don't know what impact the wall is projected to have, or if it represents value for money. You're just guessing. You said "guesses don't count". So by your own reasoning you shouldn't support the wall without that analysis. Have you seen it? Does it exist?

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I wonder if the numbers provided by Don include thousands of people in Central America trying to illegally cross our border all at once?  I wonder if it takes in all the additional resources and manpower that is now required to defend our border against such things?  I don't see it.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            As a Trump supporter, you don't really WANT to see it, Mike. How about the 2,000,000,000,000 dollars added to the debt by your boy in his first two years, Mike? And he didn't have a recession to fight like Obama did but gave almost all of the debt to the rich folks in the form of a tax cut. Brilliant!! Perhaps he's really the "fart of the deal."  lol

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I hope you have a good day Randy.  We do see things differently.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Apparently so, Mike. What did I say you see different about the over 10% increase in the national debt caused by Trump in his first two years in office?

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I would like to suggest you are a little bit off the topic of the thread.  It is about the number of illegals entering the United States.  My point remains the information provided by Don does not take into account the tens of thousand of people at the boarder right now trying to cross into the country illegally.

                  Discussing the national budget is a a separate issue.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Got a link to the "Tens of thousand" tryin to cross the border "right now?" Or is this simply more Fox spin?

  12. alamshair436 profile image42
    alamshair436posted 8 months ago

    who Randy???

  13. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14354672.jpg

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Notice how your meme doesn't say that it's the southern border.  You know why?  Because the current administration is counting all border entry points, including airports, the northern border, and ports. 

      If the issue only was all border security, then the facts would be accurate, but since this discussion is about that southern border specifically, how about you try to present facts that apply accordingly.  Therefore, anyone with half a brain can openly reject that meme as the gaslighting that it is.

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        So what’s your point?
        The fact that our borders are pores is excuse not to do anything?
        It is this kind of logic and making this about race that drives me to the edge.
        What is wrong with doing the fixes incrementally?
        We don’t need to fix everyrhing at once or comprehensively...
        We need to fix one leak at a time incrementally.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          What is wrong with telling the truth, Jack? Misleading his base--as well as those of us who never wanted the cretin in office--only serves to make us more stubborn in thwarting the bufoon's wall.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            The wall is a symbol, and a metaphor...
            It is an attitude.
            If I may digress and use the homeless problem as an example.
            Back in the 1970s, here in NYC, we had a terrible problem with the homeless and squeegee man... The mayor at the time Dinkins said it is just the way of a large city and nothing can change it...
            When Guliani was elected mayor, he declared he would clean up NYC. He did it by changing police policy of dealing with the street derilicks. It was called the broken windows theory...you can look it up.
            Well, in a few short years, NYC was on the rebound, Time Square revived and we are a thiving city again...

            This is the similar situation with immigration on a smaller scale. The lessons are the same.
            If you ignore a problem, it get worse.
            It you start small, and deal with the broken windows, then over time, you will make a positive change.
            The border on our south, is a “broken window”. Get it?

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
              JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              https://hubstatic.com/14354756.jpg

              Get it jack ?? But hey, don't worry Bozo Trump shows every indication that he's willing to declare a 'False Emergency' and then get bogged down in MORE law suits but what does he care ? According to reports, he spent just about his entire private life tied down in a courtroom why should the oval office be any different ??

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Thank you Jake Dinkins...haha

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't even know what that means but you're welcome jack: The image I posted kinda puts Bozo Trump's retarded wall concept in perspective doesn't it ??

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    https://hubstatic.com/14354774_f1024.jpg

                    Did you not read my previous postings...?

            2. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I asked what was wrong with telling the truth instead of the poster wrongly suggesting all of those thousands of immigrants were crossing the southern border. You answered by telling me something about Rudy I already knew and relates not to my question.


              Please try again instead of diverting the topic.

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                As I explained, it was a similar case. It has to do with general problem solving and dealing with public issues such as the homeless, crime, and illegal immigration...the comon thread in all three is if you ignore it or support it, it will grow. If you stop it early and focus on the small stuff, there won’t be a chance of it ballooning into a more serious problem.

                If you don’t see the parallel, I can’t help you any more.
                I try to make it as clear as I can. That is why history is important and learning from history is our best chance of survival.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  It was simple question, Jack. What is wrong with telling the truth? You can answer, "nothing" or get on board with disliking these untrue memes your group are using.

        2. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Exactly Jack, 1.3 billion is a nice increment to add some fencing, technology and other resources without bankrupting a country that's already added two trillion dollars to the national debt under this administration.

          Try this for a read:  https://medium.com/@vickyalvearshecter/ … uyO7xGGfvA

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            That's a great article Valeant, thanks for posting the link.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I like that the author took her info from the Cato Institute, since it's a conservative source.

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
      JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The BIG lie readmikenow just posted in picture form is one primary reason WHY republicans were wiped out in the midterms, why republicans will be wiped out again in the senate in 2020 and why Bozo Trump will soon be impeached / indicted:

      In case you haven't noticed, even Bozo Trump's last remaining followers are looking PAST his never ending bs and looking at the atrocious things he's doing, like giving trillions to the filthy rich and deliberately and recklessly disrupting our government to the point that Americans are being forced to default on mortgages and rent, missing credit card payments and IRS refund checks will be delayed causing even MORE financial harm and despite the lies spewing profusely from his putrid orange mouth, the vast majority of people DO NOT support his insanity:

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Prove it wrong Jake...I'm waiting. Overwhelm me with an intense intellectual argument.  I'm waiting.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          The poster is well known to be misleading, Mike. Those stats are for ALL ports of entry into the us, not just the southern border. Not even a good try...

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            And your evidence?  Waiting.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your … -are-they/

              Better move that wall to the north since that might be where the true threats are originating...

    3. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Breaking news, Mike. The true number of illegal immigrants/suspected terrorists caught in the first part of 2018 was 6.  And none of these were arrested or held.That's right, not the 3000 falsely claimed on your blatantly misleading meme.


      Do us all a favor a check out the validity of your memes or don't use them at all!  Or are you simply as honest as your idol and do not care you're posting lies which harm the country? I hope not!

  14. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 8 months ago

    Poster child for Immigration...Problem.

    https://hubstatic.com/14354771.jpg

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Jack, I'm always humored by the way liberals believe everyone coming across the southern boarder illegally are happily skipping along singing a tune like Kumbaya as they plant trees and look for ways to help the sick and elderly.  I've been to the southern boarder in California and Arizona.  It is an eye-opening experience. In Arizona Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is too dangerous to visit.  We can't visit parts of our National Parks because of drug smuggling on the southern boarder.  Here is a sign you will often see there.  As someone who loves the outdoors...this makes me really mad.



      https://hubstatic.com/14354810.jpg

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        lol, And as a person who has lived near the southern border almost my entire life, I'm always humored by individuals who live nowhere NEAR the border, perhaps way up there in Idaho or upstate New York or Wyoming or some other God Forsaken place playing the snowflakey frightened victim when they've probably never even seen an undocumented immigrant in their lives !!!!:

        I can assure you this whole border wall fiasco is a made up farce just like Bozo Trump's entire dark, unholy life of hoodwinking the most gullible among us: PATHETIC: As a matter of fact, I received a knock on my door just yesterday and low and behold, there was a person I presume to be an undocumented man who asked me what I was going to do with the bedroom dresser I had outside waiting to be picked up by the city which offers this free service to residents:

        You see, many undocumented individuals when they arrive here in the USA provide necessary services and this 35ish year old gentleman purchased a used truck when he arrived here, and now he drives around the city collecting used furniture for free which he transports down to Tijuana Mexico so the less fortunate children can have at least one place to store their clothing so guess what, I gave him my used bedroom dresser and boy do I feel good about helping the less fortunate who may be needy:

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Good for you for helping the needy.
          The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
          In this case, it may seem harmless....
          But take it to the next level?
          If 10 more people come to yor house, do you have 10 more used couches to give away?

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Most of the time I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at jack, but I do know one thing, Bozo Trump is PAVING a nice big beautiful wide road of lies, deception, unforgivable sin, hate, racism, misogyny and fascism that his last few remaining followers can follow straight down into the white hot abyss and that's a hardcore biblical FACT

            And believe me, i try to stay as far away from Trump followers as I possibly can because when the good lord strikes this unholy oval office charlatan down at the time of his or her choosing, his followers just might end up as intended or even collateral damage:

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Now you are talking like a believer...good luck. You might have better chance of winning the lottery.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                As usual, I have no idea what you're trying to get at jack:

            2. profile image75
              Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I do know one thing, The Far Left is PAVING a nice big beautiful wide road of lies, deception, unforgivable sin, hate, coercion, and socialist authoritarianism that has entranced some followers into taking a road straight down into the white hot abyss, and that's a hardcore biblical FACT.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                lol, very creative Hxprof: FYI: Bozo Trump is the dark one, not the left and that's a fact:
                :

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Jake, I bet you are absolutely right.  All of the information from the DHS, ICE agents, local law enforcement and the court system about drugs, human trafficking and more couldn't be true...right?  I've spoken to many people who live along the border.  Some of them have lived there for their entire lives.  Guess what?  Many of them disagree with you.  It's always good to help Children in Tijuana Mexico, because I suppose there are no children in the United States who could use one place to store their clothing.  Would helping a child from the United States not make you feel as good?

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Now you sound just like your idol Donald, 2nd, 3rd and 4th source STORIES from supposed individuals who supposedly live along the border who tell you stories that I don't believe without facts: My account is first hand and I'm telling you this border fiasco is one of Bozo Trump's biggest farces to date: lol, when is the last time you had to defend yourself from an undocumented immigrant ??? NEVER ??

            lol, emergency ?? Yeah right what a joke, the only emergency is probably that not enough undocumented workers want to work at his golf course:

            Emergency ?? Yeah right, I guess that's why undocumented workers seem to be WELCOMED at properties with the Trump name on them:

            "New York Times: Trump's Bedminster club hired undocumented immigrants, two workers claim"

            https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics … index.html

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              As Jack said, "the wall a simply a metaphor." But Jack didn't know how right he was or what the wall stands for in Donnie's mind. The Prez is only concerned about his base and failing to keep his main campaign promise. Sure, he promised Mexico would pay for the wall in rather dramatic fashion, but now he's lying about the tariffs paying for the wall as any child can see.


              Did you ever notice Donnie's followers having the same traits as their idol, Jake?  yikes

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Randy it's still shocking that even though his base is shrinking fast, there are still individuals who buy into his slobby dangerously absurd bs: By now, everyone realizes the fact that Bozo Trump is a despicable serial, pathological liar who either is aware of his lies or perhaps maybe he's not which would represent an astronomical danger to the USA, and for this alone, he could be immediately impeached:

                But what about his enabler liars, his accomplice liars like Kelly Anne CLOWNway and Sarah Huckleberry ? WHY on Earth do they destroy their own credibility and future by becoming complicit with a 72 year old incoherent, angry dictator wanna be  who will soon be tossed out of our oval office and if he's lucky, into a prison cell?

                Lying so consistently as documented by the press and possibly not being mentally aware that you're doing so could be a sign of serious mental illness and that dangerous scenario cannot be tolerated from an oval office occupant, but what's even worse is an accomplice to those lies like Sarah Huckleberry who as far as we know, understands exactly what she's saying and how false it truly is, and that's just abominable behavior:

                Another alt righter around here tried to peddle this ridiculous lie about the number of terror suspects who try to enter the USA but what else is new, this entire white house is one big LIE, and when Fox calls Sarah out on her attempted made up oval office story you know it's beyond ridiculous:

                Watch the entire film clip, at the end, Mike Wallace of Fox destroys Sarah's bald face lie with a few simple words:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5z1rOxgOxc

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  That is Chris Wallace, not Mike. The father was with CBS years ago and long gone.
                  It is funny how someone would go thru the trouble to paraphrase an interview where people can just watch and make up their own mind...
                  The insanity of it all.
                  Where will it end?
                  Why the obession against the wall? When all nations know it works...?
                  Just answer that simple question.
                  The cost and all the other detractions are smoke screens.
                  The left never worry about cost before for anything execept the military and now border security.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Which Wallace had the interview with Huckabee doesn't matter, Jack. She lied profusely, just like her boss. Absolutely no terrorists were apprehended on the southern border despite her claiming thousands were caught there.


                    Yes, that stupid meme poster submitted by Mike was completely misleading, but you do not care. Since Trump was elected you guys love it when he and his cronies lie. Says a lot about his followers doesn't it?

  15. GoldenRod LM profile image96
    GoldenRod LMposted 8 months ago

    Here is a new twist on the topic.
    I live in the Phoenix, AZ area. As you probably know, we have a problem with illegal aliens here. Now some will say, "Oh, it's not a problem!" Just watch the nightly news here. Most estimates are that 25% of these "undocumented aliens" have criminal records. The new twist: with the government shutdown, ICE is releasing many folks who have been detained because they do not have the funds to house them properly. Soooooo.... the churches are overwhelmed with folks who need food, medicine, and a roof over their heads and they are pleading for relief. Most spokesfolks have an air of panic about the situation. Strange how if the government spends imaginary dollars to support its illegal alien problems, there is no crisis. But when the funny money dries up, the sky is falling.
    We live in an IQ-devoid worlds.

    1. profile image75
      Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      It simply IS a problem, and as you know, it has been for years.  Even with the drop in illegal attempts to cross into the US via the Mexican border, there are still hundreds of thousands of folks just coming on in.

      No matter how the weak or open borders supporters try to spin this, the problem has to be dealt with because it won't go away.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Pleased to have another border resident give his personal views, LM. I do support border security as do most on the left, but we'd prefer more humans involved, as well as electronic security, rather than spending money on a wall. 


      I'm thankful the churches and other orgs have more compassion for the immigrants than Trump does.

    3. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Why can't these people be encouraged to go back to the home they had in their country?  They shouldn't be welcome here.  Legal immigrants have a place to stay or a job or both when they get here.  If not, they have a sponsor who will post a bond and work with them to get employment and independence.  Legal immigrants pay money and fill out forms.  They MUST avoid being arrested for any reason.  Legal immigrants have made a commitment to obey the laws of this country.  These people who just come across the boarder have only made a commitment to themselves.  They need to be sent back to their home country or go back there voluntarily.  Unless they go through the same process as legal immigrants...they shouldn't be here.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        +10000000000000, thank you Readmikenow!  Why can't people SEE this?!

      2. profile image75
        Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, agree 100%.  But we have those in our government that support illegal immigration, whether because of their business sponsors or some perverted idea of "compassion".  It's sick and lawless.

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          President Trump will be making a speech to the American people tonight in prime time 9pm. Please tune in and be a part of this important issue. The time to act is now. If not now, when?
          The kicking of the proverbial can down the road stops here and now.

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            It is time for all American citizens to weigh in on this matter.
            That is all 300 million of us.
            Do we want a continuation of the status quo?
            Or do we want open borders? Let anyone in?
            Or do we want a systematic immigration process such that only people who applied through the INS are allowed here...with papers, and medical checkup...and skills we need...
            Part of this debate is how to deal with illegal crossings.
            Do we use drones or wall to stop them?
            What legal court actions?
            It seems to me, many politicians have decided to walk away from this issue. They don’t want to rock the boat...
            But Not Trump...

          2. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Only those rubes willing to listen to his lies will be watching.  Everyone else will wait for the fact checkers to denounce most of his speech. 

            Plus, most of us know how this speech is going to go already.  He will try and blame the Democrats for the shutdown because he knows he's getting killed in the public opinion polls.  But he will try and convince people that those not being paid falsely support his decision to shut down the government.  He will inflate the numbers of people and drugs being smuggled across the southern border.  And then he will inflate how the economy is doing in order to make it seem like America can afford his vanity project.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Gime a break...
              Why don’t you just watch for 50 minutes and reach your own conclusions?
              You rely on fact checkers who themselves are biased...did you know that?
              Instead of guessing what he will say, why not just listen to what says for a change?
              You TDS people are too much. You wish Trump will be that evil person you personify and then confirm it for yourselve before any evidence.
              The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
              When will you learn?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Jack, if he does indeed do as we suggest he will tonight, will YOU then learn? What do you think he'll say?  The truth?  Get real, Jack!

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I expect him to layout the case why a wall is needed.
                  He will probaby go over some past history where under both parties they have said the right things, even voted to build a fence but did not fund it...
                  He will appeal to the American people to hold their congressman to their promise...
                  He will also bring up the american citizens who have been hurt by illegals such as the Kate Steinle of the country...
                  He may also bring up the crazy sanctuary policy of some of our biggest cities...
                  Finally, he will ask Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders of their plan? If they have one, and why it will work this time as opposed to all past actions? None has worked.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I'm sure he'll try to scare people into believing his stupid wall is necessary, and some--like yourself and Mike among others here--will buy it hook, line, and sinker like those under the spell of a conman normally do.

                    But you didn't say if he'd lie as much as usual though. What do you think?

              2. PhoenixV profile image64
                PhoenixVposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                ..You TDS people are too much.."

                Is there a 12 step for tds and any plans for a Northern Wall?

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  No, I think Trump has made it impossible for these people to get cured. The only way is for Trump to resign and leave office.

                  There is no need for a Northern wall, there are not millions crossing it.
                  The day that becomes an issue is when a Northern wall is called for.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image64
                    PhoenixVposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    The north door is wide open though. I'm thinking feasibility of the project. Pennies on the dollar. Heck they could make the sucker outa Papier-mâché, theyre Canadians after all.

              3. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                What's a Gime by the way?  Is that like Trump language for gimme?  I bet you learned that in the same place you discovered the term TDS.  If you want to continue to throw around made-up mental illness insults, we can turn this as nasty as you need it to be.

                And unlike you, we have seen the evidence that Trump broke the law to become elected and will refuse to follow him in any way shape or form.  For a bunch of people that say we need to be a nation of laws, you sure do have a short memory in regards to his illegal use of his foundation's funds on his campaign or the felony campaign finance violation he committed with the payoffs to McDougal and Daniels.  Your hypocrisy in this area is a joke.

                And you have the gall to speak about the sanctity of life and yet you support a party that backs the NRA as children continue to be shot in schools.  You only care about the violent crimes committed by certain segment of the population.  Again, be consistent and we might take you seriously.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "we have seen the evidence that Trump broke the law to become elected"

                  You mean the evidence that Russians posted "fake news" on FB...without encouragement or knowledge of Trump?  THAT breaking of the law, that Trump didn't do?

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Nice misdirect away from the case where Trump was named individual-1 as a felony co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case where he was found guilty.  Or away from the case where the New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood forced closure of the Trump Foundation. 

                    Underwood said that her investigation found “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

                    I'll try and use less shiny objects in my posts next time so you don't get so distracted.

  16. jackclee lm profile image79
    jackclee lmposted 8 months ago
  17. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 8 months ago

    Since when is not paying those who protect us in the Department of Homeland Security a sound strategy to improve the security of the country?  At the very least, a party concerned with the security of the nation would have let an individual bill to fund Homeland pass the House and Senate.

    1. jackclee lm profile image79
      jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      They are going to be paid once the government starts up, including backpay. This is a drastic measure but necessary. Everytime the GOP gave in on budget items, they loose. Without any pressure, why would Congress do any different? They are spending money out of our pockets, not theirs.  The same reason the debt ceiling has been raised everytime it was crossed... the same reason our deficits and debt is at 22 trillion...
      You want any more examples...

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I loved the democratic remarks after Trump's speech; he should set aside his demand, deal with the needs of the country, and then they would "discuss" the border wall.

        Do they consider him a literal idiot, with an IQ of 40?  Every communication they have provided has said "No money for a wall, not a single penny, not now, not ever" - what person could think they were sincere about talking about it after Trump removed any pressure to do so?

        Politics - such a wonderful, open method of compromise and solutions! sad

      2. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I'm simply saying that if your party is truly serious about national security, Homeland should have been allowed to be funded.  If the rest needed shutting down to negotiate for a wall, so be it.

        1. jackclee lm profile image79
          jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          In that case I agree with you. The decision of who is a necessary employee and who is not is rather arbitray...
          I would also make sure Congress and President and VP does not get paid while the government is shut down.

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Agreed.

            1. jackclee lm profile image79
              jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Excellent, I know we can find some common ground. Let’s hope our government can do the same.

            2. Jean Bakula profile image92
              Jean Bakulaposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Today Limbaugh described Nancy as appearing as funeral directors after Trump's "speech" last night. Scroo him!!

  18. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    500 million dollars has been approved by both Republicans and Democrats to build a border wall. Looks like walls are useful after all.

    https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2 … ordanians/

  19. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 8 months ago

    Point to ponder. NY City just announced it will invest 100 million per year to cover health costs for the poor. It is estimated the program will help 600 thousand people. It is also estimated 300 thousand of those people who will benefit are undocumented immigrants.

    Although I think everyone should have a right to basic life saving coverage I also believe the undocumented will take away services from legal citizens in need when the well runs dry each year. That amount won't service the full need in the city.

    It's funny how we have no problem understanding legal entry makes sense at airports and ports of entry for sea traffic, but some can't understand that the concept should apply to foot traffic as well.

  20. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 8 months ago

    Wondering why Trump didn't get funding for his stupid wall when he had Republican majorities in the House and Senate?

    Wondering why it wasn't a crisis then, but is a crisis now?

    Wondering why those who support Trump and his stupid wall don't view his failure to get funding when Republicans controlled both houses as gross incompetence on the part of the self-proclaimed master deal maker?

    Wondering why anyone would consider this shutdown to be anything other than a stunt given the above questions?

  21. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 8 months ago

    Wondering why some ignore the reality of politics. Wondering why some use those self imposed blinders to pose unrealistic questions.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Is it really "unrealistic" to wonder why Trump didn't get his stupid wall when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? And to further wonder why he waited until Dems were in power to have a showdown over it? A showdown that harms people?

      Really?

      1. jackclee lm profile image79
        jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        It is the same reason Barack Obama did not solve this problem with DACA when he had the majority of both Houses of Congress. He decided to issue an executive order that was unConstitutional to deal with DACA in his last year in office.
        In both cases, It was Congress, that failed to act...
        The President was pushed into making this last stand by shutting down the government.
        Here is what I predict will happen...just the way Congress like it.
        Trump will give in and re-open the government with a promise that they will continue to negotiate the wall later...
        It will be forgotten...
        This had been their tactic in every case...
        When the budget negotiations goes to the last minute, the President is force to raise the debt ceiling... else the government will shut down. The minute they raised the ceiling, they go right back and spend like there is no tomorrow on their pet projects.
        My question is when will Congress do its job?
        Like not spend more than we have, like having a budget on time and not wait till last minute, like writing bills to fix DACA, like fixing the immigration problem...
        Some many bills...so few accomplishments...yet, the American people keep re-electing incumbents 90% of the time.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Why didn't he take a stand when Republicans controlled both houses?

          1. jackclee lm profile image79
            jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I don't know for sure but I think the GOP leadership of McConnell and Ryan did not want it but said they were working on it as a delay tactic.
            I think Trump miscalculated thinking he could get it done after the mid term election.
            Unfortunately, the GOP lost control of the House but remain control of the Senate.
            Trump lost his slim majority and now has no choice...
            My best guess.

            My own feeling is Trump should just pass the bill on border security. Keep the language vague. This way, once passed, he could do whatever he wants and use the funds to build that wall.

            In some ways, he could learn from the Democrats.
            That is what they did with the ACA bill.
            They forced this 2000 plus pages of legislation on us. No one read it and the wordings didn’t even matter. After it was signed into law, the proceeded to rewrite it as they went along...should I remind you how many waviers were granted and how many challenges to the Supreme court and the tortured way Roberts came up to say a penalty is a tax...

            The bill wording matters not.
            Why not pass a bill saying we want border security and leave it at that.
            After it was signed, Trump can say....we tried everything else and they haven’t worked so lets build the wall...

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              So, Trump didn't have enough Republican support to get funding for his stupid wall when he had Republican-controlled House and Senate, but now thinks he can strong-arm  the Dems to vote for a wall.that the majority of Americans don't want?

              Is he stupid?

              1. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Please don’t make light of this. It is not a stupid wall. If you have a better idea please share it?
                This problem is serious and ever growing.
                These Republican leaders are dishonest. They are doing the bidding of their donors and not what people elected them wants.
                I hope you see the difference.

                Going back to the 2016, you will remember Trump was not their choice. They wanted some Washington insider to be the candidate.
                After he was elected, by popular vote, they had no choice but to work with him.
                The wall was not their choice because some of the donors wanted cheap labor and division among the people...it is how they maintain control...behind the scene.
                I called out Paul Ryan on this in other forums. He gave interviews where he lied to the interviewer. He did this on the appeal of the ACA and he did this on funding the wall.
                They give Republicans a bad name.

                The people are still behind Trump. At some point, realistically, he cannot keep the government shut down. He will give in and it is unfortunate. The washington insiders got their way again, at the expenses and injury to the American people. How many times can we kick the can down the road?
                Sad.

                1. jackclee lm profile image79
                  jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Dear All,
                  I know I said this before but I do mean it this time. I think we have beaten this issue to death.
                  If people are not convinced by now, they never will.
                  No amount of evidence will suffice.
                  I wish you all well.
                  Even though I started this forum topic,
                  I am no longer following this forum.
                  Happy New Year to All. Hope 2019 is a better year than 2018.
                  Peace be with you.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  You still haven't answered my question. Why didn't Trump take a stand on this when he had a Repubican-controlled House and Senate? Why did he wait until Dems were in power? Wouldn't he have a much greater chance of persuading a Republican majority to support the wall?

                  Sorry, Jack, but the wall, as presented by Trump, IS stupid. It's been stupid from the beginning. Everybody with a lick of common sense knows it was just a dumb campaign promise that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The only reason Trump is shutting down the government is because his fragile ego couldn't handle the Rush/Ann/Sean bombardment of criticism. Trump is hurting people because he's a delicate baby who can't withstand the heat every leader must endure. Nobody believes this stupid wall will be built except his gullible followers.

                  That is the reality.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    It MUST be a "stupid" wall, for we all know that walls don't work.  At least those of us that have no experience with a wall; those that have that experience (like Israel) disagree.

                    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/07 … pHOy6I6nd4

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            How?  Are you assuming that all Republicans support the president as they support each other?

            That would be a very foolish assumption to make, particularly as we all KNOW the Republicans don't like him any more than the Democrats do.

            Or you just asking questions that you know the answer to, in yet another effort to throw mud at a president that is trying very hard to give the country what it needs?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Of course I am not assuming that. I am assuming that vastly more Republicans support a wall than do Democrats. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to take a stand when Republicans are in power since fewer would need to be swayed to his side?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                It would be logical to put hundreds of thousands in a position of no paycheck until the last possible moment?  Until every other possibility has been tried?

                While that may make sense to a Trump hater that just wants to sling mud, it doesn't make any to the rest of us.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Huh? So stage a shutdown when there is no chance of getting his stupid wall? I guess that makes sense to him and his followers.

                  And for at least the fourth or fifth time, I don't hate Trump. I pity him because he is a sad, lonely, mentally ill man who should not be In the position he is in.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                    Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    The "you just hate Trump" mantra seems to be the only excuse his fans can resort to these days, Pretty. Now that Manafort has been shown to have been dealing with the Russians the former mantra of "no proof of collusion by Mueller" has been replaced by the former.

                    It's still amazing to hear the many weak excuses for the cretin, though not as often these days for the former reason of his cronies being indicted.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    And yet it seems to be the tactic preferred by congress any more when they can't have what they want.  A shutdown is certainly nothing new; it has become the modus operandi in recent years.

                    I'm sorry - a person doesn't take every possible opportunity to throw dirt at someone they find sad, lonely, mentally ill, etc.  They don't even call them childish names like "delicate baby".  Only the haters do that.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Like Jack once said, "Gime a break."     roll

  22. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 months ago

    It looks like the border wall may get built.


    https://hubstatic.com/14359229.jpg

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Ok, that one was good humor.

    2. crankalicious profile image92
      crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Mike, that's really funny.

  23. crankalicious profile image92
    crankaliciousposted 8 months ago

    I'm just saying, it's weird. This is a crisis. If Republicans were going to pass a bill, they had a much better chance prior to November. I think now, by making a thing of it, they can blame Democrats. If they had tried and failed prior to November, it would have been all their fault.

  24. Onusonus profile image75
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49690731_10161413760450644_5393921956712022016_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=2024e0926d22b0ceafea3051cf3889a8&oe=5CBC7F62

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      That is a much more ignorant meme than you normally post, Onus! We do expect it though!

      1. Onusonus profile image75
        Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Personal attacks already? You gonna whine to the admin when I hurt your feelings?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I'm telling!!  lol  Do your best, AA.  You don't bother me with your silly memes. They only let people know the true extent of your biases anyway. smile

          1. Onusonus profile image75
            Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            You can't even figure out my biases, and you follow me around more than anyone.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I just wondered if you make these memes up yourself?  I doubt it. It's probably simpler to take others ideas and post them like you thought them up yourself. Am I correct?

              1. Onusonus profile image75
                Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                You never know.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Are you afraid to answer?


                  Like you would ever put in the effort....   roll

                  1. Onusonus profile image75
                    Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm sure you put a lot of time and effort into trying to convince other people to think like you, with all your vast keyboard skills and whatnot. But I've got better stuff to do than waste that much time with the meme generator.

  25. hard sun profile image86
    hard sunposted 8 months ago

    Border Patrol union deletes 2012 anti-border wall web page that argued walls waste taxpayer money

    https://boingboing.net/2019/01/11/borde … ed-ol.html

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Also, see testimony from Anthony M. Reardon to the Committee on Homeland Security in March 2018:

      "I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 25,000 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers . . .

      . . . the border security issues of utmost concern to CBP OFO [Office of Field Operations] employees are the hiring and funding challenges that contribute to ports of entry being chronically understaffed . . .

      . . . There is an existing vacancy rate of nearly 1,145 funded CBP Officers at the ports and, according to CBP’s analytic workload staffing model, an additional 2,516 CBP Officers and 731 Agriculture Specialists need to be funded and hired in order to meet 2018 staffing needs

      . . . this adds up to a total CBP Officer staffing shortage of 3,645 today.

      . . . frontline CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists at our nation’s ports of entry need relief, and yet the $33 billion funding proposal to improve border security provides none.   

      . . . To address the dire staffing situation at the Southwest land ports, as well as other OFO staffing shortages around the country, it is clearly in the nation’s economic and border security interest for at least $1.6 billion of the $33 billion funding proposal to be provided in up-front, no year appropriations to fund an increase in the number of CBP Officers
      "(1)

      (1) https://www.nteu.org/legislative-action … urity-buck

      1. hard sun profile image86
        hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Wow. Yeah, this shutdown has nothign to do with border security.

  26. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 8 months ago

    Another caravan is building. 2000 strong already. Mexican social media isn't looking kindly on it, according to reports. It's expected to top 4000 as it moves forward.

    It appears circumstances may cause Mexico to ponder solutions now that it isn't just an easy exit into the U.S.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      RUN HIDE! FLEE TO THE HILLS!

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Why? Does the hoping for orderly, legal entry bother you?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Not at all. The constant fearmongering from the right does though. Remember the last time when it ended the day after the election?

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            To those with a limited attention span, I'm sure it seems that the immigration dilemma ended then.

            1. crankalicious profile image92
              crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Kathleen Parker made an interesting point in her editorial today. Mexicans can fly to Canada for about $300 and then enter from there quite easily.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                That's cheap. I would think if they flew to Canada they'd just stay there.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Too cold. eh?

                  GA

                2. crankalicious profile image92
                  crankaliciousposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  She leans conservative. I think her point was that a wall won't do anything to stop illegal immigration. Those who want to get in, still have an easy way to do so that's not very expensive.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image82
                    Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Yeh. I got that.

              2. jackclee lm profile image79
                jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Most of these people don’t have $300, some  are not literate, that is why they are crossing the borders taking risk of injury or death...
                The wall will discourage these peope from attempting to cross...that is a humane thing.

                1. hard sun profile image86
                  hard sunposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I think they generally pay coyotes much more than that. A quick Google search will confirm this.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image79
                    jackclee lmposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    How easy is it for them to obtain a passport...to travel to Canada? It sound easy until you actually try. The hard truth is, it is easier to cross our borders. That is why we have such a crisis...growing by the year...