Trump's Fantasy Wall, National Emergency, and Reality

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (63 posts)
  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 8 months ago

    Here is an interactive map of the "Wall" with video links to view the entire Southern Border from the air. It was produced by USA Today and their crew who filmed the entire border from a four day helicopter ride.

    This site has a wealth of information that you can explore and learn about the Southern Border, including it's topography and environment. Trump and anybody who has an interest in the "wall" needs to sees this map.

    1. Click on the link below. This will bring you to the entire map.

    2. Click on the Down Arrow enclosed in a circle. This will take you to the Introduction. After the introduction, Click on the Explore the Map Button and follow the prompts to take the helicopter ride from East to West.

    https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us … 44jdTM5nww

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Most interesting!  Not sure what you saw, but I saw mile after mile after mile of river with roads not far from either bank, easy access to the river on both sides and a very occasional house (ranch?).  Not even a pedestrian fence according to the legend.  I was looking in the area of Big Bend State Park - some had high cliffs that appear functionally unclimbable, but a great deal more did not.

      This is in line with interviews I've seen with ranchers, pointing out that the only "barrier" is a broken down strand of barbed wire. 

      Looks to me like the 200 miles or so that Trump wants to start with is needed.  Badly.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness:  I don't know what you saw?  Did you have the audio on and listen to the narration?  Did you see the formidable desert where there are no roads and no human would even attempt to cross into that area? 

        The reason there are no walls in some spots is because they are either impassable or the cost to benefit ratio is too high because roads would have to be built, so that materials and personnel could be brought in.

        My point to all of this is that Trump keeps talking about his wall as if there is nothing there already or that it is ineffective.  That is not the case. 

        The Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have sensors, drones, and radar along the entire river. They have 24/7 surveillance and aircraft and boats to capture people who are in violation of border crossings, including drug runners.

        The bulk of drugs are not brought in by fording the river but by airplanes flying over the border and landing in remote places.  Here is an article I wrote about the CBP Airborne and Marine Operations Center (AMOC) that I was privileged to visit a few months ago.

        https://letterpile.com/personal-essays/ … ur-Borders

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "but I saw mile after mile after mile of river with roads not far from either bank, easy access to the river on both sides and a very occasional house (ranch?)"

          Go to about the center of the map, turn on aerial, and click the area where it says "Big Bend Ranch State Park".  Let it run for 10 minutes or so. There are some areas of canyon (effectively impassable) but lots more just as I described as the movement goes west.  I'd take a screenshot, but the motion cannot be stopped without reverting back to the map.

          Yes, border patrol has sensors at some places (not 2,000 miles of river).  And they have enough people and equipment to get to anywhere on the border...in a couple of hours or so, after border crossers have long gone.  The point of the wall, seems to me, is to slow them down enough that sensors can pick them up in enough time to get manpower there to stop them.

          Not sure just why you only want to talk of drug crossings; while that is a major problem it seems to me that it is about stopping ALL illegal crossings, not just that tiny percentage carrying drugs.  Nor does it make sense to me to insinuate that no drugs come across on the ground; I've watched videos showing otherwise.  Either way, though, it's a red herring when it comes to stopping people from entering illegally in order to live here.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Wilderness:  Did you read my article?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Yes.  We stop, according to you and I have no reason to disbelieve it, some of the drug traffic.  A portion of it.

              We also have hundreds of thousands of illegals entering the country every year.  We aren't stopping them.  It isn't working.  And that's a reason NOT to build a wall and increase the security we have?  I disagree, that's all.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Terrific link peoplepower73. I have been following its interlinks for a couple hours now, and will probably spend a couple more hours before I have drained them.

      But, one of the first links, regarding increased fencing and Border Patrol presence in the California and New Mexico areas has prompted a thought, and I only present it for discussion, not as a position.

      The article spoke of the increased deaths, (in the desert terrains), due to the increased security in the mentioned areas pushing illegal immigrants to try the more dangerous hostile terrain areas.

      The stronger fencing/barriers were specifically noted as being effective deterrents.

      Should that be regarded as a good thing because the fencing/barriers are proving to be effective, (at least in reducing volume)? Or as a bad thing because its success means more lives will be lost trying to cross in the more dangerous desert terrain areas?

      Also. From the end point of those particular fences/barriers, it seems some of the adjacent dangerous terrain areas would be logistically amenable to fencing/barriers.

      Would that make them good candidates for fencing? Would more difficult access to the dangerous routes reduce deaths, or push illegal immigrants to just move further east to try even more dangerous routes?

      At this point, if an opinion was based on that one area example, I think limited additional fencing, (as mentioned), would be a realistic choice.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        If we ever get to the point that we slack off of security, leaving open pathways to violate our laws, because it has become so difficult that people are dying in the effort of evading the law, we have lost the battle.  Hang up your hat and retreat - it's over.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I think our hats are safe for now bud. It is a sad thing that lives are lost, but I can't imagine that argument being supportable in a debate about the value of more fencing.

          In at least one other of the link's related articles, one of the smugglers - called himself a 'pollero' not a cayote,' because he smuggled illegals in over the fences, not through the desert, spoke of not being able to get as many illegals across the border because of the fencing.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            For the most part you are correct - it is not (yet) something to be real concerned about.  While I've seen a few people advocating pretty much open borders to reduce the death toll, they are a very small minority.

            Sure.  Saw an article earlier that said the large majority used to come through Arizona, but after the fencing went up the number dropped considerably.  While increasing in areas where there was no wall yet.  Yet we keep hearing that a wall is useless and does no good...while other countries and our own patrol report just the opposite from real world experience.

  2. mackyi profile image70
    mackyiposted 8 months ago

    Too much focus is being placed on a physical barrier, as opposed to the foundation of illegal immigration. The mass of the people who came to the US illegally are nowhere close to the borders. You would be surprised to know that apart from visitors overstaying their time, employers capitalizing on cheap foreign labors, etc; this illegal immigration is also big business!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      "There were 303,916 border apprehensions in the southwest U.S. during fiscal 2017". 

      Given that there an estimated additional 200,000 that successfully evade apprehension, that's quite a mass.

      From the same source:
      "The area, known as the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector, accounted for 45 percent of all apprehensions in fiscal 2017. From 1998 to 2012, most apprehensions occurred near Tucson, Arizona. Much of Arizona’s southern border is now fenced off. That has significantly reduced crossings there but led to increased crossings further east, in Texas."

      It seems that a wall actually does have quite a positive effect on reducing the number of illegal border crossings.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … tly-cross/

    2. MizBejabbers profile image89
      MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Mackyl, I'm not surprised at what you said because it should be common knowledge. There are people who just don't want to accept it as truth, and they are the ones who are arguing for Trump's wall: Hang the cost and forget the inefficiency!

  3. Onusonus profile image76
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/50658138_1021150538090981_8340583866129448960_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=3d4350a96850a591a52ae744692aea01&oe=5CFFB83B

  4. Onusonus profile image76
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    By the way, they estimate that the shutdown cost us 40 billion dollars.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Well tell us WHOSE fault that was & it wasn't the POTUS...….

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Grace, did you not see him OWN the shutdown with your own eyes and ears? And now you're claiming it wasn't his fault?  I suppose it was those on the left in your mind?

        1. peoplepower73 profile image93
          peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Everybody:  Trump speaks in generalities, not in specifics.  When he talks about the wall, we really don't know what he is talking about. He gives us the impression that he is going to build a big beautiful wall as if there is no wall there now.  The Iink I  posted shows otherwise and for the most part it is effective as a deterrent.

          If he would talk about improving the system of border protection which include staffing, technology, and resources, it would be an easier sell for him, but he campaigned on "Building the "Wall" and he is sticking to it for his supporters, so that he can get re-elected again.

          Here is an article that will put the border crossings into perspective.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande … 13339112aa

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Illegal border crossings are rising again, up 11% from the prior year.  We have over a half million such crossings each year.

            Yes, let's put that into perspective.  There are as many people crossing the border illegally each year as reside in the state of Wyoming or Vermont.  An entire state's population entering illegally, and rising.  But it's not a problem if we just "put it into perspective".

      2. MizBejabbers profile image89
        MizBejabbersposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Not the POTUS. How can you say that when HE owned it. Are you calling him a liar?

    2. Randy Godwin profile image90
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      What expenses did those us not involved in the process accrue? And I heard it was around 18 billion,and not 4 times as much as you claim.

  5. peoplepower73 profile image93
    peoplepower73posted 8 months ago
    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      It's interesting.  "But what does it mean to have a secure border?  Without a nationally agreed-upon way of measuring border security, we are stuck in a political debate as much about semantics as substance."  In other words, it's secure if we say it is, regardless of how many people successfully evade the law and pass on onto the interior.

      A border wall would stem the opioid epidemic.[i].  This one is downright stupid, for no one at all believes that it will stop the epidemic.  On the other hand, it WILL cut down on the amount of Opioids entering across the border, and that cannot be a bad thing.

      [i]For decades, growing border security spending failed to reverse the rising tide of unauthorized immigration. A 2006 Council on Foreign Relations report summed up the research at the time, answering the question: “Does increased investment in border enforcement reduce illegal immigration?” with a succinct, “Not really.”'
        Now this one is interesting, as that is exactly what the Ds are proposing; more of the same, which is not doing the trick according to your article.

      All of this means that large flows of migrants over the southern border do not necessarily generate significant terrorism risks.  Again, interesting in that the little word necessarily kind of says it all.  Of course it is not necessary for terrorists to be in a group of illegals, but it is impossible to know they aren't either - not when they get by Border Patrol.  Does that mean we should not be concerned?  Only if our head is buried in the sand, for that is one method to get into the country.

      And it’s true that Mexico has become an important partner of the United States in managing Central American migration; it gives a growing number of refugee visas and deports large numbers of migrants before they arrive at the U.S. border.  I'll pass on making judgement on the strength of Mexican laws, and their enforcement of those laws.  Except, of course, to say that they DID allow the caravan to reach our border, in violation of any "strong" laws they might have.  They even provided assistance.  When we stop getting central/south Americans coming in over the Mexico border I'll believe it a lot more.  Of course, that all says nothing about Mexico allowing/encouraging their own citizens from crossing illegally; the President of Mexico even went so far as to tell us that without that escape for Mexicans (and the money they send back) his country would be in trouble.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image93
        peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Wilderness:  I'm not trying to imply that our border security is perfect. It is far from it and it needs improvements.  But Trump frames it as building a wall that will solve all the border problems. 

        He is not doing himself any favors by playing to his base with his campaign promise.  He needs to define what he means by building a wall.  If it means improving the components of border security, then he should outline what he means.  But if it just a wall, I don't think he will ever get the funding, because many know a wall isn't going to solve all the problems.

        After seeing his rallies and how his people chant about building a wall, it becomes obvious that they have been sold a bill of goods believing Trump's sound bites about the wall.

        While there are those of us who want a definition of what he means by building a wall, including the democratic congress.  I believe he is not capable of nuance that is necessary to define what improvements need to be made to the border security system. That is why he just says build a wall.

        If he shuts down government again, this country will be in deep trouble, including Trump.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "But Trump frames it as building a wall that will solve all the border problems.  "

          Although the far left does present this as factual, it is not.  No one can possible think that a fence, however tall and tough, will instantly solve all our immigration problems.  It will not, for instance take care of the DACA problem.  It will not solve overstaying of VISAs.  It will do nothing about the millions already here.  It will do nothing for the problem of hiring illegals.  One has to wonder, then, just why it is being said.

          If you want detailed plans for what would be constructed, including all security measures, sensors, etc. you are doomed to failure, for that is a sure fire way to destroy any effectiveness.  At the same time, most of us understand that a physical barrier, whatever it's construction and shape, is but one portion of the total package.

          If we don't want the government shut down again then we need to explain, using simple terms, that it is unacceptable and if our legislators cannot or will not run our country we will find those that will.  We can start with the destruction of the extreme partisanship we see growing throughout the Hill - if you can't work together to find solutions we will find those that will.

          (We could start by making it clear that spun information such as in your link is worthless and take those people introducing such nonsense to task for it, along with those that introduce it into discussions/debates.)

          1. peoplepower73 profile image93
            peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Wilderness:  This is what I'm trying to say.

            https://news.yahoo.com/define-wall-keep … soc_trk=tw via @YahooNews

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              From your link:  "But they are open to spending for replacement fencing, levees, bollards, and electronic barriers."

              This is obviously false, for Pelosi and others have repeatedly said there will be no wall whatsoever.  This has deteriorated into nothing but semantics.  I personally find that a "wall" includes ALL of those things, including a "fence" that is 20' tall, 6' underground and made of concrete.

              Again, from your link: "...at various times he’s <Trump> said that would be concrete, or could be steel slats, or maybe even based on drones, sensors, and other “smart wall” technology."  This is 100% in line with what the D's were said to want, but insistently refuse.

              More: "The upshot: The “wall” has become what political scientists call a condensation symbol, something that stands for schism, frustration, fear of immigrants, Trump himself, opposition to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a lengthening list of other positions and feelings."

              So the opposition has nothing to do with a wall, but with political partisanship and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with the border.  But mostly it's about defying the President of the United States because he's not a Democrat.

              But if you wish to be included in the engineering and planning of just what is planned for every foot of the border you should ask to be included in the groups that do such planning.  Should your training and experience be valuable you might be hired.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Wilderness:

                W: So the opposition has nothing to do with a wall, but with political partisanship and a dozen other things that have nothing to do with the border.  But mostly it's about defying the President of the United States because he's not a Democrat.

                M:  It's interesting how two people can read the same article and come to entirely different conclusions.

                From the article: "But Trump has also occasionally talked about the wall in a way that seems open to compromise with Democratic positions. He’s talked often about “steel slats” as an alternative to concrete slabs, and mused on occasion about the possibility the wall could include “smart wall” sections of drones and other non-permanent infrastructure."

                M:  I see that paragraph as an opening gambit for a compromise where both sides win.  The problem is that Trump always fancies himself as the winner and the other side as the loser, even when he is losing.  So let him win, but let the other side win as well.

                W: But if you wish to be included in the engineering and planning of just what is planned for every foot of the border you should ask to be included in the groups that do such planning.  Should your training and experience be valuable you might be hired.

                M:  I know about the capabilities of the Airborne Marine Operations Center (AMOC) and what assets they have and their interaction with all levels of law enforcement, both foreign and domestic.  That doesn't mean I'm an expert. 

                But I do know that if Trump would stop playing to his base and explain in simple, definitive terms what he means by the wall, it would help everybody.  I think he went to Laredo Texas saw on opening in the wall and from that he deduced that he was going to build a great big beautiful wall.  And now he knows that he can't agree with the other side at the fear of losing his base. 

                So now he has a new mantra:  Build the wall and crime will fall."  Where in fact it is falling without him building his wall.  Further he wants to frame it as as a national emergency. Emergency connotes immediate urgency, but yet he was willing to shut the government down if he didn't get his way,. How can it be an emergency if he is willing to shut the government down again?

                Trump is like a child who is playing with blocks and when asked what the child is making, he says it's a great big, little something.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "It's interesting how two people can read the same article and come to entirely different conclusions. "

                  Then that must be because you didn't read your own link, for that is exactly what it says.  Minus, I admit, the last statement that the primary reason is because of Trump, although that was in there, too.

                  "So let him win, but let the other side win as well."

                  No problem with that, for me.  For the D's it is unacceptable, thus the demand that not a single dollar be spent on a wall.

                  "But I do know that if Trump would stop playing to his base and explain in simple, definitive terms what he means by the wall, it would help everybody."

                  He has.  Everything from a concrete barrier to electronic surveillance.  You just don't want to acknowledge that.  Plus, of course, I highly doubt that there are plans for every inch of every mile of the border, and if there were you are never going to see them any more than every contingency and plan from the TSA is made public.

                  "How can it be an emergency if he is willing to shut the government down again?"

                  You may disagree with his methods or his choice of words, and bash him for it, but no reasonable person can possible think that a half million people illegally sneaking across our southern border every year does not constitute an emergency.  No reasoning person could look at that caravan, supported and supplied by foreign nations as well as Americans with more heart than brains, and conclude there is no emergency. 

                  "Trump is like a child who is playing with blocks and when asked what the child is making, he says it's a great big, little something."

                  Perhaps.  At least it sounds good to those interested in rhetoric and words rather than events and actions.

                  But at the same time we have congress on the other end of the seesaw - a congress that has taken no effective action in decades to counteract actions that have cost us trillions of dollars in the last few decades.

                  You will choose for yourself which is worse - the man that you think is childish and refuse to listen to because of who he is or the congress that refuses to address the needs of the nation.  One tries, one does not.  Choose, but choose wisely, for the continuance of our nation, our culture and our way of life depend on the one chosen.

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

            "It will not, for instance take care of the DACA problem.  It will not solve overstaying of VISAs.  It will do nothing about the millions already here.  It will do nothing for the problem of hiring illegals"

            Agreed. So what exactly is the projected benefit? A 0.1% reduction in illegal crossings? 1%? 10%? 60%? What?

            If the projected benefits are significant, surely that would be a selling point. So why haven't any projections been published? If they have, I'd be grateful for a link.

            And if you don't know what the projected benefits of the proposed wall, how do you know it's worth the money?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design.  I know none of those.  Do you?

              But I DO know that what we're doing isn't working.  Something else is required, and so far this is the only thing I've seen.  Is there something else, something besides "more of the same thing that isn't working"?

              Worth the money - with estimates of 150B per year spent on the problem of illegal aliens (not border crossings, but illegals living in the country) it's really hard to see how any reasonable design of a wall won't produce savings of more than it's cost.  It might take a few years, but I think it is inevitable that the cost will be lower than the costs of NOT having effective control.

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

                To give a projected decrease in successful crossings, as well as costs, I would have to know the status of the border where it will go, the cost of the project and the exact, total design. I know none of those. Do you?

                No, and that's my point.

                The public and Congress, must be told the projected benefit of the proposed wall, and how that has been calculated. That information is conspicuous by its absence from the public debate, and raises questions.

                If no projected benefit has been calculated, then why not? If it has why hasn't it been published?

                I wouldn't buy a car if the manufacturer refused to publish the performance I could expect to get. Yet I'm expected to support a multi-billion dollar project without knowing the projected benefits. That's a dealbreaker.

                "But I DO know that what we're doing isn't working"

                That's factually incorrect in relation to border crossings. If you'd like me to re-post all of the factual information that shows illegal border crossings have significantly reduced over the last decade, I'd be happy to.

                The issue, as you rightly said, is that this will not address "the DACA problem . . . overstaying of VISAs . . . the millions already here . . . the problem of hiring illegals", and of course the massive backlog of immigration cases.

                So surely the solution is to start addressing those things.

                The DHS will still receive continued appropriations for border security, which it can use for new or replacement border fencing (among other measures) at its discretion, based on operational need. That would be a rational, sensible approach.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  If I might ask, did you demand to know the cost, engineering details, performance and projected number of enemy planes shot down of the F35 before it was purchased?  Are you qualified to give a useful opinion on any of those?

                  No?  Then why in the world are you doing it now?  I don't see any difference.  Trump could undoubtedly give projected results, but why?  You wouldn't believe anything he says anyway!  Plus of course, the 6B for 200 miles of wall is intended only as a start on a much more ambitious project; any projections for this (1/5th of the total border?) would be impossible to give, I would think.  How many would be deterred from trying, how many caught trying (of which how many will move over 100 miles and try again) and how many will just go somewhere we haven't built yet?

                  "That's factually incorrect in relation to border crossings."

                  If that was even significantly correct we wouldn't have 200,000 people successfully evading capture every year.
                  So surely the solution is to start addressing those things.

                  "So surely the solution is to start addressing those things."

                  Actually, no it isn't.  First, it should be addressed concurrently with better border control.  But even if we don't do that, it most assuredly makes no sense to work on existing illegals while hundreds of thousands more enter each year.  That's an exercise in futility.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image93
                    peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Wilderness: 

                    Fact:  Trump has "trumped" up the national emergency.  How can a national emergency take two years to execute and then shutdown the government and many of the institutions to protect us?

                    Fact:  The Southern Border already has walls, fences, and barriers and high tech 24/7 surveillance that is connected with Customs and Border Patrol and  law enforcement both domestic and foreign.  It's called AMOC and they are part of the law enforcement arm of Homeland Security that people don't even know about. 


                    They have their own air force,drones,  boats, and radar. In the valleys where people might get through, they have blimps tethered in place with on board radar to detect and interdict any suspicious activity.

                    Fact:  If I'm going to pay for his wall, I would like to know what I'm paying for and whether it is going to be effective.

                    Fact: Illegal border crossings have been trending downward for the last several years.

                    Fact:  Trump and Stephen Miller have created crimes against humanity by separating children from their parents, so that they may never be together again in their lifetime.

                    Fact:  Trump shutdown the government based on what Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter told him.

                    Fact:  Illegal immigrants are not stealing jobs from American Workers and driving down wages.

                    Fact: Border security is not just about illegal crossings on foot or vehicles.  It's also about drugs coming into this country by air and marine borne conveyances.

                    Fact:  I can back up all those facts listed here.

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

                    . . . did you demand to know the cost, engineering details, performance and projected number of enemy planes shot down of the F35 before it was purchased?

                    That's just "Whataboutism", and it doesn't help your case. One government procurement fiasco doesn't justify or excuse another.

                    "You wouldn't believe anything he says anyway!"

                    If the methodology was sound and the assumptions the government made reasonable, no one could reasonably disregard it. That's the advantage of using facts over emotive statements.

                    If the government was confident there were significant benefits, why wouldn't it publish that information? The most obvious reason is that the government is not confident there are significant benefits, and doesn't want to reveal that because Trump needs this as a political victory.

                    "If that was even significantly correct we wouldn't have 200,000 people successfully evading capture every year"

                    A reduction from 1.8 million to 200,000 is significant. Cleary the DHS strategy of using a variety of measures, including investment in new technology as well as replacement border fencing etc. has been working. That is not something you can reasonably deny. That indicates obsessively focussing on only one aspect of border security is not the best approach.

                    "First, it should be addressed concurrently with better border control."

                    It would be concurrent because border security is already being addressed. The DHS is already receiving funds for new and replacement border fencing. Since 2016 3.5 billion has been made available. If the government wants significantly more funding, then it needs to make the case in a sensible, rational way.

                    In the meantime none of the other issues mentioned are being addressed: visa overstays, DACA, illegal immigrants already in the country, the massive backlog of immigration cases etc. Therein lies the problem.

  6. Glenis Rix profile image96
    Glenis Rixposted 8 months ago

    The voice of commonsense and reason from MzBejabbers, as always.

  7. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
    JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months ago

    Randy, considering the vast majority of undocumented individuals bypass our borders and FLY into our airports, and the vast majority of narcotics are transported through entry ways, the true answer is NO, a useless 2,000 pile of concrete will never stop much of anything especially hard working human beings who prior to Bozo Trump's inauguration, had made this country great by performing all the back breaking and less than fabulous jobs nobody else wants to do and they do it for less money which means you as an American consumer pay less for goods and services they produce and I like that:

    The BIG LIE and Hypocrisy just like everything else this oval office weirdo says, is that properties with his name on them according to reports, HIRE Undocumented WORKERS and much of his low end product line as reported is produced by foreign labor in China etc so the JOKE continues to be on his OWN FOLLOWERS:

    1. Randy Godwin profile image90
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Jake, I believe even his followers are beginning to understand just what Donnie represents......himself!

    2. peoplepower73 profile image93
      peoplepower73posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Jake: Could it be that Trump and his followers are so ill informed, they don't even know they are ill informed?  This condition is known as the Dunning-Kruger-Effect. If you stop and think about it, Trump just contradicted his intelligence people who gave a report to congress about the middle east.  When he found out he was wrong, he blamed the media for misconstruing what he said. 

      It could be the same thing with the wall. That's why he is not able to give any specifics about the wall.  While on the other hand Pelosi outlined what she would spend the funding on.  Also it could be the same thing with global warming.  He first said it was a hoax perpetrated by China and now he says he wants global warming to come back, while it has never gone away.  He doesn't know the difference between climate and weather...ill informed.   Here is the article that explains the effect.

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ect-213904

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)