Trump is going to build the wall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will Gropenfuhrer Trump use the National Guard to force an Indian nation to acquiesce to having a wall built on tribal land?

Should be interesting to see the reaction of the Tohono O'odham Nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Gropenfuhrer Trump use the National Guard to force an Indian nation to acquiesce to having a wall built on tribal land?

Everyone can agree there will be hurdles:

-Native American lands
-privately owned lands (though subject to eminent domain - thanks Kelo v. New London)
-EPA regulations
-physical/terrain problems or impossibilities (though illegal entrants tend not to cross verticals cliff faces either)

No one is claiming this will be easy or perfect.

But it's still a good idea to try something to stem the flood which Obama gladly allowed in for the future benefit of his party.

Reagan, nor the two Bushes did much either. And they all had some form of amnesty programs, as will Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all know that there is already a fence along much of the border, right? So they will build a wall, like a brick wall? How will they do this along the very remote areas in New Mexico and Arizona?

You know that walking across the border isn't how most illegals enter the US, right?

What a strange world you live in....

It has long been 50/50: entered with a visa vs. snuck in over the border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Gropenfuhrer Trump use the National Guard to force an Indian nation to acquiesce to having a wall built on tribal land?

Everyone can agree there will be hurdles:

-Native American lands
-privately owned lands (though subject to eminent domain - thanks Kelo v. New London)
-EPA regulations
-physical/terrain problems or impossibilities (though illegal entrants tend not to cross verticals cliff faces either)

No one is claiming this will be easy or perfect.

But it's still a good idea to try something to stem the flood which Obama gladly allowed in for the future benefit of his party.

Reagan, nor the two Bushes did much either. And they all had some form of amnesty programs, as will Trump.

Yes. People - Reagan advocated and signed a major immigration law granting amnesty to many, many in this country. Trump's position is a major departure from Reagan, patron saint of GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for effective border control and managing immigration in such a way that people with skills enter our country and people who will drain our system are not admitted. Canada has such a system, I believe. But I have read that the most effective way to control illegal immigration is to crack down on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants in large scale. (Meatpacking plants in the Midwest come to mind.) imposing serious fines and possible prison time for owners of these plants would be a good solution, costing much less than a wall. And a wall poses constraints based on terrain and other factors, including extraordinary cost.

This is based on my limited reading on the subject. Could anyone with deeper knowledge of the subject offer their perspective? Would serious crackdowns on business be the best answer to contain illegal immigration? I've read that the Republicans don't want to fine businesses because the business folks are Republicans. Plus, they need this hot-button issue to whip up all the rednecks and racists. And the Democrats don't want to conduct large scale raids on businesses because of concerns about offending citizens and racial profiling.

I would honestly like to learn more about this issue. Building a wall seems ridiculous if there are other, better solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.

Not an immigration expert at all. But to start with, a wall really doesn't solve the problem. Besides the obvious downsides of expense, the fact there will be gaps (due to geography, land ownership, etc), and things like going over and tunneling under it, many people in this country illegally entered legally and overstayed their visa.

[Anonymous]

The wall's a cute symbol.
How does Cheeto plan to address visa overstays? Ankle monitors for all foreigners at the airport?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for effective border control and managing immigration in such a way that people with skills enter our country and people who will drain our system are not admitted. Canada has such a system, I believe. But I have read that the most effective way to control illegal immigration is to crack down on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants in large scale. (Meatpacking plants in the Midwest come to mind.) imposing serious fines and possible prison time for owners of these plants would be a good solution, costing much less than a wall. And a wall poses constraints based on terrain and other factors, including extraordinary cost.

This is based on my limited reading on the subject. Could anyone with deeper knowledge of the subject offer their perspective? Would serious crackdowns on business be the best answer to contain illegal immigration? I've read that the Republicans don't want to fine businesses because the business folks are Republicans. Plus, they need this hot-button issue to whip up all the rednecks and racists. And the Democrats don't want to conduct large scale raids on businesses because of concerns about offending citizens and racial profiling.

I would honestly like to learn more about this issue. Building a wall seems ridiculous if there are other, better solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.

Not an immigration expert at all. But to start with, a wall really doesn't solve the problem. Besides the obvious downsides of expense, the fact there will be gaps (due to geography, land ownership, etc), and things like going over and tunneling under it, many people in this country illegally entered legally and overstayed their visa.

No answer is perfect. For example: the TSA is not perfect. But it is a sensible response to a proven problem.

Our current border security plan is not working on the Mexican border when literally hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors (ie - children) can simply walk right over the border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wall's a cute symbol.
How does Cheeto plan to address visa overstays? Ankle monitors for all foreigners at the airport?

I LOVE this idea. Let's microchip all foreigners entering the country. I mean, American citizens are willing to be microchipped when they travel, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Gropenfuhrer Trump use the National Guard to force an Indian nation to acquiesce to having a wall built on tribal land?

Everyone can agree there will be hurdles:

-Native American lands
-privately owned lands (though subject to eminent domain - thanks Kelo v. New London)
-EPA regulations
-physical/terrain problems or impossibilities (though illegal entrants tend not to cross verticals cliff faces either)

No one is claiming this will be easy or perfect.

But it's still a good idea to try something to stem the flood which Obama gladly allowed in for the future benefit of his party.

Do you know how many immigrants enter legally and then overstay visas? Your unhinged "alternative fact" attack on Obama doesn't merit a serious response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wall's a cute symbol.
How does Cheeto plan to address visa overstays? Ankle monitors for all foreigners at the airport?

I LOVE this idea. Let's microchip all foreigners entering the country. I mean, American citizens are willing to be microchipped when they travel, right?

The GOP is a big proponent of vaginal probing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for effective border control and managing immigration in such a way that people with skills enter our country and people who will drain our system are not admitted. Canada has such a system, I believe. But I have read that the most effective way to control illegal immigration is to crack down on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants in large scale. (Meatpacking plants in the Midwest come to mind.) imposing serious fines and possible prison time for owners of these plants would be a good solution, costing much less than a wall. And a wall poses constraints based on terrain and other factors, including extraordinary cost.

This is based on my limited reading on the subject. Could anyone with deeper knowledge of the subject offer their perspective? Would serious crackdowns on business be the best answer to contain illegal immigration? I've read that the Republicans don't want to fine businesses because the business folks are Republicans. Plus, they need this hot-button issue to whip up all the rednecks and racists. And the Democrats don't want to conduct large scale raids on businesses because of concerns about offending citizens and racial profiling.

I would honestly like to learn more about this issue. Building a wall seems ridiculous if there are other, better solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.

Not an immigration expert at all. But to start with, a wall really doesn't solve the problem. Besides the obvious downsides of expense, the fact there will be gaps (due to geography, land ownership, etc), and things like going over and tunneling under it, many people in this country illegally entered legally and overstayed their visa.

We need Moses to part the seas between the US and Mexico.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Mexicans will try anything to cast a vote for Hillary!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just great. Trump's going to build a wall and cut off one means for escape.

Yes. I knew Mexico was going to pay for the wall...to keep us out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for effective border control and managing immigration in such a way that people with skills enter our country and people who will drain our system are not admitted. Canada has such a system, I believe. But I have read that the most effective way to control illegal immigration is to crack down on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants in large scale. (Meatpacking plants in the Midwest come to mind.) imposing serious fines and possible prison time for owners of these plants would be a good solution, costing much less than a wall. And a wall poses constraints based on terrain and other factors, including extraordinary cost.

This is based on my limited reading on the subject. Could anyone with deeper knowledge of the subject offer their perspective? Would serious crackdowns on business be the best answer to contain illegal immigration? I've read that the Republicans don't want to fine businesses because the business folks are Republicans. Plus, they need this hot-button issue to whip up all the rednecks and racists. And the Democrats don't want to conduct large scale raids on businesses because of concerns about offending citizens and racial profiling.

I would honestly like to learn more about this issue. Building a wall seems ridiculous if there are other, better solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.

Yes, it is. Simple common sense would tell you that even if there weren't data to support it (and I don't have a link right now, will try to find one). The fact that no one talks about this is everything you need to know to recognize that building the wall has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants and everything to do with finding a scapegoat with dark skin to blame.