Border Patrol Makes a Case for the Wall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

If we are talking security, all the technology and other efforts (burglar alarms, cameras, etc.) you have in your home don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have a door and windows on your home.
Same with the border. We can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have a barrier, that technology won't matter.

The experts who work our border are saying that a border barrier is what is needed. Why don't Dems listen to the experts?
(Answer: Because this isn't about a border barrier at all. It is about not giving Trump what he says is needed. Pelosi, Schumer, and others have vote for border barriers in the past. I don't recall Pelosi calling them "inhumane" then.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

If we are talking security, all the technology and other efforts (burglar alarms, cameras, etc.) you have in your home don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have a door and windows on your home.
Same with the border. We can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have a barrier, that technology won't matter.

The experts who work our border are saying that a border barrier is what is needed. Why don't Dems listen to the experts?
(Answer: Because this isn't about a border barrier at all. It is about not giving Trump what he says is needed. Pelosi, Schumer, and others have vote for border barriers in the past. I don't recall Pelosi calling them "inhumane" then.)

Still nobody answers why Trump turned down $25 billion for the wall and only shut down the government when the Democrats came to power. You don't answer because the truth is, Trump doesn't care about the wall either.

[Anonymous]

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/
The Wall

This is what bothers me. I don't know if a wall is the answer, but something has to be done - even if these heinous crimes are committed just over the border.

This, he explains softly, is a so-called “rape tree.” It was once adorned with women’s bras and underwear. Coyotes would sexually assault some of the female migrants who hired them, leaving undergarments in the branches as trophies.

Amnesty International and other groups have concluded, based on interviews with migrants and health workers, that of female Central American migrants headed to the U.S., 60 percent or more are sexually assaulted.

The idea of specific rape trees is laced through ranchland lore, each one as universal as it is unverifiable.

Thwaits shakes his head. “Not a safe place to be … I’ve seen (immigrant) women crying like they had been raped, abused.”

There is nothing on this tree today — no underwear, no marker. There’s no easy documentation about this spot on the Map of Atrocities.

But the tree, and the land where it grows, remains draped with the power of the unseen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

If we are talking security, all the technology and other efforts (burglar alarms, cameras, etc.) you have in your home don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have a door and windows on your home.
Same with the border. We can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have a barrier, that technology won't matter.

The experts who work our border are saying that a border barrier is what is needed. Why don't Dems listen to the experts?
(Answer: Because this isn't about a border barrier at all. It is about not giving Trump what he says is needed. Pelosi, Schumer, and others have vote for border barriers in the past. I don't recall Pelosi calling them "inhumane" then.)

1. according to Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, the experts, stakeholders and outside groups stated that the wall is an inefficient use of tax money
2. why did Trump decline the $25bil in border security?
3. maybe if Trump/Rs didn't give the rich people a huge tax cut we could afford to pay for the wall, and the shutdown could be avoided OR
4. maybe if MX pays for the wall like Trump promised, the shutdown could be avoided OR
5. maybe if Trump hadn't started the trade war we could've used the $12bil in farm subsidies to pay for the wall, instead of the giving it to the farmers to pay for Trump's stupidity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/us-ranchers-deal-with-migrants-border-crossers-mexico/559702001/
The Wall

This is what bothers me. I don't know if a wall is the answer, but something has to be done - even if these heinous crimes are committed just over the border.

This, he explains softly, is a so-called “rape tree.” It was once adorned with women’s bras and underwear. Coyotes would sexually assault some of the female migrants who hired them, leaving undergarments in the branches as trophies.

Amnesty International and other groups have concluded, based on interviews with migrants and health workers, that of female Central American migrants headed to the U.S., 60 percent or more are sexually assaulted.

The idea of specific rape trees is laced through ranchland lore, each one as universal as it is unverifiable.

Thwaits shakes his head. “Not a safe place to be … I’ve seen (immigrant) women crying like they had been raped, abused.”

There is nothing on this tree today — no underwear, no marker. There’s no easy documentation about this spot on the Map of Atrocities.

But the tree, and the land where it grows, remains draped with the power of the unseen.

Read this story and it’s terrible.

I have no idea how some people advocate so strongly for illegal immigration.

Do you really think you’re ‘helping’?

Advocate for reform to make it easier for people to immigrate legally, but don’t push for open boarders and more illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for NPR for publishing this story.

The men and women who are working the borders are the experts here. They know what is needed to slow down and stop illegal immigration across the border.

Congress should listen to them. #BuildTheDamnWall

#1

Except I'd say #BuildTheDamnFenceOrWhatever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

If we are talking security, all the technology and other efforts (burglar alarms, cameras, etc.) you have in your home don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have a door and windows on your home.
Same with the border. We can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have a barrier, that technology won't matter.

The experts who work our border are saying that a border barrier is what is needed. Why don't Dems listen to the experts?
(Answer: Because this isn't about a border barrier at all. It is about not giving Trump what he says is needed. Pelosi, Schumer, and others have vote for border barriers in the past. I don't recall Pelosi calling them "inhumane" then.)

Still nobody answers why Trump turned down $25 billion for the wall and only shut down the government when the Democrats came to power. You don't answer because the truth is, Trump doesn't care about the wall either.

That's Dem BS and you know it. Yes, a supposed "offer" was made but it was reneged on during the negotiations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support anything to stop illegal immigration, because they want more of it. They should just be more open about it. They want to change the demographics of this country.

There is no "illegal" immigration in the south side of America that can be stopped by a wall. Crossing the border without permission and then asking for asylum is a form of Legal immigration.

So, the ones who cross the border illegally and disappear into the shadows are what? Uninvited guests?
Amazing that the areas in which strong border barriers have been constructed illegal entry has dropped to almost nothing......Why do you suppose that is?

Where in the US is this amazing place where border walls have dropped illegal entry into almost nothing?

Here is one area.

For years, Yuma sector was besieged by chaos as a nearly unending flood of migrants and drugs poured across our border. Even as agents were arresting on average 800 illegal aliens a day, we were still unable to stop the thousands of trucks filled with drugs and humans that quickly crossed a vanishing point and dispersed into communities all across the country.

It is hard for anyone familiar with Yuma sector today to imagine this scene. That’s because nearly a decade ago, a group of bipartisan lawmakers came together to protect the homeland, save innocent lives, and build a physical barrier across the border.

The bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006 — supported by then-Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and others — mandated the construction of hundreds of additional miles of secure fencing and infrastructure investments. Yuma sector was one of the first areas to receive infrastructure investments.

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Wait... so Obama and the rest of the Dems aren't for open borders after all?

Also, that's not "almost nothing", but I guess you were speaking in hyperbole.

Also, that land in Yuma was easier to build a border wall. The section that has no type of wall is along the Rio Grande, where building along that river is much more expensive and complicated than along a stretch of desert no man's land. Those Texans will fight tooth and nail to save their land from eminent domain.

https://www.apnews.com/0b3d63c524214bbdbfb58ce8f61589f0

As it's been stated repeatedly, Dems are not for open borders (as evidenced by your own post), but they are aware of cost/benefit, and don't believe the $5bill for Trump's wall is worth it. It would be better spent on technology and other efforts, like they were willing to do for $25bil. Plus back then, Bush never said Mexico would pay for the wall, so Trump should keep that part of his promise, too, especially since he gave the rich more tax cuts instead of using that money to pay for the expensive wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

Democrats have described Trump’s wall proposal as overkill and too expensive

And even a R in that district acknowledges a wall is more expensive than people realize.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly.

"It's a lot more expensive than we expected when we started, and it was much more difficult," said Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of border patrol for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at a Senate Committee hearing in May 2015.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that "in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border."

... again, Dems were willing to fund "the other" for $25 bil, which Trump declined. He's fixated on a boondogle.

If we are talking security, all the technology and other efforts (burglar alarms, cameras, etc.) you have in your home don't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have a door and windows on your home.
Same with the border. We can have all the technology in the world, but if we don't have a barrier, that technology won't matter.

The experts who work our border are saying that a border barrier is what is needed. Why don't Dems listen to the experts?
(Answer: Because this isn't about a border barrier at all. It is about not giving Trump what he says is needed. Pelosi, Schumer, and others have vote for border barriers in the past. I don't recall Pelosi calling them "inhumane" then.)

Still nobody answers why Trump turned down $25 billion for the wall and only shut down the government when the Democrats came to power. You don't answer because the truth is, Trump doesn't care about the wall either.

That's Dem BS and you know it. Yes, a supposed "offer" was made but it was reneged on during the negotiations.

Just like the myth that Democrats support e-verify. The simple common sense way to control immigration, but pelosi and Schumer

Are against e-verify

THey want more votes