Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US border patrol chief under Obama agrees with Trump - a wall is needed.

Mark Morgan, a career FBI official who served as Border Patrol chief for the last six months of the Obama administration before being removed once President Trump took office, has come out this week in support of a border wall.

Morgan, who has kept a low profile since he was forced to step down, first gave an interview to Law and Crime in which he defended the White House’s desire to build a wall along the U.S. southern border.

The morning after Trump reiterated in a prime-time address to the nation why wall funding was worth shutting down 25 percent of the federal government, Morgan told The Fix that he’s breaking his silence because, in his view, the wall is an important piece in a group of policy changes needed to secure the border.

“I was removed. I’m standing up and saying, ‘I should have disdain for them, but I don’t because they are right,' " Morgan said. “I can stand up and say they are right because it’s the right thing to do for this country. I’m begging the president to stay the course.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/obama-border-patrol-chief-trump-stay-course-border-wall/?utm_term=.58cd8c5613b6

This agent's view was also shared by Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer. That was, until Trump assumed office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.

You are terribly, terribly uninformed. Likely left-wing sources are at fault. Or, your own refusal to look at the facts.
The border barrier is just PART of the request for funding.

From his address this week:
"The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683230863/transcript-trumps-address-on-border-security-and-democrats-response

Umm no, you are cherry picking.

Trump has never asked for anything more than a wall funding before the national address the other day. In the $25bil package for border security the Dems proposed earlier in 2018 included these things. It was the wall they didn't want.

Look at the Homeland Security budget proposal. You are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:US border patrol chief under Obama agrees with Trump - a wall is needed.

Mark Morgan, a career FBI official who served as Border Patrol chief for the last six months of the Obama administration before being removed once President Trump took office, has come out this week in support of a border wall.

Morgan, who has kept a low profile since he was forced to step down, first gave an interview to Law and Crime in which he defended the White House’s desire to build a wall along the U.S. southern border.

The morning after Trump reiterated in a prime-time address to the nation why wall funding was worth shutting down 25 percent of the federal government, Morgan told The Fix that he’s breaking his silence because, in his view, the wall is an important piece in a group of policy changes needed to secure the border.

“I was removed. I’m standing up and saying, ‘I should have disdain for them, but I don’t because they are right,' " Morgan said. “I can stand up and say they are right because it’s the right thing to do for this country. I’m begging the president to stay the course.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/obama-border-patrol-chief-trump-stay-course-border-wall/?utm_term=.58cd8c5613b6

Anonymous wrote:All I want to know is, if the number of foreigners coming over the border illegally is a real national crisis, what do we call the 40,000 annual deaths by gun violence in this country? When will we implement a program to save future Americans from getting killed??

WHEN?

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.


You are terribly, terribly uninformed. Likely left-wing sources are at fault. Or, your own refusal to look at the facts.
The border barrier is just PART of the request for funding.

From his address this week:
"The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683230863/transcrip...ecurity-and-democrats-response

Trump wants a thing called "a wall." He doesn't care if it has cutting edge or stone age technology. He doesn't even care if it gets built. He doesn't care if it works. He doesn't care if something else would be more effective. All he wants is something he can call "a wall." Why? Because he decided a wall would be best and Trump is never wrong.

If he wanted something else, he would call it "a border security package," that would include all ways of illegally entering the USA - port of entry, non port of entry and visa overstays. He'd have the package created by experts at Homeland Security. He'd have them write a detailed report and cost estimate and have the authors testify to Congress about why it's the best solution. That's how a smart politician gets what he wants. He wouldn't be out there by himself for two years sayng "Wall! Wall! Wall! I want a wall! WAAHH!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.

You are terribly, terribly uninformed. Likely left-wing sources are at fault. Or, your own refusal to look at the facts.
The border barrier is just PART of the request for funding.

From his address this week:
"The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683230863/transcript-trumps-address-on-border-security-and-democrats-response

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.

You are terribly, terribly uninformed. Likely left-wing sources are at fault. Or, your own refusal to look at the facts.
The border barrier is just PART of the request for funding.

From his address this week:
"The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683230863/transcript-trumps-address-on-border-security-and-democrats-response

Umm no, you are cherry picking.

Trump has never asked for anything more than a wall funding before the national address the other day. In the $25bil package for border security the Dems proposed earlier in 2018 included these things. It was the wall they didn't want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.

You are terribly, terribly uninformed. Likely left-wing sources are at fault. Or, your own refusal to look at the facts.
The border barrier is just PART of the request for funding.

From his address this week:
"The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things. We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy. Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home."

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683230863/transcript-trumps-address-on-border-security-and-democrats-response

Anonymous wrote:I really feel like this is indicative of the difference between those who support Trump and progressives, not in terms of immigration necessarily, but views on solutions to other issues as well.

Trump supporters want 20th century solutions -- manufacturing and coal mining jobs, and a wall.
Progressives want high tech solutions, renewable energy.

This was also played out during the debate between Romney and Obama, when Romney said we should invest in more tanks for the military, to which Obama replied something like "no we don't need 20th century tanks. We need high tech solutions".

I'm not opposed to a wall, theoretically, but it has a terrible ROI. It will take longer to build a wall than it would to hire more border patrol agents and implement high tech solutions, which is also cheaper. If the Rs and Trump hadn't cut the taxes so much for the rich, maybe we could've afforded the wall. But right now, we can't. Due to their tax cuts, the deficit has gotten out of control, and building a wall along the Rio Grande is not the best use of our tax dollars, though I realize that Trump doesn't care about deficits, and neither do Rs anymore. Maybe if Mexico pays for the wall then more people would be ok with it. But it's not. It's the taxpayers who will be paying for this boondogle.

Someone on this forum wrote a fairly detailed synopsis on why a wall along the Rio Grande is a boondogle. I thought it was pretty well thought out. It's worth a read.

jsteele wrote:Wow, $24.4 million a mile for Trump's wall? Someone is going to make a lot of money if this goes through.

Mark Morgan, a career FBI official who served as Border Patrol chief for the last six months of the Obama administration before being removed once President Trump took office, has come out this week in support of a border wall.

Morgan, who has kept a low profile since he was forced to step down, first gave an interview to Law and Crime in which he defended the White House’s desire to build a wall along the U.S. southern border.

The morning after Trump reiterated in a prime-time address to the nation why wall funding was worth shutting down 25 percent of the federal government, Morgan told The Fix that he’s breaking his silence because, in his view, the wall is an important piece in a group of policy changes needed to secure the border.

“I was removed. I’m standing up and saying, ‘I should have disdain for them, but I don’t because they are right,' " Morgan said. “I can stand up and say they are right because it’s the right thing to do for this country. I’m begging the president to stay the course.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hell, I am old and I could even climb that wall. That is why we need additional funding. To replace and extend current barriers.
Now, the wall that Jim Acosta featured yesterday - no way could I climb that.
That is the type of barrier that is needed and for which funding is being sought.

There's this new fangled thing called a "ladder". It's amazing.

And, a ladder is hard to hide. Simply carrying a ladder slows the intruder down. Our border agents would have ample time to catch them.
In other words, they would see the intruders coming.
A tall wall like the one Jim Acosta featured combined with the technology that the Trump administration is seeking as part of its border barrier package would go a long way on preventing criminals, rapists, gang members, drug dealers, and others from illegally entering our country. This is not rocket science.

Did you see that tunnel CBP showed Trump?

How do you see a ladder though a concrete wall on the other side of the wall?

Hmm.... it's no longer a concrete wall.
But, if it were, there are drones, cameras, and other technology that can be used to detect people coming with ladders.

They can also detect people without ladders. If we can detect the people, we can catch them before they even get to the wall.

Tunnels have become an increasingly common tactic that smugglers have used to get around stricter enforcement at the border, especially in sections that have had physical barriers in place for many years and decades, such as Arizona and California's borders with Mexico.