Trump demands U.S. border wall, sidesteps declaring emergency

[spidermike007]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

Elegance, nobility, grace: you're forgetting Obama.

True that. I was an early supporter of Obama. Bought out after he abandoned the green energy manufacturing initiative, and threw Van Jones under the bus. But, in comparison to Trump, he was a man of great integrity, a man who put value in truth, and certainly possessed elegance, nobility and grace. In addition, I did not cringe, and feel an utter sense of humiliation and embarrassment every time he opened his mouth, like I do now with the highly inarticulate, sloganeering, deflecting, lying, criminal Trump. A man of very modest intelligence, at best. 

[bristolboy]

"Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who represents more of the southern border than any of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, is also opposed to building a wall.

Hurd, a former undercover CIA agent, believes a technological approach to border security would be more feasible and appropriate. The Texas congressman has proposed a plan that would involve the use of drones and other surveillance technology to boost security."

https://www.businessinsider.com/mayor-of-mcallen-texas-where-trump-is-visiting-doesnt-support-border-wall-2019-1

[Jingthing]

Your reasoning is just politics...again.

No politics in build the wall and Mexico will pay for it.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

"Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who represents more of the southern border than any of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, is also opposed to building a wall.

Hurd, a former undercover CIA agent, believes a technological approach to border security would be more feasible and appropriate. The Texas congressman has proposed a plan that would involve the use of drones and other surveillance technology to boost security."

https://www.businessinsider.com/mayor-of-mcallen-texas-where-trump-is-visiting-doesnt-support-border-wall-2019-1

From your article:

 

In a separate interview with NPR, on January 6, ( Mayor ) Darling expanded on his views.

"In certain locations, a wall or a fence or some deterrent makes sense but certainly not one across the great swath of the border in places where, ecologically, the damage would be much greater than a security benefit," he said.

 

The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants. Incidentallly, the funding also includes money to build new facilities to house and care for those waiting for immigration hearings and to process those who manage to cross regardless.

 

The wall/border issues and immigration are separate and should be discussed as such. The presence of so many illegal aliens in the country deserves attention as well, and has no bearing on whether the border is more strictly secured.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

"Republican Rep. Will Hurd, who represents more of the southern border than any of his colleagues in the House of Representatives, is also opposed to building a wall.

Hurd, a former undercover CIA agent, believes a technological approach to border security would be more feasible and appropriate. The Texas congressman has proposed a plan that would involve the use of drones and other surveillance technology to boost security."

https://www.businessinsider.com/mayor-of-mcallen-texas-where-trump-is-visiting-doesnt-support-border-wall-2019-1

 

So nice to hear an intelligent voice of reason, amidst the panicked cries of "build the wall", or the country will go down in flames! 

 

The majority of Americans DO NOT support the wall, which is never going to get built. Only a percent of his base of devotees want the wall, and that is only due to constant brainwashing.

 

Roger stone was frustrated that Trump kept on forgetting to talk about immigration at the beginning of the campaign. He said Trump is a builder. He will remember to say build a wall. Hence the birth of the slogan and the fear mongering. The only terrorist apprehended at the border in the past 20 years was coming from Canada. All terrorists use the sea or come by air. None come by land. None. One in the past 20 years was caught. It is all a total ruse. Not only is illegal immigration way, way down, but if you look at crime statistics in the US, nine times more homicide is committed by American citizens, than by legal immigrants. And three times more homicide, by Americans, than by illegal immigrants. If Trump wants to solve the crime problem in the US, he has to get his own people in his administration and his team, to stop committing crime, then he has to stop committing crime, and then he can work on reforming his base, and then other Americans.

 

In a separate interview with NPR, on January 6, Darling expanded on his views. He is the mayor of McCallen, Texas.

“In certain locations, a wall or a fence or some deterrent makes sense but certainly not one across the great swath of the border in places where, ecologically, the damage would be much greater than a security benefit,” he said. “So it’s really a political football, I think. And just saying we’re going to build this great wall across the whole border makes no sense at all.”

[Hanaguma]

Mike; 

 

The crime argument is a shibboleth at best, and inaccurate at worst. Comparing legal immigrants and citizens' crime rate has no relation to the issue of illegal aliens.  Trying to compare with illegals is problematic as well.  There is no good answer to "how much crime by illegals is OK" other than zero.  They shouldn't be in the country in the first place.

 

In Texas alone, illegal aliens have committed more than 1000 murders and 5000 rapes since 2011. Care to tell the families of the victims that it's an acceptable statistic?

 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

From your article:

 

In a separate interview with NPR, on January 6, ( Mayor ) Darling expanded on his views.

"In certain locations, a wall or a fence or some deterrent makes sense but certainly not one across the great swath of the border in places where, ecologically, the damage would be much greater than a security benefit," he said.

 

The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants. Incidentallly, the funding also includes money to build new facilities to house and care for those waiting for immigration hearings and to process those who manage to cross regardless.

 

The wall/border issues and immigration are separate and should be discussed as such. The presence of so many illegal aliens in the country deserves attention as well, and has no bearing on whether the border is more strictly secured.

"The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants."

You're lying.

"Incidentallly, the funding also includes money to build new facilities to house and care for those waiting for immigration hearings and to process those who manage to cross regardless."

Budget has been allocated for that in the democratic proposal.

"The wall/border issues and immigration are separate and should be discussed as such."

And there was me thinking the wall should prevent illegal immigration.

 

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

From your article:  

 

In a separate interview with NPR, on January 6, ( Mayor ) Darling expanded on his views.

"In certain locations, a wall or a fence or some deterrent makes sense but certainly not one across the great swath of the border in places where, ecologically, the damage would be much greater than a security benefit," he said.

 

The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants. Incidentallly, the funding also includes money to build new facilities to house and care for those waiting for immigration hearings and to process those who manage to cross regardless.

 

The wall/border issues and immigration are separate and should be discussed as such. The presence of so many illegal aliens in the country deserves attention as well, and has no bearing on whether the border is more strictly secured.

Really naive comment that. The reasons "trump" needs a new section of Wall are purely political. He's said as much. Pay attention!  

 

 

The reasons are

 

To avoid embarrassment and being made to look foolish

 

To have some token of real new wall to fake that he kept his top campaign promise

 

So that his rabid fans will still worship him at his bizarre fascistic race baiting rallies

 

To please his handlers at Fox news

 

To have any chance of being reelected

 

If not reelected then there is a greater chance that he can be convicted and jailed as a civilian without presidential protection

 

Yes he is very motivated indeed. But not for the overall good of the American people. It's all about his own ego and saving his own ass.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants."

You're lying.

"Incidentallly, the funding also includes money to build new facilities to house and care for those waiting for immigration hearings and to process those who manage to cross regardless."

Budget has been allocated for that in the democratic proposal.

"The wall/border issues and immigration are separate and should be discussed as such."

And there was me thinking the wall should prevent illegal immigration.

 

Now now Steve, no need for such harsh accusations.  

 

Any answer to the victims of illegal immigrants' crimes and mayhem or is it just the price Americans have to pay for cheap lettuce and freshly mown lawns?

 

And yes, the wall will - help- curb illegal immigration. Nobody says that it is the only answer, that's a straw man argument.  According to Vox, hardly a Trump friendly organization;

 

"Ultimately, the Trump administration wants to build hundreds of miles of border barriers — a lot more than $5 billion can provide. But it has identified particular stretches of the border as top priorities, and a $5 billion

appropriation would allow it to blast through several of them.

 

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that if it got the whole $5 billion Trump has made his red line for wall funding, it would be able to build 215 miles’ worth of barriers along the US-Mexico border. Most of this — about 150 miles — would be built where no physical barriers currently exist; the rest would be intended to replace some of the older and less imposing barriers along the border."

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18151974/border-wall-trump-steel-slats-shutdown

 

 

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

 

Now now Steve, no need for such harsh accusations.  

 

Any answer to the victims of illegal immigrants' crimes and mayhem or is it just the price Americans have to pay for cheap lettuce and freshly mown lawns?

 

And yes, the wall will - help- curb illegal immigration. Nobody says that it is the only answer, that's a straw man argument.  According to Vox, hardly a Trump friendly organization;

 

"Ultimately, the Trump administration wants to build hundreds of miles of border barriers — a lot more than $5 billion can provide. But it has identified particular stretches of the border as top priorities, and a $5 billion

appropriation would allow it to blast through several of them.

 

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that if it got the whole $5 billion Trump has made his red line for wall funding, it would be able to build 215 miles’ worth of barriers along the US-Mexico border. Most of this — about 150 miles — would be built where no physical barriers currently exist; the rest would be intended to replace some of the older and less imposing barriers along the border."

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18151974/border-wall-trump-steel-slats-shutdown

 

 

"

Now now Steve, no need for such harsh accusations.  "

Yes, there is. If you're lying it should be said. And when you say " The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants." you're lying.

[Psimbo]

On 1/10/2019 at 12:49 AM, Jingthing said:

A significant majority of Americans do not want the great wall of "trump" to be built. Ever. It will not happen. Deal with it. Yeah there is a chance he might act the dictator that he dreams of being to build a new section of 100 miles or so. But that's it. Cheers dude. 

Even the Border Police are saying how ineffective a wall would be (well, not directly but you can work it out from the tone of the briefing). Bitzy the Blonde is clearly uncomfortable and The Dump's body language is of complete indifference to what he is being briefed as it does not fit his agenda.  https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/11/border-official-trump-tunnels-under-wall-acosta-pkg-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/intl-from-the-us/

[Hanaguma]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"

Now now Steve, no need for such harsh accusations.  "

Yes, there is. If you're lying it should be said. And when you say " The funding requested isn't intended to build a contiguous wall, merely to put more barriers in areas where the situation warrants." you're lying.

Did you read the article I quoted? Maybe you should . It clearly states that this is intended only to put up barriers in areas where they are needed,  NOT to close off the entire border. 

[Psimbo]

35 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Mike; 

 

The crime argument is a shibboleth at best, and inaccurate at worst. Comparing legal immigrants and citizens' crime rate has no relation to the issue of illegal aliens.  Trying to compare with illegals is problematic as well.  There is no good answer to "how much crime by illegals is OK" other than zero.  They shouldn't be in the country in the first place.

 

In Texas alone, illegal aliens have committed more than 1000 murders and 5000 rapes since 2011. Care to tell the families of the victims that it's an acceptable statistic?

 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

..... and in the same timespan how many citizens committed the same crimes? Were the victims within their communities or against citizens?

 

its very easy to distort statistics to suit an agenda.

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

..... and in the same timespan how many citizens committed the same crimes? Were the victims within their communities or against citizens?

 

its very easy to distort statistics to suit an agenda.

The point is that the illegal aliens shouldn't be present in the first place to commit the crimes. Comparing them to citizens and legal residents is irrelevant. THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. Not one of them.  Every crime they commit is a preventable tragedy that was premitted by mealy mouthed politicians and crony capitalists.

 

You seriously think that the state of Texas should just shut up and pay the price of one thousand lives in order to enjoy the dubious benefits of the presence of illegal aliens?

[simple1]

27 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The point is that the illegal aliens shouldn't be present in the first place to commit the crimes. Comparing them to citizens and legal residents is irrelevant. THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. Not one of them.  Every crime they commit is a preventable tragedy that was premitted by mealy mouthed politicians and crony capitalists.

 

You seriously think that the state of Texas should just shut up and pay the price of one thousand lives in order to enjoy the dubious benefits of the presence of illegal aliens?

As has been posted many times the majority of illegals in the US arrive on a valid visa, then overstay - not a word from trump. However, how about legal immigrants who committed 15 murders in 2015 in Texas? What is the redline?

 

There were 951 total homicide convictions in Texas in 2015. Of those, native-born Americans were convicted of 885 homicides, illegal immigrants were convicted of 51 homicides, and legal immigrants were convicted of 15 homicides. The homicide conviction rate for native-born Americans was 3.88 per 100,000, 2.9 per 100,000 for illegal immigrants, and 0.51 per 100,000 for legal immigrants (Figure 2). In 2015, homicide conviction rates for illegal and legal immigrants were 25 percent and 87 percent below those of natives, respectively.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-undocumented-killed-63000-us-9-11/

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You seriously think that the state of Texas should just shut up and pay the price of one thousand lives in order to enjoy the dubious benefits of the presence of illegal aliens?

Nice try. It's an impressive number but it comes from nowhere. By applying the average murder rate in Texas we get 80 murders per year and the crime rate among illegals is lower than the average, so it should be even lower. Plus the wall is not expected to prevent illegals from crossing the border. Even if it's only a few murders, it's a pity, but it's very far from an emergency situation.

 

And peanuts compared to the impact of war weapons sold at local supermarkets.

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The point is that the illegal aliens shouldn't be present in the first place to commit the crimes. Comparing them to citizens and legal residents is irrelevant. THEY SHOULDN'T BE THERE. Not one of them.  Every crime they commit is a preventable tragedy that was premitted by mealy mouthed politicians and crony capitalists.

 

You seriously think that the state of Texas should just shut up and pay the price of one thousand lives in order to enjoy the dubious benefits of the presence of illegal aliens?

What makes your argument particularly ridiculous is that it would also apply to legal immigrants. After all, some legal immigrants will also commit homicide. Every crime legal immigrants commit was also a preventable tragedy. In fact, it's a pity that the Constitution doesn't allow states to turn away citizens from other states. These new American residents will also bring with them people who will commit homicide. And apparently at a higher rate than illegal immigrants. If they weren't allowed in, that would also be tragedies prevented.

The question is do the benefits of immigration, legal and/or illegal, outweigh the harm? 

A related question is a cost/benefits analysis. The law of diminishing returns applies here. Resources aren't unlimited. Is building the wall or barrier the  way to use those resources?

And finally, how serious a problem is illegal immigration? What problems are not going to be addressed if money is spent on more enforcement at the border?  Is it that the US economy can't absorb these immigrants? Is it not a fact that illegal immigration is way way down and the number of illegal aliens resident in the USA has been stable for a few years already?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Did you read the article I quoted? Maybe you should . It clearly states that this is intended only to put up barriers in areas where they are needed,  NOT to close off the entire border. 

"Ultimately, the Trump administration wants to build hundreds of miles of border barriers — a lot more than $5 billion can provide. But it has identified particular stretches of the border as top priorities, and a $5 billion appropriation would allow it to blast through several of them."

The Trump administration first wants to put barriers/walls where it claims they are needed. Or are you claiming that next year the Trump administration won't be asking for more money to further extend the wall/barrier?

[keemapoot]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As has been posted many times the majority of illegals in the US arrive on a valid visa, then overstay - not a word from trump. However, how about legal immigrants who committed 15 murders in 2015 in Texas? What is the redline?

 

There were 951 total homicide convictions in Texas in 2015. Of those, native-born Americans were convicted of 885 homicides, illegal immigrants were convicted of 51 homicides, and legal immigrants were convicted of 15 homicides. The homicide conviction rate for native-born Americans was 3.88 per 100,000, 2.9 per 100,000 for illegal immigrants, and 0.51 per 100,000 for legal immigrants (Figure 2). In 2015, homicide conviction rates for illegal and legal immigrants were 25 percent and 87 percent below those of natives, respectively.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-undocumented-killed-63000-us-9-11/

To further illustrate the preposterousness of Hanaguma's reasoning, to draw a nexis and causal link between illegals crossing the border in Texas and the Texas murder rate, you would have to prove that 1. those 15% of total murders in 2015 in Texas were caused by illegals that directly crossed the border (rather than enter by other means), and; 2. Trump's wall would have prevented both illegal crossings and entry by those likely to commit murder (unsubstantiated); and 3. That proposed border security measures not involving Trump's wall would not have a similar, less expensive effect.

 

Game. Set. Match.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

To further illustrate the preposterousness of Hanaguma's reasoning, to draw a nexis and causal link between illegals crossing the border in Texas and the Texas murder rate, you would have to prove that 1. those 15% of total murders in 2015 in Texas were caused by illegals that directly crossed the border (rather than enter by other means), and; 2. Trump's wall would have prevented both illegal crossings and entry by those likely to commit murder (unsubstantiated); and 3. That proposed border security measures not involving Trump's wall would not have a similar, less expensive effect.

 

Game. Set. Match.

And another consideration is who are the victims? If illegal aliens follow the form of other identifiable groups who tend to congregate, the odds are that a disproportionate number of those homicides will be of other illegals and not US Citizens or legal residents.

[keemapoot]

Just now, bristolboy said:

And another consideration is who are the victims? If illegal aliens follow the form of other identifiable groups who tend to congregate, the odds are that a disproportionate number of those homicides will be of other illegals and not US Citizens or legal residents.

Exactly! In fact, I would be willing to wager big money that most of the violent crime among this demographic is illegal-on-illegal, which should make Trump supporters gleeful as you can just let them kill each other out and we can save $50 billion. No wall needed after all.

[David Walden]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No politics in build the wall and Mexico will pay for it.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes? I agree, bi-partisan politics.  So what did Colonel Custer say when he saw the Indians coming over the hill....Let's have a meeting and debate on how we defend ourselves.  That's USA politics today.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Yes? I agree, bi-partisan politics.  So what did Colonel Custer say when he saw the Indians coming over the hill....Let's have a meeting and debate on how we defend ourselves.  That's USA politics today.

Really,really bad analogy. Or do you believe that Custer's strategy worked out well for him?

[bristolboy]

41 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Yes? I agree, bi-partisan politics.  So what did Colonel Custer say when he saw the Indians coming over the hill....Let's have a meeting and debate on how we defend ourselves.  That's USA politics today.

I owe you an apology. Actually, your analogy was brilliant. Clearly, what you were saying is that no matter what strategy Trump adopts to stop illegal immigration, it's doomed to fail.

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really,really bad analogy. Or do you believe that Custer's strategy worked out well for him?

Yes very bad analogy, unfortunately, has a lot of truth in it.  The Indians consumed Custer.  Getting back to my previous analogy about Churchill, he had a lot of failures.  My father was a "light horseman" in the  8th brigade "Light Horse" Australian army WW1 at Gallipoli, ( didn't need the horses, 40,000 horses transported to Egypt. didn't need them, but later yes ) hated Churchill's guts as did most Australian Soldiers in WW1.  LIke sending 2 battleships through a minefield in the Dardanelles in Turkey to bombard Istambul.  Both sunk with 20 min with the loss of about 3,000 men..."oh well we better try something different".  Churchill did learn by his mistakes and got better later.  It did take 26 years though.  Oh yes back to Custer. it appears indecision was what finished him off.  It looks to me like US people if they don't agree with the Generals in the field they just set about frustrating them.  That's the new world for the USA.  If it's a bad decision well so be "pick yourself up dust yourself off and start all over again" Try something else.  Try enthusiastic support, that usually helps. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Yes very bad analogy, unfortunately, has a lot of truth in it.  The Indians consumed Custer.  Getting back to my previous analogy about Churchill, he had a lot of failures.  My father was a "light horseman" in the  8th brigade "Light Horse" Australian army WW1 at Gallipoli, ( didn't need the horses, 40,000 horses transported to Egypt. didn't need them, but later yes ) hated Churchill's guts as did most Australian Soldiers in WW1.  LIke sending 2 battleships through a minefield in the Dardanelles in Turkey to bombard Istambul.  Both sunk with 20 min with the loss of about 3,000 men..."oh well we better try something different".  Churchill did learn by his mistakes and got better later.  It did take 26 years though.  Oh yes back to Custer. it appears indecision was what finished him off.  It looks to me like US people if they don't agree with the Generals in the field they just set about frustrating them.  That's the new world for the USA.  If it's a bad decision well so be "pick yourself up dust yourself off and start all over again" Try something else.  Try enthusiastic support, that usually helps. 

Are you under the impression that the citizens of the USA are soldiers and that Trump is their Commander-in-Chief? 

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Yes very bad analogy, unfortunately, has a lot of truth in it.  The Indians consumed Custer.  Getting back to my previous analogy about Churchill, he had a lot of failures.  My father was a "light horseman" in the  8th brigade "Light Horse" Australian army WW1 at Gallipoli, ( didn't need the horses, 40,000 horses transported to Egypt. didn't need them, but later yes ) hated Churchill's guts as did most Australian Soldiers in WW1.  LIke sending 2 battleships through a minefield in the Dardanelles in Turkey to bombard Istambul.  Both sunk with 20 min with the loss of about 3,000 men..."oh well we better try something different".  Churchill did learn by his mistakes and got better later.  It did take 26 years though.  Oh yes back to Custer. it appears indecision was what finished him off.  It looks to me like US people if they don't agree with the Generals in the field they just set about frustrating them.  That's the new world for the USA.  If it's a bad decision well so be "pick yourself up dust yourself off and start all over again" Try something else.  Try enthusiastic support, that usually helps. 

Generals? What are you on about, mate? I think your understanding of the situation in the USA is rather bizarrely odd. Sometimes outsider's perspectives can provide fresh light and sometimes they are just plain weird. Was there a particular general you were speaking of named General Bone Spurs?

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:59 PM, EVENKEEL said:

So, seems the most popular left thinking is Walls don't work and Illegals commit crimes at an acceptable rate. They say it's money not well spent while...…... Calif wants to provide Med Ins for all illegals. Same as the wackos in New York who wants to do same. We're talking Billions of dollars. 

 

We don't want to try to keep out illegals, we want to welcome them.

Trump doesn't believe in a wall:

 

 

[JHolmesJr]

11 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Trump doesn't believe in a wall:

 

 

you don't seem to be able to differentiate between a concrete wall and a metaphorical one.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

you don't seem to be able to differentiate between a concrete wall and a metaphorical one.

“If you have a wall this thick and it’s solid concrete from ground to 32 feet high, which is a high wall, much higher than people planned. You go 32 feet up and you don’t know who’s over here. You’re here, you’ve got the wall and there’s some other people here.” — Interview with The Wall Street Journal