Bowsite.com

Trump sold America on “I Can”. He is doing everything he can to follow through with his word. He is getting a LOT of push back.

Best thing to do if he cannot get any help from Mexico...withhold all foreign aid to them and use it to fund the wall. Doing so, in a round about way has Mexico paying for it. Tomato, tomato...you choose how to pronounce it.

I want the wall mostly to stop the flow of drugs.

1) Right now, and for the past 2 years, the GOP controlled Congress; it is they who have walked away.

2) Pelosi is not in a position to pass anything until 1/3. So don’t blame the Dems for not dealing on this wall.

3) It is Ryan, McConnell and the rest of the GOP who have walked away from Trump.

4) The Dems will take over on the 3rd of January and start the ball rolling to bring the shutdown to an end. ANd they will succeed, making trump look petulant and stupid.

5) When they show that they are trying to make the government work and Trump continues to dig his heels in, eventually those working without pay and those sitting on the sidelines without pay will begin to lose faith in trump, if they were even on that side.

Keep in mind, to be a negotiator, one has to have someone to negotiate with. Trump is presently trying to negotiate only with himself. He will soon realize he has no bargaining chip to bet with.

Yer kind of funny. Every time I type 'yer' it autocorrects to 'yet'. Quit the dumb act.

I’m with Frank and guessing troll.

Republicans said we simply can’t afford it. Now what makes you think we can afford 5,billion for a stupid wall.

I’m truly amazed at the ignorance put forth in this thread. No one is as dumb as some of these responses appear. Losing money to the drug trade as a reason not to build it is the newest “reason” I suppose. But, no one is so stupid to even consider these accusations fellas.

“Who’s going to pay for it...Mexico.” It was just a campaign stunt like any other run of the mill swamp politician.

By the way I’m 100% for building the wall.

And Trump knows that is what people do. He is a master manipulator.

Just like a lot of people thought Trump University would change their lives for the better.

Make up your mind. "

Sums it up nicely. Apparently some folks really do want a King and not a President who works within the law. But skirts would go up over those same heads if he truly went above the law and acted as King.

A few clueless souls want it both ways...... not in a positive way, just so as as they can file a complaint.....

Find exactly where I found fault for Trump doing it through the system, and also doing it alone. Pull specific posts.

Please don't lump me with "people" who do a certain thing. It would be like lumping you in with the rest that suffer from CDS.

I have been quite consistent. I give credit to Trump for solid conservative policies and freely criticize when I believe his approach does more harm, especially in the long run. Reagan was able to disagree strongly with Tip O'Neil and still share a beverage at the end of the day.

You do have to work within the system, which means compromise.

An example of a person wanting it both ways is someone who takes credit for market upswings, and passes blame to others on the down side. Some how I don't see that as the type of integrity you possess either.

I can recall past discussions on this site about the good old days, the Duke era, when a man's word and handshake meant something. Like for example my one and only marriage to Robin, and always faithful. Now, I know I was blest, and divorce happens, but character counted to me back when Clinton occupied the Oval Office, and it still does to me today. That darn consistency thing I guess makes me one of those people.

I also remember laughing at Clinton over the meaning of is. And so did just about everyone here, including the vast majority who now want me to believe a lot of what Trump said during the campaign like "Mexico will pay for it", I was not supposed to take literally. Tell it to those big dummies at the WSJ who reported on all of it.

This is life Kevin, people observe things and based on their perceptions, values, personal history etc, they will interpret events and see them differently. I am OK with that. Some here believe we must all be on the same bandwagon or we are nuts. Funny thing is, our FF were wise enough to realize it is the exception when the vast majority agree on much.

You will probably want to parse my words to prove me wrong, but I am almost 60 and have done OK adhering to the values and principles I have. You will not be changing my mind, as I will not yours. But whenever Slade rears up to take a shot at me, I know I am on the right track.

Happy New Year To all of you.

What you call ankle biting, I call accountability. Which is exactly what you and I will face, as will all of us.

Thank you Chris, and I agree! You are a good man as well. Happy New Year!

Just kidding!

He blamed immigrants and lawmakers, not the White House, for the tense situation at the border, where thousands of Central Americans are stranded in Mexico — and two Guatemalan children have died in Border Patrol custody in Texas and New Mexico this month.

“One of the reasons why it’s so difficult to keep people from coming — obviously it’d be preferable for them to stay in their own homeland but it’s difficult to do sometimes, where they live — is a crazy, oftentimes conflicting series of loopholes in the law in the United States that makes it extremely hard to turn people around and send them home,” Kelly said.

“If we don’t fix the laws, then they will keep coming,” he continued. “They have known, and they do know, that if they can get here, they can, generally speaking, stay.”

That is very weak. I guess you could not find specific posts where I did what you accuse.

People like me is not me in this case.

I have and still agree that Congress must change the laws, incentives, to change illegal immigration.

Congress, especially the House in 2019, is not going to work with our President to do this. The poor working relationship is the fault of both Congress and the President, IMO.

Kelly I bet has also disagreed with Trump on other issues. Is he right only when he agrees with Trump? If yes, get checked for CDS.

You cannot find quotes proving I did what you said. You are anal Kevin, you looked and could not find them.

Your integrity just took a hit with me. A bigger man would apologize for an inaccurate accusation.

To be fair, over the last few weeks your posts to me have taken a much more pro-Trump flavor, to me. I have read with interest your logic trying to understand.

Notice what I just did, I said "to me". Yes Kevin, you have a habit of parsing people's words and have assumed your interpretation is the only correct one. It is not, as stated above, "to me" means my perspective, my judgment... It may not be yours, that's how disagreements work.

I only back away from you when I realize you are incapable of seeing this point, people have different perspectives and while words mean something to you, something you have said, it appears to me that you are not holding that same standard for Trump. I guess you parsed his words and took them one way, but someone like Chris who took them another way is wrong? Yes, from my perspective that is arrogant.

Thanks, and Happy New year to you.

I actually gave you an easy way out. All you had to do was say obviously I interpreted your following quote differently than intended:

"When he doesn't get things done through the proper channels, people like you find fault. When he tries to do things unilaterally, people like you find fault."

KPC

But the obvious was not so obvious as trying to win an argument prevented it.

Till the next time?

Or, are there rounds still left?

FYI, in all sincerity, I did not challenge you previously on my perception about your Trump posts. I intentionally avoided the debate.

I only responded to your above quote because I find it grieviously inaccurate. I own my words. They may need to be explained further on occasion, but I own them.

I like proper channels, I also recognize at times for expediency that may not happen. An example would be taking combat action without Congressional approval. Go back a number of years and you will find my support of this.

Kevin, I could not let that quote go, intentionally or not, it propagated accusations towards me by another, IMO. A simple search will find multiple examples where I have supported Trump's decisions. But I still adhere to the belief that solid and stable long run leadership is built on a foundation of consistent integrity and character on display over one's lifetime. That does not mean the occasional slip will never happen, but for me, with Trump, it has not been occasional. Fool me once...

Sincerely, thanks. I meant what I said back to Chris about agreeing you are a good man.

I remember a person once saying on here that when a person results to insults and name calling, they already lost the argument.

Who was that person Kevin?

Maybe I interpreted what they said incorrectly?

Lol!

Sure is fun turning your own words against you, a tactic I am sure you admire!

Next round?

What does an article about medicaid overpayments have to do with building a border wall?

Matt

So far you are living up to your resolution. Hang tough Marine!

You already admitted I leave these debates first, you always have to have the last word. Your quote describes you to a T Kevin. I suspect that is happening here. Since you predicted it, I will prove you wrong yet again. This can go on forever.

But for entertainment, tell us if you did look back and try to find quotes from me. Come on now, be honest Kevin.

I don't have to try and convince anyone of my innocence as to your misguided accusation. I have enough to own it. You are the one with the double talk, words have meaning, except when you think they don't. Carry on...

Billions Remitted Back South of the Border

Last year well over $50 billion was sent by foreigners living in The United States to Mexico and Central America. That outflow of wealth went untaxed by the nation where it was generated. The corrosive effect of so much economic migration into The United States is felt here as well as the nations of origins of all those border crossers.

more

Everyone talks about "the wall" as if it's as simple as building a fence around their backyard. I've heard no reasonable discussions on how a number of logistical and geographic obstacles would be addressed. For example:

1. How would Trump's almost comical see-thru wall with steel spikes hold up to corrosive salt spray and changing tides on the west coast side?

2. How about the ever-shifting levels of sand in the Imperial Sand dunes in California? I've read they can reach over 300 feet high. So, one day there's a wall, the next day it's covered in a giant pile of sand. What's the plan there.

3. How do you cost effectively build a wall thru the mountainous areas in Arizona and New Mexico that have been described as "unfenceable"?

4. How would a wall hold up to flooding that routinely occurs in the Rio Grande and Colorado river floodplains along the border?

5. How will the feds deal with the imminent domain nightmare that will occur when they start seizing privately owned lands to construct this wall? It's not like there's a public easement along 2000 miles of border.

6. There's also the issue of 75 miles of border that bisects the 3rd largest Indian reservation in the US. Tribal members live on both sides and freely travel back and forth across the border. What's the plan there?

7. What about wildlife that routinely migrates back and forth over the border for food and water? Do we just cut their range in half and hope they survive?

8. Lastly, do you honestly think $5 billion will even scratch the surface of funding this wall? I've read that, as of 2014, 653 miles of border fencing had already been erected to the tune of $7 billion. How will $5 billion possibly fund this medieval looking wall over 2000 miles, when a simple fence that is a third of the length cost more?

These are just a few questions I have. Would love hear some honest answers or opinions.

Matt

The see-thru aspect was requested by BP agents, so they could see what was going on on the opposite side.

We've successfuly put pipelines and railroad tracks, not mention large tunnels, in places across this country that we never thought were possible. All of which were questioned by the naysayers. All it takes is a little ingenuity. Why is this so different?

So answer that question, if it's such an easy engineering solution.

Then take a stab at the other questions, I asked. I'm just a lowly architect, who used to do his own engineering on his construction plans, but I don't have all the answers to those problems.

And again, what the hell is the paltry $5 billion that Trump is asking for really gonna buy for us taxpayers who are funding it? I can easily see that amount being burned up in legal fees to address the imminent domain problem alone.

So, in reality "The Wall" isn't a wall, it's just a vague undefined term used to describe a much larger and complex set of border security problems with no solutions so far. And the $5 billion is just a drop in the bucket to the actual costs of those solutions.

At least that's how I see it, and so far nobody has convinced me otherwise, or even made an honest attempt to.

Matt

Do you really believe that “most, if not all of those federal workers told me, it’s ok mr President, you keep this shutdown for all’s long as you need to, we’ll be ok” As trump so eloquently lied yesterday? Does anyone truly believe that? I didn’t think so

Another trump lie along with Mexico is paying for it. Rubes

That's a lie. But it's easy to lie when you're hiding under a blanket of anonymity.

No one made an honest attempt to answer those questions, and still haven't. If they aren't valid questions, then tell me why. If they've been answered elsewhere, then please direct me to that information, or post it here.

Thanks,

Matt

For example, to question #2 he said:

"2. Sounds like an ignorant route to choose. But without seeing any Plans, I can't comment other than to say, burn them up with military grade lasers from an Obama drone. .... lol"

As far as I know the border only takes one route. And that route goes thru the Imperial Sand dunes, which can vary in height from 0 - 300' overnight as winds shift the sand around. I've heard something about a floating wall that would travel with the changing heights of the dunes, but I question how practical that is.

His response to #3 and #4 was:

"3 & 4 should not be bothering you. Do you think a group of qualified engineers are going to be that stupid? (time to fire off your best engineer jokes, fellas)....."

That's a non-answer that only mocks the question.

Here's the rest of his responses to my questions:

"5 & 6 will need to be dealt with accordingly. I'm confident the alphabet-challenging media elites will keep you overwhelmingly exposed to their perspectives every second of the way....for years to come.

7 bothers many of us. But first & foremost, we must make it work out to our benefit, and THEN do what we can for our precious wildlife. Ask yourself, 'should we address the lives of our people first, or our wildlife first? What say you?

8. Are you expecting Trump to be demanding more money from these radical leftists? I believe our border security should not even be an issue. But these leftists have already chosen their strategery, and are allegedly ready to defend it until their 'deaths'...."

The only honest response in that pile is #7. But it really isn't an answer, unless you consider "we'll worry about that later" an answer.

So, out of 8 questions he gave 1 honest answer, and the rest of his responses basically just mocked the questions, just like his response in this thread.

Matt

Your response to #1 was the only one I considered a reasonable attempt at an answer. You are correct, however, I should have quoted it. I apologize.

Not all my questions are engineering related, as you are implying, though. The imminent domain, reservation, wildlife, and funding questions are all unrelated to engineering.

Do you think all the landowners along 2000 miles of border are going to gladly let the government seize their land to build a wall? Some will, but many won't. How about those tribal members who live on the reservation that spans across the border? Do you think they are going allow their reservation to be bisected by a wall without a fight? Those two issues alone could easily burn thru $5 billion worth of funding just in legal fees.

And how is $5 billion going to fund a "big beautiful wall" when it took $7 billion to build a wire fence that is only a third as long?

The wildlife question is one of the most troubling for me. I can't think of any possible way to prevent humans from crossing a border, while still allowing the wildlife to roam the same ranges they have for decades. Sadly, this will probably be the lowest priority on the list, as you alluded to earlier.

Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you keep your responses civil.

Matt

I know I'm not the person you would like to see answer, but I'll take a stab.

1. How would Trump's almost comical see-thru wall with steel spikes hold up to corrosive salt spray and changing tides on the west coast side? I would say in the grand scheme of things, this is a very minor concern. A wall wouldn't have to be built of steel in the areas that see salt spray. In addition, there are mechanisms to protecting steel if it were. Any wall built will require maintenance over time.

2. How about the ever-shifting levels of sand in the Imperial Sand dunes in California? I've read they can reach over 300 feet high. So, one day there's a wall, the next day it's covered in a giant pile of sand. What's the plan there. I know nothing of this area. It sounds like a legitimate issue, but my guess would be that if they were to build a wall through the area, it would be along with adjacent walls that would act like a snow fence. Maybe this won't work either, but I suppose they could always go around.

3. How do you cost effectively build a wall thru the mountainous areas in Arizona and New Mexico that have been described as "unfenceable"? This is definitely a non-issue, and can be done, but will be costly.

4. How would a wall hold up to flooding that routinely occurs in the Rio Grande and Colorado river floodplains along the border? Depending on the electronics used, this is also a non-issue. Flood walls get built all the time.

5. How will the feds deal with the imminent domain nightmare that will occur when they start seizing privately owned lands to construct this wall? It's not like there's a public easement along 2000 miles of border. The same way Trump deals with a lot of things I imagine.

6. There's also the issue of 75 miles of border that bisects the 3rd largest Indian reservation in the US. Tribal members live on both sides and freely travel back and forth across the border. What's the plan there? They have no plan there would be my guess, but we've reneged on a lot of treaties.

7. What about wildlife that routinely migrates back and forth over the border for food and water? Do we just cut their range in half and hope they survive? "Hoping they survive", well that sounds like hyperbole to me. This again is a non-issue to me, but I'm sure some rabid environmentalist would disagree.

8. Lastly, do you honestly think $5 billion will even scratch the surface of funding this wall? I've read that, as of 2014, 653 miles of border fencing had already been erected to the tune of $7 billion. How will $5 billion possibly fund this medieval looking wall over 2000 miles, when a simple fence that is a third of the length cost more? $5 billion won't scratch the surface of a full-length wall, with is the exact reason I don't think we should build it.

So my next question. Do you want it to work, or are you all for open borders? If they money isn't used for the wall, it will be used to let more illegals slip in and take over. Which aspect of the issue TRULY concerns you the most?

Thank you for your honest answers.

I'm curious why you think only "rabid environmentalist" will be concerned about the wildlife impact of a wall? Don't you think hunters might be as well? How about the outfitters in those areas who rely on the wildlife for their living? Do you think they may be concerned?

In balance, I think we mostly agree. The funding issue is a biggie. I think this initial $5 billion is just a trickle in what will become a never-ending flood of taxpayer's money that will be dumped into this. I've read studies that claimed the $7 billion that was spent on the existing 600 miles of fencing did little to nothing to slow the influx of illegal border crossers.

So, it's a all or nothing kinda deal for me. Show me a comprehensive plan on how the ENTIRE border will be secured, and estimates on the ENTIRE costs. Then, and only then, will I decide if I support it. This silly bickering over $5 billion, and some mythical wall that will magically get built with it, is nothing but political posturing, IMO.

I say get back to work you phony political pukes and quit wasting our taxes on this nonsense.

Matt

10-4 on that.

So what you're really saying is, we should save our taxes so AOC can implement her 70% tax hike on the rich folks. You know...her Green New Plan...the one that will provide free stuff for all the folks that aren't hampered by a pesky wall. Do you also support the tripe she spouts when it comes to throwing our money away?

"Wasting tax dollars". Would that be a wholesale "contradiction" or "clarification" of terms. ?;-)

Democrats refuse to give $5B to protect its own citizens who have been murdered by illegal immigrants from a porous southern border. What dollar figure would you put on one child, possibly your own child to protect them? $5B I would hope would be forked over right quick. Why the fuqn delay? Can't be money. Right? Liberal CS'ers.

The Rock

It wasn't a "stale apology", whatever that's suppose to mean. It was sincere. I should have quoted your one response that was a reasonable answer.

To all the rest, who have decided to pile on to my last comment, I don't have any inclination to respond to each of you individually. I think I've clearly stated were I stand on "The Wall". I think border security needs to remain a priority, but I don't trust our federal government enough to blindly support a program filled with so many unanswered questions.

I also think laws and programs aimed at reducing the incentives for illegal immigration are needed as much, if not more, than some costly physical barrier. After all, isn't that the root of the problem? These people think the US is some promised land where they can thrive with impunity. Take that impression away from them, and watch the numbers fall drastically.

Matt

Border Security does not require government red tape. A Wall, The Wall or whatever physical barrier to help prevent illegal crossings should be installed immediately. Not for you or me but for us. If that barrier prevents one less criminal illegal with bad intentions that would be posed upon the American public in ANY form is worth the costs. The resistance against this barrier is to protect our people is criminal. This is simply political capital vs. American safety.

We can clip off $5B in welfare fraud in this country paid alone. I know you know that. In the meantime another Kate Stinely is waiting in the wings and ruining American lives but worry about and for DACA. Sad and disgusting until one, just one member of Congress or their family member becomes a victim. Marie A said "let them eat cake". We all know how that played out.

The Rock

Why is it when someone one on the left asks a question, we're chastised for not answering the (in this case, very detailed) list? But as soon as the salient points are made, and tastefully I might add, the guy on left suddenly let's the conversation unwind and derail?

The problem with "clipping off $5B" is I think that's just the tip of the iceberg to what will actually be needed to fund a full barrier, for reasons I've already stated. What will we actually get for that $5B, another couple hundred miles of barrier, maybe? I don't see that as an affective solution.

As I stated, I look at "The Wall" as an all or nothing deal. You don't stop the flow of a river by damming only a portion of it. All that does is concentrate the flow in other areas. If we build it, let's build the whole damn thing, but not before we have a solid comprehensive plan, and a reasonable estimate of total costs. Building it like a beaver dam, one stick at a time like we've been doing, clearly isn't working.

Matt

I'm gonna say...490...?

Exactly what were those "salient" points that were made, and I didn't respond to? Frazen was the only one who responded to my questions honestly, and I responded to his comments.

If you honestly think I'm "someone on the left", you haven't been paying attention. But I get it. When someone doesn't tow the right's narrative here, they are automatically a liberal socialist. I've come to accept that about this forum.

Matt

Claims the never votes capon who was bashing the president while supporting the bowlibs daily until Obama took office and then scampered away like the rest of the original spineless bowlibs only to return when the next republican took office.

What cost the safety of one life to illegal drugs or illegal immigrants as I asked? Should one Americans life be saved the barrier is well worth the cost. Whose life seems to be the deciding factor. I never receive an answer from anyone outside of economics. As I said, we KNOW welfare and SS fraud alone is astronomical leave alone foreign aid. A fraction of those funds could build a high barrier along the entire border but the vote tallies are much higher and carry the only significant weight in the chambers. This country will eat its own for votes and has proven so. How can you give yourself permission to agree with the premise that "costs" are the hurdle knowing full well that funding is the least of the problem? You know that I know that you know better but refuse to cede for some odd reason on a very serious, very dangerous and ever expanding subject.

The Rock

The Rock

I will take a stab at your questions.

1. How would Trump's almost comical see-thru wall with steel spikes hold up to corrosive salt spray and changing tides on the west coast side?

If I was building the wall I would apply galvanize coating to all metal. The new poles being used for T line installation have no coating of any kind. They say as long as the outer portion of the steel developed a rust coating it will not sink into the rest of the steel in the structure.

2. How about the ever-shifting levels of sand in the Imperial Sand dunes in California? I've read they can reach over 300 feet high. So, one day there's a wall, the next day it's covered in a giant pile of sand. What's the plan there.

The snow fence idea is a good one. But I like this option better. I would have columns and just add onto them and install panels in between the columns.

When I lived in Denver I worked for Raytheon. The new South Pole station is built on jacks to accommodate the increasing ice under everything. I believe this to be a pricy solution for a wall.

3. How do you cost effectively build a wall thru the mountainous areas in Arizona and New Mexico that have been described as "unfenceable"?

I can see it being done easily. As for cost goes anything with the government isn’t cost effective. But it could be.

4. How would a wall hold up to flooding that routinely occurs in the Rio Grande and Colorado river floodplains along the border?

Like Franzen said flood plane walls are built all the time. If water needs to flow through I would install concrete culverts and block them with bars.

5. How will the feds deal with the imminent domain nightmare that will occur when they start seizing privately owned lands to construct this wall? It's not like there's a public easement along 2000 miles of border.

I am guessing they will say it’s for national defense or something. The government takes land from people all the time. It never is right. On the other hand. How many land owners are sick of dealing with illegals and welcome the wall and the money from it in there pocket?

6. There's also the issue of 75 miles of border that bisects the 3rd largest Indian reservation in the US. Tribal members live on both sides and freely travel back and forth across the border. What's the plan there?

I can see them stepping on the tribes toes. Most tribes like money i can see them being paid well. I haven’t researched this reservation. Is there private or federal land mixed in with tribal lands on it? Those lands wouldn’t fall under the reservation jurisdiction.

I hunt on a few reservations in the Dakotas. Lots of private land, some public land and of course tribal lands in the reservation.

7. What about wildlife that routinely migrates back and forth over the border for food and water? Do we just cut their range in half and hope they survive?

Is there any wildlife that migrate across the border? I know birds do but I don’t see a wall stopping them. BTW every day we impact wildlife. The ethanol boom drastically changed things in the Midwest for wildlife.

8. Lastly, do you honestly think $5 billion will even scratch the surface of funding this wall? I've read that, as of 2014, 653 miles of border fencing had already been erected to the tune of $7 billion. How will $5 billion possibly fund this medieval looking wall over 2000 miles, when a simple fence that is a third of the length cost more?

I don’t see 5 billion putting a dent in it. I thought the wall was going to cost 25 billion? Not sure what’s with Trumps 5 billion. I know your anti wall and I respect that. We waste tax dollars everywhere. I don’t think a wall is a waste. I think it is a needed piece of the puzzle to cure our immigration problems.

BEG brought up a big point and one I have thought of ever since Trump campaigned on a wall. The tunnels need to be dealt with.

I agree, there is no definitive "cost" for the safety of of an innocent life. But that's a pie in the sky notion. The inconvenient reality is a comprehensive plan and cost estimate are the criteria that will get this wall thing done. Until that happens, it's just political pukes wrestling over who places the next stick in the dam.

Matt

Thank you. You've given the most honest response so far, in my not so humble opinion.

Just to be clear. I'm not "anti-wall". I'm anti-being lied to by the pukes in Washington. Both sides have recognized the need for more border security, either now or in the past. Yet, they bicker over who gets to put the next piece in the complicated and costly puzzle, that isn't close to being completed. That's just pure stupidity to me..

Matt

Thank you. I had all day to think on my response. The coyotes didn’t cooperate very well so lots of time to think while waiting for the Wile E one to show up. Lol. I totally understand your frustration. I wish they would put there partisan bickering aside and do what is best for the majority in our country.

I agree, not the way the system is supposed to work; however, if it is a ploy to force Pelosi/Schumer back to negotiating honestly, then I will hold my nose and support the tactic. Innovative thinking actually, I did not see that one coming.

Thanks to whomever explained why steel slats versus cement, so our agents can see thru. In light of multiple agents being injured by rocks thrown from the other side, I wonder if a solid cement wall would still be best with drones to monitor the other side? Arm the drones with non-lethal gadgets like stink bombs or something;)

Sensors spaced appropriately I would think could detect tunnelling activity.

As others said, non of this will prove effective until we change the laws that currently encourage illegal immigration.

I don’t put a whole lot of weight on studies that only talk about costs and completely ignore the economic benefits of illegal immigration. As I’ve said countless times, anything can sound bad if you only focus on the costs. The economic argument against illegal immigration is a poor one at best.

And once again, Kevin latches on to one small bone to pick, in a meaningless attempt to feel superior to others. Keep it up, maybe someday it will work.

Matt

Not today. I'm not going to argue over one comment that you take issue with, while you conveniently ignore the balance of the other comments I made, like:

"I think border security needs to remain a priority, but I don't trust our federal government enough to blindly support a program filled with so many unanswered questions.

and...

"I also think laws and programs aimed at reducing the incentives for illegal immigration are needed as much, if not more, than some costly physical barrier."

and...

"Just to be clear. I'm not "anti-wall". I'm anti-being lied to by the pukes in Washington. Both sides have recognized the need for more border security, either now or in the past. Yet, they bicker over who gets to put the next piece in the complicated and costly puzzle, that isn't close to being completed. That's just pure stupidity to me.."

Better yet, why don't you tell us where you stood on the $46B border security bill in 2013. You know, the one that proposed $8B for additional border fencing and $30B for additional border security agents. The one that House republicans shot down because it proposed a path to citizenship for current illegals if they met certain criteria. Where did you stand on that bill?

Matt

What's understandable, even though I can't relate, is the ideology that costs of the wall matter's at this point. However, if the ideas weren't politically motivated, they might be worth listening to. So, I equate it to ignorance instead of genuine concern. Because there are economic benefits from drug smuggling to some people and industry's. Does that mean we should allow it? Of course the answer is no. Because we all know those that benefit are doing so at the cost of many more who are suffering. If you truly believed your point was something to be worth consideration by the average Joe, you have to get past that reality in order to be taken seriously.

The parts that corrode would be more frequently replaced than parts in Arizona, for example. Not an insurmountable problem as this area is easily accessible. Or, this is of a different construction than parts of the wall built further inland. It also did not escape my attention to see the words "almost comical see-thru wall" as an indication of the seriousness with which you take this issue.

2. How about the ever-shifting levels of sand in the Imperial Sand dunes in California? I've read they can reach over 300 feet high. So, one day there's a wall, the next day it's covered in a giant pile of sand. What's the plan there.

If the wall would be covered in this area, it may need more agents to handle this area. How is it handled now? The wall does not eliminate the need for border enforcement. What it could do is either funnel the illegal immigration path and lessen the need for agents to enforce the border, but not eliminate it. I also note that you don't indicate the frequency of such a problem. If it's infrequent, this is an easily solvable problem. If more frequent, then that's another issue.

3. How do you cost effectively build a wall thru the mountainous areas in Arizona and New Mexico that have been described as "unfenceable"?

I find it hard to believe these areas are unfenceable, and don't know how many miles we are talking about. A good civil engineering firm could likely fix this problem. IF not, see my previous answer on the sand dune issue. I also suspect that if it is unfenceable, it is also equally "unhikeable."

4. How would a wall hold up to flooding that routinely occurs in the Rio Grande and Colorado river floodplains along the border?

Designing drainage systems is something civil engineers routinely do. People don't think about it because it routinely works very well. I presume as an architect you are more than aware of this.

5. How will the feds deal with the imminent domain nightmare that will occur when they start seizing privately owned lands to construct this wall? It's not like there's a public easement along 2000 miles of border.

It is "eminent domain" not "imminent domain." And the feds would deal with it just like building a new highway, by condemning the land for public use and compensating the owners.

6. There's also the issue of 75 miles of border that bisects the 3rd largest Indian reservation in the US. Tribal members live on both sides and freely travel back and forth across the border. What's the plan there?

Sounds like a problem for congress. Not insurmountable. I suspect the folks running the reservation do not wish to become a thoroughfare for illegal immigration, so there is a compromise to be worked out here.

7. What about wildlife that routinely migrates back and forth over the border for food and water? Do we just cut their range in half and hope they survive?

I'm not sure this is a huge issue. And I doubt that the "half their range" comment is anything other than conjecture and hyperbole.

8. Lastly, do you honestly think $5 billion will even scratch the surface of funding this wall? I've read that, as of 2014, 653 miles of border fencing had already been erected to the tune of $7 billion. How will $5 billion possibly fund this medieval looking wall over 2000 miles, when a simple fence that is a third of the length cost more?

It will likely cost considerably more than $5 billion. All government projects are overpriced compared to projects not contracted by the feds, because of the labyrinth of paperwork and regulations. Private roads cost less than public roads. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the cost, and they would. A nation must have a border.

Ever taken your kids to the zoo? Seen the lions and tigers and other dangerous animals? You could do that because the wall worked.

If you don’t, any amount spent is too much.

If you do, you are willing to spend whatever it takes."

I'm willing to spend what it takes, but why would we spend WAAAY more than it takes?

By some arguments here, "healthcare for all" would be cheap too. Protecting our citizens, right? Oops, wrong team.

In a nut shell, I guess my biggest problem is I haven't seen any detail plans that answer my questions definitively. Exactly what is Trump proposing to do with the $5B he is asking for? I think most will agree it won't scratch the surface of a full border wall, which is how Trump promotes it. So, if it funds a partial wall, exactly where will that wall be? And what are his plans for the rest of the border? How does he plan to secure $30-$50B, which is more likely the amount he'll need for a full border solution, when he's struggling to get only $5B?

It just seems pointless to me to erect a mostly symbolic partial wall, without having a comprehensive plan and funding for the rest of the border solution.

Matt

I realize and understand your intentions to question, but matters of such import, with dire consequences regarding debate, are superfluous.

I will ask you once again. What cost safety? Your destination can only be achieved one step at a time. Your reasoning and apprehensions are exactly the talking points that Congress debates and delay's for years and we are living and experiencing that agony. Americans families are the victims that fall daily to this identified serious problem that we refuse to address. The knotting of the political powers to vehemently disagree on a course of action highlighting "costs" is akin to dropping leaflets littering the sky claiming, " come on in, no worries" across these invading nations. That is the message being sent and they understand it well.

The Rock

See the "Wall-Emergency?" thread. Kelly presents a sound argument, IMO, that true conservatives should heed. Like him, I question how "dire" the current situation really is. The data clearly shows that what we've been doing is working to slow the influx. Maybe not as quickly as some of you may want, but it is working.

My link may interest some. It details the history of our border security efforts since they began in 1904. As you will see, almost every administration since then has passed some form of legislation that increased our border security. Yes, even Democrat administrations have contributed to our border security.

I feel Trump has manufactured a sense of emergency that doesn't really exist relative to past years when illegal immigration was much higher. In doing so, he's polarized what used to be a non-partisan issue, effectively slowing the progress we've made on our border security over the decades.

Matt

Or are you ignoring the majority of Americans to support your view?

I agree with the wall unless other methods would be just as effective at a lower cost, but good points Matt.

I agree with the wall unless other methods would be just as effective at a lower cost, but good points Matt.

What percentage of Americans wanted to stay out of the War until Pearl Harbor?

Not every decision a leader makes can be based on popularity .

Algodones Dunes (aka: Imperial Sand Dunes)

"The dunes are located west of the Chocolate Mountains in Imperial County, and are crossed by Interstate 8 and State Route 78, which passes through the old train stop of Glamis at the eastern edge of the dune field. The northwestern end is located at 33°8?53?N 115°19?29?W about 11 miles (18 km) east of Calipatria, California, and the southeastern end is located at 32°41?4?N 114°46?7?W near Los Algodones in Mexico, about 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Yuma, Arizona."

Gee wiz...indeed.

Matt

Those dogs may not hunt for you, Kevin, but I know of at least a half a dozen people here, who I respect, who think differently. Whether you care, or not, is up to you, obviously.

Matt

In political jargon That means they couldn’t explain what they would do with all of the money“ they want. Wrap your head around that for a second. They literally HAVE NO PLAN. None. Concrete, steel, plastic, no idea!

Furthermore. Most of you are aware that trump and his administration are in possession of a billion $ handed to them in the last wall negotiation. They have only used 1% of it. Where? No one knows. What have they done w the balance of the funds? No one knows.

And you want the tax payers to just give them a blank check?

You’re nuts.

Trump gets nothing. Zilch. Nada

It's an interesting read, with some great pics, that puts the whole border security dilemma in perspective, and clearly demonstrates how little of an actual plan exists, IMO.

Matt

I have not seen him participate in some time, but the poster who invited Paul down to see what was going on... I believe him more than a "flyover".

Too many sources are saying it is a problem, and a strain on our economy. I understand the points you are making, and appreciate your standing strong in the face of strong criticism!

Illegal immigration to me is an issue about fairness to us. If we look the other way on their crime, which it is, what legitimacy does our government have in prosecuting other crimes, especially ones of the same level, against citizens?

The article I linked to claims that under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, "U.S. officials filed more than 320 federal court actions to condemn private properties. Some cases were settled for as little as $100 for an easement. Others resulted in federal payments as high as $5 million for 6 acres. But, nine years after the first cases were filed with a federal court in Brownsville, 85 remain in litigation."

Nine years, for a fraction of the number of land seizures they would need in Texas alone. NINE YEARS and they still have 85 cases in litigation. And at what costs?

My thought is they will have to dedicate way more resources to process these cases. Can they do that? Do only certain fed courts have jurisdiction over certain areas in eminent domain cases. Bad Karma....?

Matt

Why they just be trying to assimilate ............................

As stated before, this is a do it die thing. You either believe it’s nessecary or not. It has nothing to do with anything other then are the benefits greater to ave a walk or not.

I can’t rationalize it being a no. Because the numbers say so on the cost side of illegal immigration. The effects of having so many unaccountable illegals in the legal system is huge. It goes on and on. That’s just the start. Everyone says it keeps costs low? For who? On what? Maybe it’s rime to get things back in line. If a bag or oranges has to cost $8 bucks versus $5, nobody is going to die.

Way too many people have died to protect this country, currently serve for the sovereignty of this country, and the whole world wants to be like this country for a reason. Let’s protect it. That’s what a wall greatly helps with. It’s a no brained if it cost 100 billion dollars.

No need to throw out fair and free trade with building better border security. They are really separate issues. Needed migrant workers will just have to come in legally.

Nice stereotyping all low income families with your broad brush there.

I grew up working class, even minor inflation made life challenging. No illegal activities in our home, just hard work.

By countries, regions, focusing on their comparative advantages, totally global output increases, lessening the hardship for all.

Belief in markets to accomplish feeding the masses, something Jesus did Himself, fed the crowd. We can do the work of our Lord via markets and capitalism!

Starting to see the connection in my philosophy? Not based on emotions or putting my belief in any one person.

I never declared I was an authority. But there you go again playing with the truth because God whispered to you.

I can cite some expert resources I use to help form my opinions, but you would not be able to understand those either.

By now we all know that your style, name calling, and grammar are that of a child.

This is a different world, somebody doesn't tell you what to do and think every day once you are out of the military.

I, my family, paid for the food. It mattered. Let's go from $10 you just used to a million. You see how easy it easy to destroy ignorant thoughts? Probably not.

Sorry for trying to wrap my mind around some of the difficult details that our legislators might be struggling with respect to this mythical and ever-changing "big beautiful wall". Please continue talking about it as if it's as easy as building a fence in your backyard. I'll go elsewhere for some of the knowledge I seek.

Matt

Expect another phone call.

If there are Plans ready for bid, then do your homework and point your queries to the actual resource that might provide you with some answers. No sense in continuing to demean your readers here for participating in your vitally important questionnaires.

To my knowledge there's no "approved set of plans", or anything that even remotely resembles one. Yet, we taxpayers are being asked to blindly fund these mythical non-existent plans because........?

I get it. Trump and his cult needs something, anything, they can point to and declare victory for a fulfilled campaign promise, regardless of how effective it actually is. Political vomitball as usual.

Matt

They had trained US commandoes try to get over the prototype walls in tests, and they failed. Yes, we can build a much better wall/barrier that is extremely difficult if not impossible for illegals to cross. We just lack the national will because of petty partisan bias and hurts feels.

Meanwhile our current border wall/barrier is not even capable of stopping pregnant women and children from getting across. Which is no 'border security' at all.

At what point do you love this country more than you hate Donald Trump??

GG, that is thee primary leftist talking point. Whereas, the actual experts involved with our southern border security for the past multiple decades have repeatedly stated how vastly critical a fortified barrier is so desperately needed.

That's not all they say is needed, but you'll need to remove your earmuffs & blinders to realize everything going on there. Instead, you're priorities appear to be aimed at defending 'wild game' access above the welfare of our law-abiding citizenry.....

Franks, as usual I'm just left shaking my head.

Bowsniper,

Thanks for the link. My take away from that is, currently the administration is asking for $3.2B to "build or replace" 74 miles of wall thru 2020. And there is a proposal in place to spend another $18B over 10 years to cover 1/2 the border, but Trump hasn't voiced support for that plan, yet.

So, there is a plan, sort of, but it's far from complete. Is that fair? Are you the least bit curious about the rest of the plan? I know I am.

Certainly 74 miles is better than nothing. And considering there's no other plan for the rest, at least none that I've seen, I think Congress should vote to pass it. Hell, they've probably already wasted $3.2B in lost productivity, while bickering over it.

Matt

That you are concerned is honorable. That you have been convinced that "something" should be addressed immediately, more so.

The Rock

But a new more effective wall DOES START to solve the problem. Everywhere a wall was added had helped to drastically reduce illegal crossings. The border agents say they need more wall, and a bigger wall to properly secure the border. Why would you deny that request? Just because you hate Trump that much? Really?

All this nay-saying and hand wringing (*for decades, both parties) has allowed our immigration problems to grow like a cancer.

We need a secure border. A wall works. A bigger wall works better. We have a prototype tested that works. Let's get on with it!

Stop with the contrarian nonsense. Congress needs to agree on how much we can spend each year to build an effective wall. And let's spend that much each year, every year, until we can fix this problem. Mile by mile. Prioritize areas per border patrol recommendations. And as the wall goes up, and illegal entries go down, it will show some real progress that the American people can unite behind.

No matter how much they personally dislike the Donald.

I'm coming around to your logic. Especially when I read reports like the one in my link.

"Customs And Border Protection Paid A Firm $13.6 Million To Hire Recruits. It Hired 2"

So, we have money already earmarked for more border security agents, but our floundering federal government can't even manage to hire those agents without wasting millions of tax dollars. At least a wall doesn't rely on incompetent politicians to manage our money once it's built.

Maybe there is a method to Trump's madness after all. ;-)

Matt

We went from cranking a car by hand (*American made) to standing on the surface of the moon (*American made) in just 50 years!! We can sure as sh1t secure the border, once we finally decide to stop playing politics games and just do it.

Now there will always be the occasional someone who gets through, but if we can cut the numbers down 90-95% I think we can call it a victory. For all Americans regardless of party affiliation.

That ties up less border agents, frees up the courts to more quickly process legitimate amnesty requests, and we can finally stop releasing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to the US interior for future trial (*that we never see again).

An effective wall is the beginning of real change. But its going to be a long and expensive process. That finally starts. Now.

So now the better than Maverick is not just telling rubes what a "true" conservative means, now he's judging and degrading another for being incapable of displaying a proper Christian position..........ROLMAO

Says the guy who has done nothing but take pot shots this whole thread. From your initial attempt to start the "Mental Sparring" you seek, to the repeated insults you hand out and disguise as such. You define the term belligerent, narcissistic, and egotistical.

Thank you for the prayers.

You take disguised shots all the time. And you use to do it and sign off with God Bless. Doesn't feel so great does it?

I didn't know three words were one term??

Are you praying for me?

If you think those three words have the same meaning and use, then you aren't as educated as you try to appear. Maybe it just isn't your wheel house.

I stopped praying for you after the last barrage of PM's telling me how good of a person you were. How people just misunderstood you. How you are so humble. ETC.....

There is also no need to act concerned about my relationship or, my well being. No one does what you do and truly cares about anyone but themselves. And, to constantly turn every discussion into a critique of where I stand in my relationship with Christ, isn't the irony you perceive it to be.

I remember our private exchange totally different. I remember you thinking you were a psychoanalyst on myself, as well as others. I walked away thinking what an arrogant ass.

I know what the three wordS mean, they do not make one term. I guess neither of us are as bright as we think.

Justin, you have acted the same way you do all along as well. As I said previously, when I first started to read your posts I was taken back by your extreme bluntness, your veiled pot shots at people, and then signing off with God Bless. It appeared to me an attempt to not be criticized by using His name, but I did not see those actions as genuine.

I only decided to call you out on it when you thought you could keep attacking me for something I had done, that was over with. That's what my point was of bringing up something you no longer do. It seems to me you justify your same behaviors you have no qualms about bashing someone else for. And you fail every time to see you are doing it. I know what I am doing, it is intentional.

Go back and read some of your posts. There typically is a shot at someone in them, not always, but typically. I seldom take a shot initially, I discuss issues. I take shots back when I receive them. I hate bullies. You take a shot at someone for disagreeing with them, Matt being the latest target. All of us can be annoying, ALL OF US. Cut some slack and others will as well.

I don't think I said I was humble, more on the line I know in the scheme of things I am a nobody. I am questioning your accuracy on statements because I sincerely do not care what someone I will never meet thinks. That is not a slam at you or anyone else. I remember saying to you I worry what God thinks, Robin next, then other family and friends. I can admit I have justified to myself being much less than a Christian with you, again I hate when perceived bullying takes place. Your last post seems mostly about painting me a certain way in the eyes of others, a defensive posture. Maybe I am wrong. I am fairly an open book to read.

The ball is in your court. I would like to move on. If you keep attacking me, I will respond in kind.

Fair enough? (That seems to be popular today. And you should never give up praying for someone that you think needs it.)

You can type all the lies and insinuations on here that you want. You have proved to me that you are very good at it. I dismiss about 75% of it anyway. However, I have never talked with you about one single other poster. Here is why. I don't care much for you. Never have. And, I likely never will as long as you posses the personality you exhibit here. If I were unsure about someone, I'd only talk with friends I trust. You aren't that. That's just the truth. Nothing more and, isn't meant to be a poke at you. I made that clear in the PM's. I wish you no harm but, have no desire to share my personal time with you. This isn't your classroom. This is grown men who have far outgrown your impact and, don't need or appreciate the chastising.

Keep on Keeping on Frank. If you are one thing, it is predictable.

You have proven to me you are not trust worthy. 18 year old students have more honor than you. You know where I stand, as I said it is your call how we interact going forward.

I don't lie, you obviously don't recognize the truth.

Keep on keeping on yourself. You are just as predictable.