[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 01:17 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Morocco has just constructed a wall at his border with Algeria.
http://www.katibin.fr/2015/06/01/maroc-c...-lalgerie/



Are you telling me that what humble, rather poor and small Morocco just did (or what China did centuries ago), the mighty USA is not capable of doing?

Algerians are not streaming over the border and there are no billion dollar human trafficking gangs working this wall. Also their wall is only 100 Kilometers long. Not even close to similar.

The Great Wall of China was built over the course of 2 millenium and with slave labor where millions perished. Also they were trying to avoid Mongol hordes which eventually won any with the Han people and the Ming dynasty being overthrown by the Manchu Ching dynasty.

Two very good straw man arguements.

[Phoenix]

CHAYNAAAH!

Although it didn't work for them either

It sends the right message, and it moves the battlefield. It's entrenching -- the left then has to fight to have the wall dismantled. They have to argue for breaking it instead of arguing to not make it. In the effort they expend in that, they aren't doing social damage elsewhere.

My biggest concern though is that a future leftist government will use it as the DDR did: to keep citizens in.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

I dunno why people think building a wall is some kind of humanly impossible thing that simply can not, under any circumstances, be done. It's like some people simply give up before they've even ATTEMPTED to do anything. It's not some high tech wall with an AI that is self-conscious, it's just some fucking concrete slabs rammed into the earth and then manned by personell. Will it be expensive? Of course, it's a very long wall. But so what, those billions will EASILY be saved up when waste and fraud from the social systems is eliminated and a large portion of the armed forces are pulled back from overseas for pointless overseas adventures. The army spends upwards of 50+ million simply to research experimental weapons and missiles that after decades still don't work.

Every monumental project like the Hoover Dam or the space program had naysayers nearly fainting at the prospect of even starting to undertake them, and they have been completed. It's just some concrete slabs, unclench your assholes, it's doable.

[Enigma]

Every post by AboveAverageJoe makes the wall 10 feet higher.

[Vienna]

Just a thought:

How many men across America would feel a call to build the wall?

As men, our one primordial drive bestowed upon us by Nature is to achieve and overcome.

I'm sure there is a not insignificant portion of men that would build the wall for what it represents: Border. Nation. Security.

You get a few engineers, managers, builders, carpenters together who are driven by something beyond just monetary incentive, and maybe a few years later you have a yuuuge wall.

Heck a few guys on here would probably do it.

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 01:25 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

CHAYNAAAH!

Although it didn't work for them either

It sends the right message, and it moves the battlefield. It's entrenching -- the left then has to fight to have the wall dismantled. They have to argue for breaking it instead of arguing to not make it. In the effort they expend in that, they aren't doing social damage elsewhere.

My biggest concern though is that a future leftist government will use it as the DDR did: to keep citizens in.

I don't think even here, where many have already abandoned the West in its decline, that anyone has thought that in only 20 years we might be climbing over each other to escape.

[weambulance]

(09-22-2016 01:25 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

My biggest concern though is that a future leftist government will use it as the DDR did: to keep citizens in.

It's something to consider, sure. I see that argument floated a lot by libertarians.

But of course, we have two big coastlines. And lots of guns. This isn't nearly-land-locked East Germany. And all the wall support infrastructure will be on the American side, easy to attack. If they start turning the wall into a fort, with a wall facing us too, well... that'll be cause for worry.

[AboveAverageJoe]

In the sense of fair play, I use the term wall where we actually built a fence. Minor distinction but still different, and actual wall would both probably cost more and be a more imposing and harder to traverse physical obstacle. I just didn't want to alternate between the two terms. If this offers the opposing side in this arguement greater advantage, so be it. As I am sure as Trump figured out that "build a fence" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Fair is fair.

[Samseau]

No offense, but I'll take the word of the Border Patrol endorsement over the keyboard jockey's in this thread:

http://www.bpunion.org/index.html/newsroo...-president

Quote:

The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs.

The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.

As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.

Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don't need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington.

We need a person in the White House who doesn't fear the media, who doesn't embrace political correctness, who doesn't need the money, who is familiar with success, who won't bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.

Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country's interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn't listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.

You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.

Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.

There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.

Would they have endorsed Trump if they thought the wall was useless? (Cynics might claim they want a pork project, but given the open borders policy of Clinton and other globalists, it doesn't seem like this is merely for pork)

If you had to defend a territory, isn't it easier to defend it from high ground? Especially with guns? Not to mention the radar technology you can install on the wall?

If walls do not work then why do people live in houses, why were towns surrounded by walls in the Middle Ages, why did Rome build tons of walls, etc, etc.

[Samseau]

And hot damn, as I was looking through the Border Patrol's site, they just released this damning condemnation of Hillary:

http://www.bpunion.org/index.html/newsroo...n-policies

Quote:

History will not look kindly on President Obama’s border security policies and his conscientious efforts to mislead the American people. Historians may refer to this period as the “Era of No Consequences,” which resulted in the increase of dangerous drugs like meth and heroin, as well as criminal aliens flooding our communities. Obama’s efforts to deceive the American public about border security, in order to pursue amnesty programs that were eventually rejected by Congress and the American people will go down as this Administration’s biggest -- and deadliest -- lie.

In reality, President Obama’s policies created the illegal immigrant crisis that dogged his presidency. For seven years, the President’s marketers sold him as the “Deporter in Chief.” There was no truth behind that marketing campaign. The truth is that those living in the U.S. illegally were less likely to be deported than under any previous administration. Interior deportations under Obama were down 40 percent and at a nine-year low. In addition, eight out of ten illegal immigrants caught at the border were allowed to stay. In many cases, they were given taxpayer-funded bus tickets to relocate to cities in the interior of the nation. Finally, the administration intentionally misled the public on how many criminal aliens ICE released into the country. It has been reported that the agency released more than 80,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. This number was significantly larger than what Director Saldana told Congress during her testimony. The Boston Globe reported that 30 percent of those released in New England re-offended and were charged with rape, child molestation, aggravated assault, armed robbery and attempted murder. This is Obama’s true legacy on border security.

President Obama’s immigration policies, the product of special interest collusion, have decimated border security. These failures have flooded our communities with illegal immigrants, criminals, and dangerous drugs, such as meth and heroin. The refusal to enforce our immigration laws has given drug cartels the opportunity to expand their territory across America and access lucrative revenue streams, as illegal immigrants have paid billions of dollars to these organizations to smuggle family members into the U.S.

A reasonable person would think that, after reviewing this abysmal record, Obama’s potential successor would distance themselves from this disaster. However, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s only criticism was that Obama did not go far enough. Clinton and Obama both agree that they must appease the radical extremists in their party’s furthest fringe. Unfortunately, the citizens who were victimized by criminal aliens paid the cost of that appeasement, as well as cities that were flooded with meth and heroin, and the crimes associated with the illegal drug trade.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton fail to recognize we live in a world where religious and political fanatics are actively plotting to harm U.S. citizens at home and abroad. Instead of investing in measures to secure our nation’s borders, they have openly and actively pursued what Secretary of State John Kerry called a “borderless world.” Americans need to ask themselves: Do we want to risk the safety and security of our family, businesses and communities on the dangerous and extreme policies supported by the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee, and other ideological extremists?

To our deep dismay and concern, the Clinton Immigration Plan embraces and expands the Obama policies that created the “Era of No Consequences.” These policies fueled the illegal immigration crisis and drug epidemic that victimized entire cities and destroyed families. Those that were hardest hit by these policies included minorities, single mothers, existing lawful resident aliens, and others who had to compete for services and charities that were overwhelmed by the massive influx of illegal aliens.

Secretary Clinton’s call for amnesty in her first 100 days and expanding these dangerous policies demonstrates her deeply alarming willingness to sell out the security of American families to advance her political or financial interests. Her immigration plan is not only dangerous for all American families, but previews an Administration that will once again defy the will of the voters and Congress to implement a divisive, reckless, and partisan agenda.

Secretary Clinton calls immigration a family problem. However, the families she ignored are all American. Her plan does nothing to protect those who are victimized every day by our blind pursuit of open borders, and in fact subjects them to a greater threat. No one, in either party, should run for office unless they are willing to put the interests of American families above anything or anyone else.

Every American family should be alarmed that her plan leaves their children vulnerable to drug cartels that control the Mexican border. Last year, 150,000 people were killed by these ruthless criminal organizations. Anyone who opposed them quickly discovered that these cartel leaders were morally bankrupt. Hundreds of journalists, activists, politicians and law enforcement officers simply disappeared or fled to the U.S., as the cartels used forms of terror such as torture, dismemberment and beheadings to control people. Clinton’s failure to recognize this pending threat leaves all of us vulnerable to the growing power and influence of these criminal organizations.

We are already seeing a massive influx of activity on our southern border. Secretary Clinton’s very candidacy, and the amnesty she promises, is luring families into the U.S. and wrecking innocent lives.

We would face an unprecedented crisis if she was elected and allowed to implement her plan. Cartels and Islamic extremists would quickly manipulate this chaos and further their plans to harm innocent American citizens. Clinton has pledged to close detention centers, release immigrant family members and offer American citizenship, Obamacare, education, and amnesty to all. She mysteriously chooses to ignore the lessons from recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, Belgium, Nice, Orlando and London, as she pushes to drastically expand refugee admissions to citizens from countries not friendly to the U.S.

Clinton’s plan is another troubling example of her eagerness to ignore the inconvenient truth that we live in dangerous times. She continues to put the desires of social elites above the deafening choir of hard-working everyday citizens who are demanding real border security. We can no longer afford to weaken border security and hope for the best. Clinton’s Immigration Plan is dangerous, and may win her fringe voter support at the risk of every family’s security.

We believe that once the American public reads Clinton’s immigration plan, they will agree it is weak, dangerous, panders to extremists, and will result in their families and communities becoming vastly less safe and more at-risk. Simply put, this plan is a catastrophe and will threaten countless Americans. As the Obama “Era of No Consequences” demonstrated, weak or non-existent enforcement equals greater opportunity for terrible things to happen.

Chaos is the enemy of peace. The public must get the facts and reject this plan, and its architect, Secretary Clinton.

The National Border Patrol Council, and its 16,500 Border Patrol Agent members stand in opposition to this reckless, radical and deeply dangerous plan.

These guys really take their time to explain their position and their support for Trump. They break it down in every way. Of course our (((media))) never reports any of it.

I will take the word of these men who spend their time defending us at the border over any other bullshit I hear about walls not working.

[AboveAverageJoe]

The Border Patrol already does a fine job as they deport illegals with immediacy. It is law enforcement in the interior that we need to mobilize to enforce existing laws even if they are Federal laws and not State. As it stands State LEO's are not allowed to detain illegal immigrants when they are identified. They can only notify ICE who take longer to get there than 911 does to the hood.
Creating a lisason between local and Federal law enforcement to facilitate deportation is the answer that is most obvious. At least to me it is. I don't doubt for a second that Border Patrol would love to have their budget and salries enlarged greatly. Those Cartel "donations" don't go that far, you know.

[Going strong]

(09-22-2016 01:21 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:17 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Morocco has just constructed a wall at his border with Algeria.
http://www.katibin.fr/2015/06/01/maroc-c...-lalgerie/



Are you telling me that what humble, rather poor and small Morocco just did (or what China did centuries ago), the mighty USA is not capable of doing?

their wall is only 100 Kilometers long. Not even close to similar.

And? OK, the USA needs a wall, like, fifteen times longer? But isn't the USA fifteen times more powerful and wealthy than Morocco?

Also, yes China needed 1000 years or something to build its wall, but, since then, engineering has made some progresses, don't you reckon? Like, to lift big stones, we don't need twenty slaves and two-day work anymore. Just 5 minutes with a driver and a machine.

[Gmac]

We can send men to the moon but we can't build a fucking wall? Give me a goddamn break.

[Don's D]

We don't even need a wall, just warning sings about buried mine field. The whole border with cyclone fence on both sides of the mine field. A no man zone. Then campaign in Mexico, central and South America about the danger of crossing this minefield. A demoralizing campaign! But it won't happen because feelings get hurt

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 02:18 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:21 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 01:17 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Morocco has just constructed a wall at his border with Algeria.
http://www.katibin.fr/2015/06/01/maroc-c...-lalgerie/



Are you telling me that what humble, rather poor and small Morocco just did (or what China did centuries ago), the mighty USA is not capable of doing?

their wall is only 100 Kilometers long. Not even close to similar.

And? OK, the USA needs a wall, like, fifteen times longer? But isn't the USA fifteen times more powerful and wealthy than Morocco?

Also, yes China needed 1000 years or something to build its wall, but, since then, engineering has made some progresses, don't you reckon? Like, to lift big stones, we don't need twenty slaves and two-day work anymore. Just 5 minutes with a driver and a machine.

As many have said here as well, the wall would be more of symbolic value than an actual physical obstacle. It just seems foolhardy in a time when we are incurring so much debt, to pay for a wall that would be unecessary if we would only untie the hands of our already trigger-happy, and prodigious State law enforcement officers.

[GreyFFM]

Hungary built an effective wall on its border with Croatia.



https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/...serbia.jpg

[RaccoonFace]

(09-22-2016 02:26 PM)GreyFFM Wrote:  

Hungary built an effective wall on its border with Croatia.



https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/...serbia.jpg

"Walls don't work"

[Horus]

^^^ That deserves a place in the triggering leftists thread.

[Hannibal]

As of right now, the US has

2 million miles of pipeline
4 million miles of roads
740 thousand miles of public sewers
140 thousand miles of railroads

You don't think we can build 1900 miles of wall?

[AboveAverageJoe]

I never said we couldn't build a wall.
I said it will be prohibitively expensive while not ending illegal immigration as long as the incentives exist and laws are not enforced. We already have the necessary tools at hand. The wall should be a last, expensive resort.

[Gmac]

(09-22-2016 02:44 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

I never said we couldn't build a wall.
I said it will be prohibitively expensive while not ending illegal immigration as long as the incentives exist and laws are not enforced. We already have the necessary tools at hand. The wall should be a last, expensive resort.

We aren't paying for it so who cares how much it's going to cost?

[AneroidOcean]

(09-22-2016 01:04 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

De-incentivize illegal immigration and enforce existing laws.
The wall is not even needed.
Given the choice of possibly months spent in a detention center and unavoidable deportation afterwards, many illegals will leave of their own accord.

De-incentivize and Enforce.

I agree with what you've said above, although the part in bold I'm not certain about.

If we can almost entirely stem the tide of illegal immigrants through de-incentivizing them and enforcing current laws (including deportations, not release back into our country) then I'm all for not spending money on a wall.

This is essentially the situation with Canada. We have very little illegal immigration there, so there's no real reason for a wall (we also have a number of more natural obstacles between us, but that's sort of besides the point).

(09-22-2016 01:59 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

I'm telling you, if D. Trump does win, which God willing he will, we Conservative people will be so overcome by joy, that we (yes, you included) will drink champagne and party one solid week (month?) and forgive Ted Cruz and the others. I mean, think of the joy, the pure felicity that will flood our minds and veins! Think of Hillary doing the concession speech (actually, like CFK, she won't), think of hundreds of CNN journalists boiling with defeated rage, SJWs falling in tears to the ground, heading for Canada (the racist bastards hate Mexico, it seems) in droves, think of Hollywood satanists committing suicide, think of Merkel hospitalized in shock etc...

We will celebrate. We will high five each other and toast to our success, go to bed with bellies full and high spirits.

But in the morning we will awaken, not to continue celebrating, but to get to work. Work with a greater purpose. To Make America Great Again.

[GreyFFM]

actually building a wall would be a minefield. . . .

[AboveAverageJoe]

(09-22-2016 02:50 PM)GreyFFM Wrote:  

actually building a wall would be a minefield. . . .

Minefield you say? Now that would work without question.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

WALLS DON'T WORK!

*closes and locks door when he leaves home*