So the point I haven't seen anybody discuss is where this wall is actually going to be built? Are we going to use eminent domain on a bunch of Texans to take away their water rights to the Rio Grande?
Practicality of a wall
- Thread starter Smada2001
- Start date
By asking these two questions you've already thought more about this than the geniuses yelling about building a wall have.
Trump repeatedly talking about the wall and his base eating it up while offering zero specifics reminds me of this Family Guy clip. It’s dead on, too.
Family Guy
Family Guy
Just like John Kennedy had all of the details when he announced on May 25, 1961 the mission to send a man safely to the moon.
https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html
My understanding is that eminent domain will have to be used because the proposed wall would run through a lot of land that is privately owned. Of course, this would lead to many lawsuits and cost both time and money.
Despite the stretch, this could have been a valid argument 2 years ago when it was proposed. But here we are, with a President shutting down the government over a wall he can't articulate the value of or explain any details of.
This wall "debate", as with so many other things with Trump, reveals that there are very few actual conservatives left. A conservative would never propose a massive government-built and maintained structure built on both state and private property that commits the U.S. to ongoing costs in perpetuity.
Unfortunately whatever side of the fence you're on, it's either building and maintaining the wall, or housing, feeding, healthcare, and educating the caravans of immigrants in perpetuity also. Social unrest is a global issue that more and more people will try to come to the USA. There is no easy solution economically or caring for the immigrants.
I don't think it's an "either/or" scenario. The migrants are coming - wall or no wall. Also, there's a difference between those seeking refugee status and those that enter and are just undocumented (the latter is actually a declining number). You're right that it is not an easy problem to solve. But with the right leadership and resolve, it's certainly something we can attempt to tackle. First off, respect and prioritize the needs of migrants/refugees. Second, influence the negative political situations from which they come as best you can. Third, partner with other governments and even private companies to provide needed aid (it's capitalism at work, right? Wouldn't be terrible PR for a company with significant number spanish-speaking customers to be involved in solving a problem in their region).
Right now, all we're doing is demonizing and over-simplifying the issue. And conservatives, who are supposed to be the ones that provide the creative economic solutions to these types of things, are proposing a government boondoggle that is highly unlikely to make a dent in the problem.
Tough call for some. Some(conservatives) could honestly think security of country is paramount
I am for a wall in spots but for different reasons-
-Did quite a bit of military training in sw. I would build a wall in some areas to prevent people from crossing. To dangerous. Numerous corpses and remains are prevalent. If 18-45 year old combat troops are needing IVs to make it through a training exercise, your 6 year old is not a good candidate to try.
-Same thing for Rio Grande. Parts of it are not crossable due to water. Others spots have mud that literally will turn into standing in concrete.
-Personally would also build a wall that would prevent crossing into US where one could cross but area is largely controlled by gangs/cartels. Human/sex trafficking to high a risk.
No, that's inconsequential to my point. Even if you are going to participate in the fantasy that our security is somehow imminently threatened - turning to government is not how conservatives solve problems. We have a healthcare problem in the U.S. and conservatives aren't asking for government intervention. We have education deficiencies and conservatives aren't asking for a government solution. We have a gun violence problem and conservatives aren't asking for government help. Even when the military is involved historically, conservatives have looked to build foreign economies and grant individual liberty to the countries we're occupying.
There is absolutely nothing conservative about usurping the rights of individuals and states so the federal government can spend billions of tax payer dollars on a structure that'll commit future generations to billions more in maintenance. Nothing. But Trump likes it so...
I see your points but in also think you are distorting beliefs of conservatives a bit. A main belief of conservatives is govt is supposed to protect the nation and its citizens. Some, whether right or wrong in your mind, view border security as a main issue. And it is very possible that that usurps individuals freedoms in some minds.
Sure Trump pushes for it although he is hardly a conservative. Other Reps in congress do as well, and the ironic part is some of the loudest Dems against a wall have voted for it in the past. It is interesting to me that based on where one lives it frames the argument before or against a wall. If one lives right on border, security is the issue along with property rights. Up north, now suddenly it is immoral and not what the US stands for. Yet others that live near border see mass numbers of immigrants(illegal or not), see the burden on the area, and wish DC would get off its ass. Just politics. All based around getting most of the Mexican/Hispanic/CentralAm vote.
The way you describe the wall in terms of cost and future maintenance sounds a lot like road construction funding. Build a crappy product and have work crews chase the issues around for decades.
You should look up Republican Will Hurd, who's district spans more border than any other member of Congress.
https://riograndeguardian.com/hurd-fallacy-to-think-a-border-wall-equates-to-border-security/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-wi...or-border-security-calls-for-more-technology/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-texas-congressman-calls-border-crisis-a-myth
“This fallacy that a wall equals border security. I have more border than any other member of Congress, 820 miles of the border. I spent a decade as an undercover officer in the CIA chasing bad guys,” Hurd said.
“We are monitoring or keeping track of the wrong metric. It is not how many miles of wall that is going to keep us safe. Are we keeping bad guys and are we keeping drugs out of our country? The best way to do that is with technology and manpower. Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to keep the border secure.”
agree completely.
that's scary, but youre right.
it seems to be becomimg more prevalent.
Last edited:
I know him. That is why I mentioned in my post the property rights issue.
I think one will get differing opinions on a wall. Israel and Hungary support them. For me, I listed above the reasons I would put up a wall or barricades, not security related. And for me, the wall it is a non voting issue. Border security/illegal immigration is on list but lower
Conservatives believe that one of the primary roles of Government is to defend the country. That includes its borders. The borders are to be protected By the Feds, not the States. We have military bases all over this country that the Fed Gov has built and committed billions to that future generations will have to pay.
It appears to me that the basic difference being debated here is just how serious is the problem? Some believe that since the numbers are down 90% from a decade ago we are fine. Others believe that since there is recently a substantial increase and a recognition that there is an organized effort to caravan people here by well funded groups who’s goal is to have countries without borders that we need to do more.
I will repeat that the real issue is about obstructing Trump and power struggles in Washington. Virtually every congresshuman( can’t say congressman, you know). who is now raging against the wall voted for it in the past and gave speeches about how much illegal immigration is hurting this country.
I think you should investigate why the numbers have fallen over the years. It is because we have built walls, added people, and added technology.
its interesting to see just how many conservative principles are compromised though to do that....
- at the expense of individual rights/freedoms
(as purdue97 pointed out in another thread)
- at the expense of state rights; growing the federal government
- trust in a federal government that many of the same conservatives believe is a corrupt, deep state, globalist ruin
- spending more and more; fiscal irresponsibility
- putting full trust in a federal government to protect you, rather than relying on constitutional rights to also do it yourself
(and while also believing in those 2nd amendment rights to arm/protect yourself from this same tyrannical, deep state government)
- you also make a good distinction:
government defends the country - as in the political nation state. you as an individual probably not so much.
and the courts have ruled for quite some time
that members of the public sector do not have an obligation/duty to help, protect you.
http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
today's update:
looks like new mexico governor has decided to withdraw troops from their state border.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
SALE. BUY Istubal ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION, Istubal manufacturer canada
- Latest: stanleygreen
-
-