Trump’s New Wall to Keep Out the Disabled

  • Thread starter Thread starter John24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My husband is retired military. There are rules against using military forces against civilians. The rules of engagement do not allow for it. What they can do is exactly what they have been doing in recent months. They can be a visible presence as a backup for the border patrol. They can not use any weapons or use force of any source. It makes it risky because accidents can and have been known to happen. That in and of itself is a threat to national security.

That being said, I think it is worth looking into legal ways to make them a permanent visible presence. I am not at all opposed to having our military at the border. And if you had read my entire post you would know that. I said so there too.
 
Last edited:
I never implied that you were against using the military to protect the border. I just think it is ridiculous that we can fight full-scale wars overseas without Congress declaring war but somehow cannot use the military to actually protect the physical borders of the nation. In my opinion, it is a sign of severely flawed laws.
 
You catch on quickly. 🙂

Point is, illegality isn’t permanent.
 
Last edited:
Ok now I understand. Yes, we do have several flawed laws in our nation.
 
The point is that the underlying problems which led to the legal prohibition of both actions are not solved by legalization.
 
Per Mark Levin, we do not always have to declare wars.

Also, some laws were enacted, US is limited as to what amount of force can be used on the border and into Mexico, this has to do with history, I"m not sure if it was going after Pancho Villa or in regards to another incident, maybe the Mexican-American war but our options are limited. Remember when the troops went down there, how it was reported that they did not have weapons or at least, not many.
 
Yes we have flawed laws and also complicated situations that make it messy to repair those laws.
 
There are several illegal immigrants from China, India, Ireland, Eastern Europe, etc. And not all come across the Mexican border.
 
I read the report from Homeland Security for 2017 .
People who do not qualify for visas are probably the majority of pedestrians most refer to as illegal immigrants commonly speaking . But there seems to be a significant amount of people who do qualify and overstay their visas ,or maybe require no visas and overstay limited time( I should look that particular perhaps reciprocity circumstance up but it would take time…)
As you say.
And if one looks at the tables in the report there is one x country. Quite a variety of countries of origin indeed. I wouldn’t have thought there was such a variety of origins and the interview and requirements aren t precisely “ light”.
Though the percentage of people who return as expected is the vast majority by far,there is a very low percentage x country of people who make it despite if the checking. Adding those small percentages one gets to between 600.000 and 700.000 in 2017.
Interesting… how they manage,I do not know… A quota of irresponsibility I guess, or adventure for risk, since qualifying implies that one isn’t t that bad at home…
I don’ t know …
Anyway,interesting read for more detail

 
Last edited:
They could fill out the forms, get the medical tests, get police reports and wait their turn … much cheaper than paying a coyote.

A million people a year successfully follow the procedure.

"Monday, at an El Paso shelter Roberto Ramirez Diaz, 32, said he brought his 17-year-old son, Darinel, north from the highlands of western Guatemala this month because a smuggler told them it would be easier to cross as a family.

Darinel explained that the price of crossing was was also less for a family than for a single adult—$4,600 compared to $8,000—because families could be left at the border to claim asylum whereas individuals must be guided deeper into the country.

http://lucianne.com/thread.aspx/?artnum=960637
 
Last edited:
13pollitos said:
but it is not a true solution
Click to expand...
Actually. a high wall works well.

Proved and tested many times.

Prevents runners from easily carrying in drugs and sex slaves and people with diseases and criminal backgrounds.

But we need a systems approach to immigration control. 52.6 million annual immigration admissions; 1.33% overstays; 2017.

I think we need a new “Good Neighbor Policy”

We need to stop the cartels and the coyotes … who smuggle in drugs and sex slaves also known as human trafficking.

click here youtube human trafficking

The first time I heard of human trafficking, I was at a seminar on national security and some retirees at the lunch buffet talked about it; they had the time and income and resources to fight it.

The Catholic Church has been barred from adoption services in Massachusetts and probably elsewhere.


click here youtube wall

Border Patrol officer: “The cartels own this entire border.”
 
Last edited:
How would you respond to the argument that CBP doesn’t want a wall because they want to be able to see the other side?
 
RCIAGraduate said:
How would you respond to the argument that CBP doesn’t want a wall because they want to be able to see the other side?
Click to expand...
What is YOUR understanding of a wall?

What is CBP’s understanding of a wall?

Are you allowed to have a thick, strong, steel, see-through wall, but one which prevents people and vehicles from driving through?

Such as the thick steel slats/bollards, prefabricated and trucked into place.


click here youtube wall

You pour ready-mix concrete to lock it into place.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but what is the point of the wall if it doesn’t seem to help. For example, how does this address visa overstays or tunneling or going around through sea/plane? Additionally it seems like a huge expense but people are skeptical about the funding, another criticism I heard was that it’s a solution that’s past its time.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
Yeah but what is the point of the wall if it doesn’t seem to help. For example, how does this address visa overstays or tunneling or going around through sea/plane? Additionally it seems like a huge expense but people are skeptical about the funding, another criticism I heard was that it’s a solution that’s past its time.
Click to expand...
The wall DOES help.

The problem is reduced by more than 99%.

Tunneling or aviation are enormously expensive and difficult AND easy to detect and to interdict.

And the cost of a wall is extremely very tiny compared with the $130 billion ANNUAL cost of illegal immigration.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
ation are enormously expensive a
Click to expand...
Isn’t that a bit hyperbolic, if it was really solved 99% then why is it still in the news? Wouldn’t we then be discussing other issues (there’s health care, there’s the budget, there’s international affairs) or another sphere of immigration policy?
 
There are many many issues.

Break them into bite-size pieces.

If you are hungry, you visit McDonalds, not Exxon-Mobil or Johnson & Johnson.

Energy and health are distinct addressable issues.

The news media have about the worst credibility on anything.

If you want to stop illegal border crossings, a wall stops at least 99%. [Of course, you first have to build THE WALL, which is not done yet.]

This young reporter from Massachusetts personally went to Texas which is a highly unusual level of effort. Generally the news digs up no-longer-applicable months old or years old footage instead of seeing for themselves. Applies to almost every issue.


Completed walls such as done by Israel and Hungary, 100% effective.

 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
Or is the whole purpose to give Trump a “win”?
Click to expand...
ALL the established dems spoke favorably about a barrier on the southern border… I say this money for the “wall” gives the American people a WIN. I’ve heard the CBP ask for barrier and they say it works. Which news shows are YOU watching???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top