Fox and Friends

[spence]

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

Here’s some good reading for you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

Here’s some good reading for you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother posting sound research, Trump and his base absolutely do not care, this is all about fulfilling a campaign promise; although to do that Mexico needs to pony up the money. Reason falls on deaf ears and even if Trump had access to the reasearch against it, he doesn’t read; cuts into his TV and Twitter time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...wall-wont-work

Here’s some good reading for you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that was genius. The 'practical' arguments against the wall are that they erode, natural events create gaps, and that migrants can penetrate.

I can say the same exact things about doors. But the idiot who wrote this piece, still has a door on his house that he closes every single night. There's a reason for that. The reason is, while the door isn't perfect, it's not a guarantee, it still helps. It can be penetrated by a hurricane or by human action. Yet still, having a door makes us more secure than we'd be without the door. TRY MAKING THAT WRONG.

If anyone was saying that the wall will forever reduce illegal immigration to zero, this piece would be an effective rebuttal. Since no one on the planet is saying that, I don't know what he is responding to. The wall will REDUCE, not permanently eliminate, illegal crossing.

Spence, do you understand the difference between eliminate and reduce? It appears to me, that you are confusing one for the other.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I can say the same exact things about doors. But the idiot who wrote this piece, still has a door on his house that he closes every single night. There's a reason for that. The reason is, while the door isn't perfect, it's not a guarantee, it still helps. It can be penetrated by a hurricane or by human action. Yet still, having a door makes us more secure than we'd be without the door. TRY MAKING THAT WRONG.

The "wall" is not the same thing as a door or a lock. The wall is the same thing as a wall around my house. In the 17th century I'd put a moat around my house. In the 18th century I'd put a wall around my house. In the 19th century, I'd put a piece of wood across the inside of my door. In the 20th century, I'd put a lock on my door. In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it.

Walls still have a place in defense but they may not be appropriate (or needed) everywhere. No single solution works for every instance. And that is why there are walls in some spots along the border and not in all spots and why people have supported walls on the border in the past for some sections and don't support putting a wall along the full border.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The "wall" is not the same thing as a door or a lock. The wall is the same thing as a wall around my house. In the 17th century I'd put a moat around my house. In the 18th century I'd put a wall around my house. In the 19th century, I'd put a piece of wood across the inside of my door. In the 20th century, I'd put a lock on my door. In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it.

Walls still have a place in defense but they may not be appropriate (or needed) everywhere. No single solution works for every instance. And that is why there are walls in some spots along the border and not in all spots and why people have supported walls on the border in the past for some sections and don't support putting a wall along the full border.

"In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it."

Almost all of us still use metal locks. But whatever. Just as a door isn't the same as a wall, your house doesn't have 2,000 miles of lateral frontage with which one can enter. You need to secure a much smaller linear area in your house, much easier to do with electronic surveillance.

Paul, if your young children slept in a guest house which was 10 miles away from the house in which you slept, would you be satisfied with electronic locks and cameras to alert you if a murderer was sneaking into their room? No. Because by the time you got there, it would be too late. Right? You'd have guards and a barrier. Right?

On a 2,000 mile border, drones and cameras might be effective at telling us that people are crossing, and where. I'm not sure I see how it helps us stop them, unless they all happen to cross within 100 yards of where the nearest border security personnel are. A camera might allow us to get a better count of how many are coming in, how does it help us prevent them from coming in, on a 2,000 mile border?

That's a sincere question. Not trying to be a wise azz.

Don't we already use drones and cameras?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"In the 21th century I'd put an electronic lock on the front door with camera on it so I can see who is there and I'd have cameras hanging off the roof focusing on my property to see if anyone was approaching it."

Almost all of us still use metal locks. But whatever. Just as a door isn't the same as a wall, your house doesn't have 2,000 miles of lateral frontage with which one can enter. You need to secure a much smaller linear area in your house, much easier to do with electronic surveillance.

Paul, if your young children slept in a guest house which was 10 miles away from the house in which you slept, would you be satisfied with electronic locks and cameras to alert you if a murderer was sneaking into their room? No. Because by the time you got there, it would be too late. Right? You'd have guards and a barrier. Right?

On a 2,000 mile border, drones and cameras might be effective at telling us that people are crossing, and where. I'm not sure I see how it helps us stop them, unless they all happen to cross within 100 yards of where the nearest border security personnel are. A camera might allow us to get a better count of how many are coming in, how does it help us prevent them from coming in, on a 2,000 mile border?

That's a sincere question. Not trying to be a wise azz.

Don't we already use drones and cameras?

We do already use drones and cameras and people in certain spots. but some of the areas Trump wants the walls are very remote and get very very few people going through bc it is mountainous or in the desert so a wall is a waste. In San Diego a wall makes sense but in the hot desert w/no people walking through it makes less sense. Also, the guards say a concrete wall is not preferred as they want to see what is on the other side.

Plus you have the issue of much of the land is privately held.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We do already use drones and cameras and people in certain spots. but some of the areas Trump wants the walls are very remote and get very very few people going through bc it is mountainous or in the desert so a wall is a waste. In San Diego a wall makes sense but in the hot desert w/no people walking through it makes less sense. Also, the guards say a concrete wall is not preferred as they want to see what is on the other side.

Plus you have the issue of much of the land is privately held.

Trump isn't suggesting we wall the whole border, just sections. I presume, he's talking about the places most used by the 1,000 - 3,000 who cross every day.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump isn't suggesting we wall the whole border, just sections. I presume, he's talking about the places most used by the 1,000 - 3,000 who cross every day.

He has gone back and forth with saying the full length. I think recently (last year or so) he hasn't said "the full length". At this point I don't know how long he is proposing. If he were to say that it is just filing in areas these and those area I could support that but I don't think so.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, do you understand the difference between eliminate and reduce? It appears to me, that you are confusing one for the other.

This is your own argument that you made up in an attempt to debate yourself I guess, really have no clue how your thought process works these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This is your own argument that you made up in an attempt to debate yourself I guess, really have no clue how your thought process works these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's how it works.

I never said, nobody ever said, that the wall would eliminate 100% of illegal crossings, or that it would last forever.

I said with a wall, fewer people would cross illegally, than do without a wall.

Do you really disagree with that simple notion? Seriously?