alternative to wall

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so i’ve had my question out here for a few hours ( how do cameras and sensors stop illegals
from entering), and i see
exactly zero responses to the question.

guys, when your beliefs can not withstand the scrutiny of such an obvious question, it’s tome to ask yourselves why you believe what you believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, nobody is saying you only rely on a single method. We need a comprehensive approach that includes multimodal security, much improved ports of entry, adequate personnel, realistic guest worker provisions, working with Central American nations to curb corruption and crime etc...it’s a complex issue...but just stomping your feet for a wall which at this point is more symbolic than substance and being justified by fear and misinformation isn’t the way to solve a problem.

Not to mention how Trump’s own policies have made the humanitarian issue much worse. This is by far the most pressing problem which both Democrats and Republicans agreed to additional funding which Trump won’t sign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, nobody is saying you only rely on a single method. We need a comprehensive approach that includes multimodal security, much improved ports of entry, adequate personnel, realistic guest worker provisions, working with Central American nations to curb corruption and crime etc...it’s a complex issue...but just stomping your feet for a wall which at this point is more symbolic than substance and being justified by fear and misinformation isn’t the way to solve a problem.

Not to mention how Trump’s own policies have made the humanitarian issue much worse. This is by far the most pressing problem which both Democrats and Republicans agreed to additional funding which Trump won’t sign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how does
that squishy stuff you
list, eliminate the need for a wall?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how does
that squishy stuff you
list, eliminate the need for a wall?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think we've discussed many times the potential waste or negatives of a giant wall focused solution. Let the experts assess where we need wall, fence, barrier electronics etc...

Remember as well the wall isn't a 5.7 billion solution, estimates are likely 25 billion or more and 10+ years to construct assuming you can overcome the legal and land owner challenges. Then you have to maintain it...

This isn't the solution to a "security crisis" born at a campaign rally.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I
This isn't the solution to a "security crisis" born at a campaign rally.

The dems voted for a wall in 2006 and 2013, so what campaign rally
are you referring to?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The dems voted for a wall in 2006 and 2013,

Where were those walls built under those acts?

[Slipknot]

It would be cheaper and a lot less headaches to give California to Mexico

The hatred of Trump is the whole problem with the issue and simple economics.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It would be cheaper and a lot less headaches to give California to Mexico

The hatred of Trump is the whole problem with the issue and simple economics.

How would we be ever able to support all those states who vote Republican as they don't pay their own way? Simple economics means you don't spend $ when experts are telling you there are cheaper and more effective ways to accomplish something.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It would be cheaper and a lot less headaches to give California to Mexico

The hatred of Trump is the whole problem with the issue and simple economics.

Mexico would gladly do that
California has 12% of our population, 16% of our GDP but you would add about 700 miles to the length of the USA Mexico border
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It would be cheaper and a lot less headaches to give California to Mexico

The hatred of Trump is the whole problem with the issue and simple economics.

Thats every Trump supporters excuse it has noting to do with him or his policys (its The hatred of Trump is the whole problem)

Funny that excuse did not fly when used to defend the last POTUS..

and that administration was boring compared to this freak show

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Where were those walls built under those acts?

they weren’t, i don’t think. regardless, as recently as 2013, the democrats were in favor of barriers. Now that Trump is potus, pelosi says they are immoral. and a 13th century solution to a 21st century problem.

in what century did 2006 and 2013 take place?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

they weren’t, i don’t think. regardless, as recently as 2013, the democrats were in favor of barriers. Now that Trump is potus, pelosi says they are immoral. and a 13th century solution to a 21st century problem.

in what century did 2006 and 2013 take place?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2006, at the time it was passed, George W. Bush's White House touted the fence as "an important step toward immigration reform."[1] The White House Office of the Press Secretary stated that the Act "Authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our Southern border; Authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally; Authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border."[1]

The original 2006 act provided for "at least two layers of reinforced fencing" to be built. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) successfully argued to Congress "that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense."[6]

An amendment introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, was passed, amending the law to read: "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."[6]

I don't think they are immoral and she got a lot a crap for saying that. The walls under that act were put in the populous areas in Calif. - not the desert like where this wall will go.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Where were those walls built under those acts?

They weren't because it never happened. 2006 was a bi-partisan bill that expanded fencing where it was needed, 2013 was another bi-partisan bill that had some money to study and improve fencing based on analysis, dramatically expand the number of border agents and provide some immigration reform but was killed by the GOP.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

They weren't because it never happened. 2006 was a bi-partisan bill that expanded fencing where it was needed, 2013 was another bi-partisan bill that had some money to study and improve fencing based on analysis, dramatically expand the number of border agents and provide some immigration reform but was killed by the GOP.

I think there were 15 miles of fences built in the 90s in San Diego and this act expanded to like 625 miles.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They weren't because it never happened. 2006 was a bi-partisan bill that expanded fencing where it was needed, 2013 was another bi-partisan bill that had some money to study and improve fencing based on analysis, dramatically expand the number of border agents and provide some immigration reform but was killed by the GOP.

"2006 was a bi-partisan bill that expanded fencing where it was needed"

The 2006 act, according to factcheck.org, called for construction of 700 miles of fencing.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/de...t-border-wall/

"2013 was another bi-partisan bill that had some money to study and improve fencing"

Washington Examiner says it was for 700 miles of fencing.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2...hain-migration

So what's the difference (besides who POTUS is) between what the democrats voted for previously, and what Trump is proposing now? He's proposing a wall in sections, with other technologies obviously, and personnel.