• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pragmatic argument against the border wall

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, so this topic can be a little done to death.
Some say it's a waste, or grandstanding. Some say the US has the right to determine who enters the country. Some even say both at the same time.

I found the following article interesting. It appeals to my nature, as I get older, since I'm more pragmatist. Ideals are great, and I have strong opinions about some things. But turning strong opinions into meaningful action doesn't happen by more strongly advocating my opinion. It requires achievable plans.

Anyways, here is the article....

Why Trump Will Never Get His Border Wall - The Atlantic

Basic premise is that any discussion of a wall spanning the border is impractical, citing a particular portion of Texas which won't have a wall built, regardless of what the theory of the exercise is.
Interested in opinions on this, but not too interested in the same 'wall good' or 'Trump bad' type of discussions that have been done to death.
Moreso, does the article appear credible? I think so, but I'm a long way from Texas. To those who support the wall, does this matter? Is it splitting hairs and missing the big picture?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
First I have heard of this but on first glance I believe the government has the right of Eminent Domain.

My grandparents had to sell their house in Michigan to the government for a fair price to allow the construction of a freeway. Even more questionable was the taking of many houses to allow a private company General Motors to build a plant in the city of Detroit against the strongest opposition the residents could muster (and to rub salt in the wound GM may be closing that plant in the near future). It was an old Polish neighborhood called Poletown and here is a recent article: Poletown Plant Closing after Eminant Domain Land Seizure

These people in Texas may have lawyers but that will only stall the process for a time would be my prediction.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Okay, so this topic can be a little done to death.
Some say it's a waste, or grandstanding. Some say the US has the right to determine who enters the country. Some even say both at the same time.

I found the following article interesting. It appeals to my nature, as I get older, since I'm more pragmatist. Ideals are great, and I have strong opinions about some things. But turning strong opinions into meaningful action doesn't happen by more strongly advocating my opinion. It requires achievable plans.

Anyways, here is the article....

Why Trump Will Never Get His Border Wall - The Atlantic

Basic premise is that any discussion of a wall spanning the border is impractical, citing a particular portion of Texas which won't have a wall built, regardless of what the theory of the exercise is.
Interested in opinions on this, but not too interested in the same 'wall good' or 'Trump bad' type of discussions that have been done to death.
Moreso, does the article appear credible? I think so, but I'm a long way from Texas. To those who support the wall, does this matter? Is it splitting hairs and missing the big picture?

El Paso was one of America's most dangerous cities rampant with illegal alien criminality; then as soon as a border barrier there was built, presto, El Paso became one of the safest cities in America.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that El Paso’s annual number of reported violent crimes dropped from nearly 5,000 in 1995 to around 2,700 in 2016
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
First I have heard of this but on first glance I believe the government has the right of Eminent Domain.

My grandparents had to sell their house in Michigan to the government for a fair price to allow the construction of a freeway. Even more questionable was the taking of many houses to allow a private company General Motors to build a plant in the city of Detroit against the strongest opposition the residents could muster (and to rub salt in the wound GM may be closing that plant in the near future). It was an old Polish neighborhood called Poletown and here is a recent article: Poletown Plant Closing after Eminant Domain Land Seizure

These people in Texas may have lawyers but that will only stall the process for a time would be my prediction.

That's pretty explicitly addressed in the article actually. The key point is where you said 'stall the process for a time'.

That time would appear to be very long, based on previous example in the same area where Obama tried seizing land. And government overpays that occurred in resolving those issues have set a price precedent (or at least, potentially, based on the article) which would make land seizure prohibitively expensive. Far outweighing the wall cost, even.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
El Paso was one of America's most dangerous cities rampant with illegal alien criminality; then as soon as a border barrier there was built, presto, El Paso became one of the safest cities in America.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that El Paso’s annual number of reported violent crimes dropped from nearly 5,000 in 1995 to around 2,700 in 2016

I'm not here to argue the merits of the wall. As I said in the OP, that has been done to death, and devolves into 'wall good' or 'Trump bad' arguments.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the ability and practicality of the government building a wall through the land areas outlined in the article.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, so this topic can be a little done to death.
Some say it's a waste, or grandstanding. Some say the US has the right to determine who enters the country. Some even say both at the same time.

I found the following article interesting. It appeals to my nature, as I get older, since I'm more pragmatist. Ideals are great, and I have strong opinions about some things. But turning strong opinions into meaningful action doesn't happen by more strongly advocating my opinion. It requires achievable plans.

Anyways, here is the article....

Why Trump Will Never Get His Border Wall - The Atlantic

Basic premise is that any discussion of a wall spanning the border is impractical, citing a particular portion of Texas which won't have a wall built, regardless of what the theory of the exercise is.
Interested in opinions on this, but not too interested in the same 'wall good' or 'Trump bad' type of discussions that have been done to death.
Moreso, does the article appear credible? I think so, but I'm a long way from Texas. To those who support the wall, does this matter? Is it splitting hairs and missing the big picture?
From the beginning the words do not matter. Political parties have been like that for centuries, despite occasionally flipping on issues. The words are always like shields or magnetic poles. Disagreement is the goal not the accidental problem. There is something about it that keeps the political parties afloat.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that El Paso’s annual number of reported violent crimes dropped from nearly 5,000 in 1995 to around 2,700 in 2016

The question is why did that happen. Probably not because of any wall.

During the same period, the rate of violent crimes reported per 100,00 population fell by a similar degree nationwide, from 684.5 in 1995 to 386.6 in 2016..

It's also been shown the illegal immigrants are less violent than the average American citizen, meaning that the more of these immigrants that one has in one's community, the lower the local violent crime rate will be.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
strange it is.....I've never heard the word....
booby trap

hand grenade .....or ....drone

or the catch phrase.....self righteous indignation
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I saw report.....landowners are being fined for the trash the trespassers leave as they crossover
$500 a pop

I think that might be enough to cause some .....inappropriate
target practice

hang a bag of garbage on a silhouette
put a sombrero on the head....

shoot away
This is the kind of post that makes people who want a wall sound like hateful violent racist xenophobic bigots. To call for shooting at a “silhouette” of a racial stereotype is disgusting. It is dehumanizing and encourages real violence.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
and what would stop a collective of concerned citizens from building a wall?

If you want to spend your time and money building that wall. go right, ahead.

just because I don't support the wall, does not mean I support illegal immigration.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Okay, so this topic can be a little done to death.
Some say it's a waste, or grandstanding. Some say the US has the right to determine who enters the country. Some even say both at the same time.

I found the following article interesting. It appeals to my nature, as I get older, since I'm more pragmatist. Ideals are great, and I have strong opinions about some things. But turning strong opinions into meaningful action doesn't happen by more strongly advocating my opinion. It requires achievable plans.

Anyways, here is the article....

Why Trump Will Never Get His Border Wall - The Atlantic

Basic premise is that any discussion of a wall spanning the border is impractical, citing a particular portion of Texas which won't have a wall built, regardless of what the theory of the exercise is.
Interested in opinions on this, but not too interested in the same 'wall good' or 'Trump bad' type of discussions that have been done to death.
Moreso, does the article appear credible? I think so, but I'm a long way from Texas. To those who support the wall, does this matter? Is it splitting hairs and missing the big picture?

The article does seem credible as it is old news about the court battles already going on over eminent domain during Obama. Many of the largest land owners have had their land since Mexico owned it. That land on the Rio should be left as it is. The people there should know well enough if there is a need for a barrier. The land is already patrolled. The large and wealthy land owners there don't want a wall or to give up their land. And then there was this:
“But nobody thinks a 30-foot wall will do anything more than invite 32-foot ladders." “Border security is critical,” Yeats continues. “But there’s a big difference between a wall and security.”

Both are valid points in the article. And the money going into the law suits could easily pay for better intake facilities and more agents and patrols.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
This is the kind of post that makes people who want a wall sound like hateful violent racist xenophobic bigots. To call for shooting at a “silhouette” of a racial stereotype is disgusting. It is dehumanizing and encourages real violence.
actually......posting a warning on your property is required

you can't just open fire
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
oh....btw...

my mother is Spanish

VERY Spanish

ALTOGETHER....Spanish

likely more Spanish than people who think they are Spanish
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
as for me.....American

and I happen to believe border crossing is illegal
inappropriate

and we Americans have died trying to protect the borders of other countries
and failed

looks like we are going to fail here too
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I think we do our dead and wounded vets a dishonor

we go over seas to help in territory problems

and fail here at home
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
last I heard.....and it might be a poor comparison.....

20mph over the limit is wreckless driving
and the fines are stiff
jail time up to a year

is that right?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
last I heard.....and it might be a poor comparison.....

20mph over the limit is wreckless driving
and the fines are stiff
jail time up to a year

is that right?
Lets start locking up for more for 2mph over. In fact how do we not have a 3 strikes rule for this yet.
 
Top