The Financial battle for the Wall

To the crowd who declares there is a growing problem because they believe in lies, nothing will be satisfying. But if they want a wall, build it here because who cares about people's lives when you are pandering. And I know where the Defiler will get the $15-20 billion - from my social security and medicare benefits #resist.

In Roma, Texas, where proposed fencing would have cut off workers’ access to the city’s water pump, court records show the matter is unresolved, with almost no recent activity.

"Pfft, Donald Trump running for president? Yeah gtfo of here"
>Donald Trump enters the Republican primaries
"There's no way Donald Trump is gonna be nominated, this is silly"
>Trump is nominated by Republican party
"Hillary's got it in the bag. This race is over. Trump will just have to go back to buisiness"
>Trump wins the election and becomes president

Some of his most major campaign promises have been being fulfilled in just a few days since the inauguration.
I'd like to hold back my disbelief of him building a wall.
My days of "Trump's not gonna do this, no way he'll do this" are gone.

Toten said:

Some of his most major campaign promises have been being fulfilled in just a few days since the inauguration.

Click to expand...

He is a miracle worker.

The wall is already done. Trade deals have already been renegotiated. Manufacturing by human hands is back in the US, and unemployment is down to record lows. He also signed a trillion dollar infrastructure bill, defeated ISIS, and raised Scalia from the dead to serve on the SCOTUS.

I'd hold your applause.

Why build the wall? In 10 years they will probably have better drones. If Mexicans pay about $1,000 to $5,000 to get them across the boarder then those people eventually build a big enough drone to export those people across the wall.

It seems no one here is defending the building of this wall.

It's ironically so difficult to find people who agree with and are willing to argue on behalf of the proposals of this man who got elected President.

sunrise123 said:

To the crowd who declares there is a growing problem because they believe in lies, nothing will be satisfying. But if they want a wall, build it here because who cares about people's lives when you are pandering. And I know where the Defiler will get the $15-20 billion - from my social security and medicare benefits #resist.

In Roma, Texas, where proposed fencing would have cut off workers’ access to the city’s water pump, court records show the matter is unresolved, with almost no recent activity.

Click to expand...

I hope he robs your SS income, & not mine.

I think he meant Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly, in lost income from drugs etc.

Kemosloby said:

I think he meant Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly, in lost income from drugs etc.

Click to expand...

How exactly can you pay for anything with "lost income"?

Quetzal said:

I will even take it a step further that it simply won't be effective for it's intended purpose. If you want to help the problem of illegal immigration. Fine, I am for it. But a $20bn dollar wall? For what, exactly?

Click to expand...

I am not condoning Trump's Wall in any shape or form, but I do understand where he is coming from on it. He thinks that a massive wall, manned by border agents, will stop illegal immigration from Mexico. But it is not just aimed at Mexicans, it is also aimed at drugs that are funneled up from Central and South America. A massive wall with watch towers and agents will have an impact on immigration and the drug trade. How much of an impact is the subject of debate and speculation.

A wall, complete with watch towers every 100 yards, search lights, agents and K9s could bring immigrants and drugs to a crawl. The Coast Guard will take care of any ships at sea, and air units will intercept anything trying to fly over. If you can't get drugs through by walking, driving, sailing or flying, how do you get them here?

Through the many tunnels they already have under the existing wall ...

Kemosloby said:

I think he meant Mexico will pay for the wall indirectly, in lost income from drugs etc.

Click to expand...

He meant what he said. He said he will force Mexico to pay for the wall by blocking sending money transfers back to Mexico (such as family income being sent in) until they agree to pay for it. Since this income is what keeps a lot of communities afloat, and helps their local economy, essentially Trump is trying to ransom the wall. Trump is basically willing to cripple low-income families in Mexico, being sent funds by LEGAL immigrants, to try and get Mexico to pay for the wall. Mexico replied with what anyone should expect, 'Screw you, you great orange pustule.' Both because it's a heinous idea and because it won't stop money flow through informal channels by mail, traveling family or even in person. Just like they did when wired transfer services imposed high fees attached to them.

Nous said:

It seems no one here is defending the building of this wall.

It's ironically so difficult to find people who agree with and are willing to argue on behalf of the proposals of this man who got elected President.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not here; there are people out there who have been calling for a (better) wall along the border for decades. At least in the border states, this issue has been discussed for a very long time.

And the thing is, recent presidents, such as Obama and Bush, have been building walls along the border. I don't recall very many people (if any) attacking them for building walls along the border, nor were there that many people coming forward to oppose the erection of these barriers. There is some irony in that, considering that all these people opposing border security today were conspicuously silent during previous administrations' efforts to bolster border security.

It's also ironic that many of the same Republicans who fervently supported NAFTA have been doubling down on the "war on drugs" and wanting better security at the border - while still wanting to have strong commercial ties with our neighbor to the south. In contrast, there's practically no security at all with our border with Canada. Why such a stark difference? What is it about Mexico that necessitates such strict security along the border? Is Mexico such a bad place that we need to resort to all these measures to keep these people out? And if Mexico is so much worse than Canada that all this is required, why would we want free trade agreements and commerce with them? And if we truly want "free trade," why have a "war on drugs"? How can there be any such thing as "smuggling" in an economic free trade zone?

I will give Trump credit in that a lot of what he's doing is telling a lot of people in high places that they need to start putting their money where their mouth is. They need to be reminded that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

The wall itself may be of a symbolic issue than anything truly practical. It merely points up the fact that our policies regarding Mexico have been inconsistent and incoherent for far too long. Can't blame Trump for that; this has been going on for decades, with multiple administrations and both political parties.

According to what I read from various news sites this morning, the White House has talked about putting at least a 20% tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall.
Also don't forget the wall isn't the only part of the plan either. The executive order also called for the beefing up of border patrol staff by at least 10,000 men.

Stevicus said:

And the thing is, recent presidents, such as Obama and Bush, have been building walls along the border.

Click to expand...

What wall did Obama build? And how did he pay for it?

Nous said:

What wall did Obama build? And how did he pay for it?

Click to expand...

I believe it was covered under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, although I'm not entirely certain of that. It's an ongoing process which carries over from Administration to Administration. They may not necessarily be actual walls, but some sort of barrier, such as bollard fences.

Stevicus said:

I believe it was covered under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, although I'm not entirely certain of that. It's an ongoing process which carries over from Administration to Administration. They may not necessarily be actual walls, but some sort of barrier, such as bollard fences.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes.

It is true that at least some segment of border patrol officers want fences (that one can see through) or some such in certain places along the southern border. But Trump's trillion-dollar wall, which US taxpayers will obviously pay for, is just an expression of ethnocentrism that unfortunately appeals to a lot of Americans who can't seem to articulate an argument for it.