On the Ineffectiveness of Border Walls

[Nous]

There seems to be the persistent idea among Trump sycophants that a wall along the border between the US and Mexico will be effective for something good and worthwhile. This is a false idea, as sufficiently spelled out in two brief articles here:

This Is Why Anti-Refugee Fences Don't Work

History Shows That Border Walls Don't Work

I ask that everyone read these articles before suggesting or trying to argue that a border wall will be effective for something good and worthwhile. Trump only wants to build a wall because he made a campaign promise to do so (promising that Mexico will pay for the wall), and due to the current carnage and foreseeable utter collapse of his administration he feels the need to try to reinvigorate his base. Trump does not want to build a wall for any rational reason. Trump's motives and acts are not rational. He's delusional.

 

[lukethethird]

At least no one knows how delusional I am, but enough about me.

 

[Watchmen]

And here’s the counter argument: Build the Wall

 

[Estro Felino]

we have a natural wall...it's called Alps

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not an impossible project...it will increase the Mexican GDP enormously...if it's built within the Mexico side....and if Mexico uses its workers and cement factories

 

[lukethethird]

If Trump said the wall will be the biggest in the world then all Americans will get behind that, because what do Americans like more than boasting about having the biggest in the world?

 

[bobhikes]

we have a natural wall...it's called Alps

Yet Hannibal still made it through. Building something like the Alps and then having it fail would be quite idiotic.

 

[Revoltingest]

There seems to be the persistent idea among Trump sycophants....

As a matter of style, starting off this way doesn't inspire confidence
that an objective & informative essay will follow. Also, the underlined
word has been over-used recently.
I recommend skipping the insults & name calling. Make a cogent
evidenced based argument, & the piece will be more effective.

It would also help if you provided your own argument, in addition to
what's in the articles. This because many of us are hesitant to invest
time reading something which might turn out to be a useless screed.
There are many bad highly partisan articles out there, you know.

 

[Nous]

As a matter of style, starting off this way doesn't inspire confidence
that an objective & informative essay will follow. Also, the underlined
word has been over-used recently.
I recommend skipping the insults & name calling. Make a cogent
evidenced based argument, & the piece will be more effective.

It's wonderfully ironic that it offends Trump sycophants to merely refer to them as Trump sycophants.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's wonderfully ironic that it offends Trump sycophants to merely refer to them as Trump sycophants.

If we're to apply the term in all directions, this would make you
a "Hillary sycophant" or a "Bernie sycophant" or a "NYT sycophant"
or....you get the picture.
I'm sure you wouldn't others to call you any of those,
& that it wouldn't inspire you to converse with them.

If it isn't possible to make a point about an issue without
insulting people, it raises the question of there being a
valid point at all. It becomes preaching to the choir.

 

[esmith]

Now Now @Nous let's try to be a little civil. Starting a statement with such a flamboyant lead in does nothing but turn people off. But maybe that was your idea.

How say you to this @Nous
Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

Yes it is only one area; however it does negate your opinion.
One must chose carefully one one makes a very broad statement.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet Hannibal still made it through. Building something like the Alps and then having it fail would be quite idiotic.

Physical walls are like locks on windows & doors.
They're not supposed to prevent all attempts to enter.
But they do discourage & delay some.
No one would argue that because locks are imperfect
that we shouldn't install them. No one is arguing that
existing walls are useless, & should be removed.

The question is how much, what kind of & where physical
barriers should be. Walls in some locations offer reduced
labor costs to man the border because illegal traffic is reduced.
Consider this recent wave of would-be illegals....
Migrants in Tijuana Run to U.S. Border, but Fall Back in Face of Tear Gas

A few men tried to climb the wall but fell back in the face of the gas.

Note that climbing over or tunnelling under a wall is feasible
only for a small percentage of this crowd.

A "wall" is better described as a "wall system", with components
which detect & apprehend those who bypass physical barriers.

 

[Thief]

East/West Germany......

I grew up thinking it worked.....that wall between them

must have been brutal

but apparently.....no wall is permanent

between the US and Mexico...?
it will work until a crossing is more upfront and legit

 

[BSM1]

There seems to be the persistent idea among Trump sycophants that a wall along the border between the US and Mexico will be effective for something good and worthwhile. This is a false idea, as sufficiently spelled out in two brief articles here:

This Is Why Anti-Refugee Fences Don't Work

History Shows That Border Walls Don't Work

I ask that everyone read these articles before suggesting or trying to argue that a border wall will be effective for something good and worthwhile. Trump only wants to build a wall because he made a campaign promise to do so (promising that Mexico will pay for the wall), and due to the current carnage and foreseeable utter collapse of his administration he feels the need to try to reinvigorate his base. Trump does not want to build a wall for any rational reason. Trump's motives and acts are not rational. He's delusional.

Good point. It would be more effective to simply shoot on sight those that illegally enter our country. That would be a strong deterrent to most folks.

BTW:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/02/clinton-schumer-obama-supported-bigger-border-wall-2006-not/

 

[Revoltingest]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/02/clinton-schumer-obama-supported-bigger-border-wall-2006-not/

If Hillary had won, I'm sure Democrats would be cheering her call for a bigger wall.
Tribe trumps policy every time.

 

[BSM1]

If Hillary had won, I'm sure Democrats would be cheering her call for a bigger wall.
Tribe trumps policy every time.

So true, and no pun intended, I'm sure...

 

[Revoltingest]

So true, and no pun intended, I'm sure...

Tis a shame that his last name has tarnished such a useful word.

 

[Salvador]

There seems to be the persistent idea among Trump sycophants that a wall along the border between the US and Mexico will be effective for something good and worthwhile. ...

Hungary's erected border security barrier system put in place a few of years ago along its border with Serbia and Croatia has effectively reduced illegal immigration into Hungary.

Hungarian border barrier - Wikipedia

Our nation needs something like this to help significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens coming into America.

 

[tytlyf]

I recommend skipping the insults & name calling. Make a cogent
evidenced based argument, & the piece will be more effective.

Calling someone a sycophant isn't name calling or insulting someone. You're not interested in 'evidence' based arguments. None of the tRump sycophants are.

 

[BSM1]

Calling someone a sycophant isn't name calling or insulting someone. You're not interested in 'evidence' based arguments. None of the tRump sycophants are.

Uhhh...I guess i'd rather be a 'sycophant' then totally irrelevant....just sayin'.