TheLagerLad wrote:

Goose wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

From a practical standpoint, there are many issues that need to addressed before you can promise that a wall would be fully complete

The wall needs to be designed

The land needs to be surveyed

Materials needs to be procured and contracts signed

What are the lead times in obtaining the materials to build the wall

From my understanding, the existing border walls that have been built in the last 20 years are in areas known for high levels of illegal traffic. Where a wall hasn't been built yet is because the land is remote and hard to get across. That tells me that it's going to be difficult and time consuming to build roads and basic infrastructure to get materials and workers to the future site of the wall.

Now America has taken on huge challenges before. We built the Hoover Dam. The government could throw a massive amount of people at it. It would create jobs throughout the supply chain. 

It would also be very expensive. 

I guess the question will be whether the taxpayers get a return on their investment?

 

You are laboring under the misconception that the goal is to construct a physical barrier that will stop illegal immigration across the southern border.
That is not the goal.
The goal is to be seen as a man of action, tough, fearless against the enemies of the state.
Heck, you just need enough steel and concrete for some photo-ops.

Disagree. His supporters want the damn wall. If he doesn't deliver, the GOP is toast at the midterms and Trump is toast come 2020. 

 

Well, conservatives better lose their aversion to eminent domain toot sweet then.

Here's another idea:  Ok, build the freakin' wall.  But, remember that Mexican immigration has been going in the opposite direction for a while now.  Secondly, come down hard on employers that hire illegals and remove the incentive to cross the border if that's the goal.

But, hey, there's alot of financial benefits from the corporate and business perspective to hire illegals .......... low wages, no dealing with social security or compensation, health insurance, unions, etc.  Why would a business or corporation that hires illegals want to cut off illegal immigration?

Last edited by Just Fred (2/02/2017 3:44 pm)

Just Fred wrote:

Here's another idea:  Ok, build the freakin' wall.  But, remember that Mexican immigration has been going in the opposite direction for a while now.  Secondly, come down hard on employers that hire illegals and remove the incentive to cross the border if that's the goal.

But, hey, there's alot of financial benefits from the corporate and business perspective to hire illegals .......... low wages, no dealing with social security or compensation, health insurance, unions, etc.  Why would a business or corporation that hires illegals want to cut off illegal immigration?

 
You are correct, Fred.

Going after businesses that hire undocumented workers would be a much more effective and efficient method to stem the tide of people flowing into the U.S. Without proper documentation.

But, that action would dissolve the pro-business myth concocted by certain political operatives.

Rongone wrote:

Just Fred wrote:

Here's another idea:  Ok, build the freakin' wall.  But, remember that Mexican immigration has been going in the opposite direction for a while now.  Secondly, come down hard on employers that hire illegals and remove the incentive to cross the border if that's the goal.

But, hey, there's alot of financial benefits from the corporate and business perspective to hire illegals .......... low wages, no dealing with social security or compensation, health insurance, unions, etc.  Why would a business or corporation that hires illegals want to cut off illegal immigration?

 
You are correct, Fred.

Going after businesses that hire undocumented workers would be a much more effective and efficient method to stem the tide of people flowing into the U.S. Without proper documentation.

But, that action would dissolve the pro-business myth concocted by certain political operatives.

EXACTLY ! 

Although recent illegals are more fleeing the Central America hell-holes, the Mexicans that came to the US illegally did so to find a job. Without the ability to work their reason for coming evaporates. This has never been rocket science to largely fix. 


 

Common Sense wrote:

One more major campaign promise kept. This will help secure our porous Southern border.
The ranchers along the Southern border will be happy that some action is finally being taken.
And for government standards two years is pretty quick.
 
DHS secretary: Border wall should be finished in two years


 

Two years. Done. Promise kept. What's next on the list?

Hold the Phone,,,,,
We interrupt this premature celebration for some breaking news.
 



Hill Republicans revolt over Trump's plans to build border wall

Washington (CNN)
President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the border with Mexico is facing a major problem: A wall of resistance from his own party.

A growing number of congressional Republicans are objecting to the cost and viability of a proposal that was a rallying cry for the billionaire businessman during his insurgent campaign. Interviews with more than a dozen GOP lawmakers across the ideological spectrum suggest Trump could have a difficult time getting funding for his plan approved by Congress.

Many bluntly told CNN they'd likely vote against any Trump plan that is not fully offset with spending cuts, while others questioned whether Trump's vision would adequately resolve the problems at the border.
"If you're going to spend that kind of money, you're going to have to show me where you're going to get that money," said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a key swing vote who has already broken with Trump over his nominee for secretary of education.
"I don't see how you can get a bill like that through (Congress) without offsets," she added. "I don't see how that's possible."

Trump's wall already faces legal hurdles given the likelihood that it could spawn lawsuits at the border. But if Congress doesn't go along with his funding plan, it could effectively stall Trump's proposal right out of the gate. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that the cost could range from $12 billion-$15 billion, while Ryan suggested that the project may not be fully offset with spending cuts, saying the wall is "a national security priority."

Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican who represents the border state of Texas, was deeply skeptical about whether a wall alone would be enough to deter immigrants from entering the country illegally. And he issued a stark warning to Trump.

"I have concerns about spending un-offset money, which adds to the debt, period," Cornyn said bluntly when asked about the wall. "I don't think we're just going to be able to solve border security with a physical barrier because people can come under, around it and through it."

Trump has increasingly said that Congress would fund the wall initially but would later be reimbursed completely by Mexico. But prominent Republicans say flatly that they don't think Mexico will pay the United States back — and Mexican leadership has repeatedly said the same -- meaning that taxpayers would be left holding the bag.

"No," Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain said when asked if he thought Mexico would reimburse the United States for the wall. "It's not a viable option."

Last edited by Goose (2/03/2017 2:28 pm)