# Start Here > Guest Forum >  To you Trump supporters

## TheNewYorker

Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?

They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)

Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.

----------


## Unregistered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spcJmCurEH8

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

a wall will just keep us all in

----------


## Unregistered

> Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?
> 
> They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)
> 
> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


You're a great reason not to go.

----------


## Unregistered

> a wall will just keep us all in


There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.

----------


## oyarde

> There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.


I deserve a Conservative .

----------


## osan

> Why don't you *simpletons1* realize that a *wall2*, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?


1) referring to the people here as simpletons drives your credibility WAY down.  Not too many of those here.  Hell, _I_ don't even qualify as one of those/

2) nobody's going to build a damned wall.  This is Trump playing the game and doing it really well.  He isn't just going to wave his dick around and suddenly a wall pops up like a mushroom.  There's this thing called "Congress", and they are likely to hate Trump with great venom... assuming this deal isn't quite 100% smoke and mirrors.  A big assumption, I agree, and if I'm wrong then it doesn't matter if we put Obama in for a tenth term, the agenda will be pursued and, likely, fulfilled.




> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


Agreed.  That, or just shooting them as they come across the border would also work. 1/2

----------


## JK/SEA

mexico will pay for it...its gonna be great. Problem is, it will keep all these $#@!in' liberals in.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> I deserve a Conservative .


This is pure win

----------


## Unregistered

> I deserve a Conservative .


Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society? One who just parrots an obscure, out-dated economic platform (*cough* Austrian economics) and Mises articles all day? Have fun with that one, I'll take my traditionalist society with guilds, worker co-ops, and Mussolini-styled Corporatism. Oh yeah, and some semblance of a homogeneous society would be nice.

----------


## Unregistered

> Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?
> 
> They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)
> 
> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


I could get behind open borders if ALL welfare ends first.

That being said, I supported Austin Petersen anyway and have the t-shirt, but Gary Johnson belongs in the Green Party, or the laughing academy.  I'll be voting for the person best able to defeat the Clinton Crime Family, and it sure as hell isn't Gary Johnson.  To misquote Reagan, the Libertarian party left me.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society? One who just parrots an obscure, out-dated economic platform (*cough* Austrian economics) and Mises articles all day? Have fun with that one, I'll take my traditionalist society with guilds, worker co-ops, and Mussolini-styled Corporatism. Oh yeah, and some semblance of a homogeneous society would be nice.


Tell me alt-right person, what is your criticism of laissez faire, and why would you prefer the underlined?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.


You are correct.  A mandatory state god of safety is not what I deserve, nor what I desire.

You and I are meat bags with expiration dates.  I've accepted my expiration date.

Take yer fear and... do what ever.  Try not to force your safety god on me, if you don't mind.

----------


## westkyle

> Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society?


Sounds like Donald Trump.  That's all he is.  Lip Service.  And he's pretty bad at it.

----------


## articlesnutriti

why you want not illegal immigrants out ?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> a wall will just keep us all in


It will totally work and be effective to keep Americans out of Mexico.  But it could never, ever, oh no, work at keeping Mexicans out of America.  Only a simpleton could believe that.

*A one-sided wall.  A geometric miracle.*

----------


## Danke

> It will totally work and be effective to keep Americans out of Mexico.  But it could never, ever, oh no, work at keeping Mexicans out of America.  Only a simpleton could believe that.
> 
> *A one-sided wall.  A geometric miracle.*


One way turnstiles would work.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> 1) referring to the people here as simpletons drives your credibility WAY down.  Not too many of those here.  Hell, _I_ don't even qualify as one of those/


In context he only called Trump supporters that. So his credibility is intact. Let's not kid ourselves, there are lots of bright people here. But there has never been a shortage of simpletons.

----------


## dannno

WWIII with Russia is a more important issue than the wall.

----------


## Jerry C

Though I am not a Trump supporter I do understand their concerns about illegal immigration. Ron Paul does however make a very valid point in an article he wrote about a wall also being used to keep people in as well as out which is something that concerns me greatly. Knowing who comes in the country and how many is a basic security issue but simply building a wall ignores the countless underground tunnels that have been built to bypass various walls and fences that have already been built. 

If you really want to deal with illegal immigration you need to deal with it directly in the pocketbook. Ending the drug war will take care of at least half the problem because it will reduce the amount of dangerous criminals that attempt to cross the border, going after employers that knowing hire illegal immigrants and cutting off welfare and other benefits to illegal immigrants will also help a great deal. The legal immigration system also needs to be address as it is not uncommon for people to wait for years to immigrate legally.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Does building a car ignore the countless traffic accidents that have occurred over the years, Jerry?

Walls are an effective, proven, simple technology.  Argue against the wisdom of building any particular wall as you wish.  But to argue:

• "Wall X will never work to keep people out, only to keep people in"

is to make a complete nonsense incomprehensible statement.  It betrays a lack of reflection regarding: the nature of walls, principles of geometry, and rudimentary logic.

To argue:

• "Walls do not work, because it is possible to circumvent them"

is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for a thing to "work."

----------


## bunklocoempire

I don't want to be responsible for my individual wall.

How about I force you to "share" a huge, ineffective government wall with me?

----------


## Spikender

I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.

----------


## osan

> Does building a car ignore the countless traffic accidents that have occurred over the years, Jerry?
> 
> Walls are an effective, proven, simple technology.  Argue against the wisdom of building any particular wall as you wish.  But to argue:
> 
> • "Wall X will never work to keep people out, only to keep people in"
> 
> is to make a complete nonsense incomprehensible statement.  It betrays a lack of reflection regarding: the nature of walls, principles of geometry, and rudimentary logic.
> 
> To argue:
> ...


Do you really want a bloody wall?  Have Americacns become so artless a people that we cannot see the better path toward a somewhat fuzzily defined goal?

End the welfare state.  But if that drech is left in place, illegals cannot claim any public benefit.  You cannot work for any public institution.  You cannot vote, be licensed for ANYTHING, and so on.

End the idiotic drug war.  No more profit motive, no more need for mules, etc.

I have no problem with patrolling the border.  Anyone caught coming across is turned away.  If they resist, they get shot.

Otherwise, why have a nation at all?  I prefer autodiathism (basic anarchy), but that cannot be realized in a world dominated by Empire.  Better we have no borders, yet were we to make it so, we as a people would be destroyed in no time.  These are the practical realities of a world gone insane.  Therefore, you either take the minimal set of measures to protect yourself against the madness, or you will be consumed.  Choice is ours.

If those measures fail to be sufficient, take the next step, whatever it might be.  But why go right to the Berlin Solution?  I thing this represents a serious failure in creative problem solving.  Hell, I'd prefer machine-gun towers to a wall.  If this presents an actual existential threat to America, then I would make a unilateral declaration to the MX government: anyone on your side of the border within ONE MILE of the line will be shot dead, no hesitation, no questions asked.  Since you will not control YOUR people's movements into our territory, we will control them for you.  Done deal, end of discussion.  The first few thousands killed and you would see a change in the attitudes of those currently sporting those of the wrong variety. If MX wants a hot war with us, that too would be OK.  Moving our borders 100 miles into the Sonora would likely benefit us. I'd say $#@! or get off the pot on the issue.

I could think of dozens of other ways to address this without making America look like East Germany.

----------


## oyarde

> why you want not illegal immigrants out ?


Not sure what that means

----------


## oyarde

> I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.


I have a tank trap across the entire front and three wooded ridges on the other property lines .

----------


## kpitcher

> I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.


Township rules prohibit fences over 8 feet around here.

----------


## Spikender

> I have a tank trap across the entire front and three wooded ridges on the other property lines .


I'm now looking to you for inspiration in securing my property. I'm not an expert on anti-tank defense measures, I'll look into that. A tank trap across the front sounds good, though, they'll most likely come on foot from the back and sides and show off their strength from the front. Might put some bear traps around the back and sides and a few tactically placed pitfalls for some anti-personnel defense.




> Township rules prohibit fences over 8 feet around here.


That isn't nearly tall enough. I know a few people who stand on their tiptoes and scale an 8 foot wall.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Do you really want a bloody wall?


 I am merely -- helpfully! -- enumerating two totally invalid, illogical, and stupid arguments against building walls, so that now people can stop repeating them and instead take up valid, logical, and intelligent arguments.





> Better we have no borders, yet were we to make it so, we as a people would be destroyed in no time.  These are the practical realities


 *Why* would it be better to have no borders?  Why would you think borders are inherently morally evil?  [And so colossally evil as to have to be carefully weighed against the (actual!) colossal evil of total annihilation?!]  Borders seem morally neutral, to me.




> But why go right to the Berlin Solution?


 Aha, here is why.  You associate walls with Communism.  Communism was evil (agreed), and the most famous wall of our generation was associated with Communism.

I, on the other hand, associate walls with many other things: Private Gated Communities, for instance.  These are excellent developments for liberty -- innovative, free-market, problem-solving, spontaneous, decentralized.  

I think of city-states like Syracuse, Luxembourg, the Vatican, and San Marino.

I think of brave little bands of men holding out against massive onslaughts of evil and tyranny in places like Masada and Vienna.

Walls are everywhere in Neal Stephenson's conception of a mature libertarian society portrayed in _The Diamond Age_ (and also in the brand new, footloose and free-wheeling libertarian society in _Snow Crash_).

Walls serve great purposes.  They are morally neutral.  They are _particularly_ morally neutral, as they do not _do_ anything, *they literally just sit there.*  Opposed to the injustice and immorality of walls?  One might as well take up the banner against the moral outrage that is mountain ranges.

----------


## osan

> *Why* would it be better to have no borders?


Being each free, we are normatively entitled to move hither-thither as we please, assuming no trespass.

That we have and perhaps _need_ borders is sad testament to the general condition of humanity.




> Why would you think borders are inherently morally evil?


Now you are putting words into my mouth.  I never wrote nor intimated such a thing.




> [And so colossally evil as to have to be carefully weighed against the (actual!) colossal evil of total annihilation?!]  Borders seem morally neutral, to me.


While I do not view them as evil _in sé_, I do see them as a symptom of a deeper problem with the breed in the ways they are used toward political ends.




> You associate walls with Communism.  Communism was evil (agreed), and the most famous wall of our generation was associated with Communism.


That is only part of the story, and a small part at that.




> I, on the other hand, associate walls with many other things: Private Gated Communities, for instance.  These are excellent developments for liberty -- innovative, free-market, problem-solving, spontaneous, decentralized.


Insofar as private property rights are concerned, I may agree.  But reiterating, my objection stems mainly from the political use of such structures.  At the very least they say bad things about some of us.




> I think of city-states like the Syracuse, Luxembourg, the Vatican, and San Marino.
> 
> I think of brave little bands of men holding out against massive onslaughts of evil and tyranny in places like Masada and Vienna.


Right, and had men behaved themselves properly, there would have been no need for walled cities, which is the essence of my point.




> Walls are everywhere in Neal Stephenson's conception of a mature libertarian society portrayed in _The Diamond Age_ (and also in the brand new, footloose and free-wheeling libertarian society in _Snow Crash_).


Not familiar; cannot comment.




> Walls serve great purposes.


I've not intimated otherwise, save in the given context.  And do notice that I did not say a wall was an invalid solution, but that IMO it is not a valid solution of first resort, given the current circumstances.  Were Genghis Khan amassing his troops across the Rio Grande, I might feel otherwise.




> They are morally neutral.


_In vacuo_, yes.  In context, generally not.  I agree that they can be good.  I also assert they can be less than that.  The Berlin Wall was a prime less-than example, which is why I used it.  If I don't have to have a nation that looks like that, I would then prefer it not.  If it must, then so be it.  However, the latter case has not yet been demonstrated by a very long shot.  That is why I advocate for other avenues of redress before turning to building walls.  I'm excluding nothing, but advising a rationally graduated escalation of resorts until the problem is treated with sufficiency.




> They are _particularly_ morally neutral, as they do not _do_ anything, *they literally just sit there.*  Opposed to the injustice and immorality of walls?  One might as well take up the banner against the moral outrage that is mountain ranges.


You have read WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into what I wrote.  Narrow thy vision mightily.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Being each free, we are normatively entitled to move hither-thither as we please, assuming no trespass.


But the only way to "assume no trespass" to occur as one moves "hither and thither as one pleases" to any place across the globe, is to assume that one owns all of the places on said globe.

----------


## osan

> But the only way to "assume no trespass" to occur as one moves "hither and thither as one pleases" to any place across the globe, is to assume that one owns all of the places on said globe.


Are there no "commons"?  A purpose of the commons is to ensure pathways available to all.

Some define "the commons" as being owned by all.  My definition is that it is owned by nobody.

Let us also bear in mind that if you own property and want no trespassers, onus rests with you to clearly mark that which you own and make it clear that others are not welcome.

----------


## Barak Obama

> They will always find a way



Sounds like you have the planet of the apes down to an art. Now you can excessively celebrate your apes' next TD.

----------


## Working Poor

Don't worry the big beautiful wall will have a big beatiful gate every ten miles.

----------


## Unregistered

Perhaps Mexico should offer to build Trump's wall from the many US dams that deny northern Mexico its water.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?
> 
> They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)
> 
> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


I think you're probably overestimating the amount of _actual_ support Trump has here.  People don't like him for his policies.  They like him because he's different, because he pisses people off.  They don't like his wall.  Sure, a wall might stop some illegals, but most of us realize that it's absolutely wasteful and is not really the problem.  This would be a good thing to try to communicate to the Trump administration, but I really don't think you'll find a lot of real support for Trump.  I like him and I like that he won instead of Hillary, but he seems more like a big galoot with business sense than he does a sensible president with sensible policies.

----------


## timosman

> I think you're probably overestimating the amount of _actual_ support Trump has here.  People don't like him for his policies.  They like him because he's different, because he pisses people off.  They don't like his wall.  Sure, a wall might stop some illegals, but most of us realize that it's absolutely wasteful and is not really the problem.  This would be a good thing to try to communicate to the Trump administration, but I really don't think you'll find a lot of real support for Trump.  I like him and I like that he won instead of Hillary, but he seems more like a big galoot with business sense than he does a sensible president with sensible policies.


I would give him a little bit more credit.

----------


## Chomp

> Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?
> 
> They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)
> 
> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


 I all the time tell many to stop being as a bunch of naïve dupes. America's days are coming to her fall. Trump is a clown.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> I deserve a Conservative .


Why? Conservatives are PC fascists.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Tell me alt-right person, what is your criticism of laissez faire, and why would you prefer the underlined?


Wait.... do you no longer advocate world government?

----------


## oyarde

> Perhaps Mexico should offer to build Trump's wall from the many US dams that deny northern Mexico its water.


Does it not rain in Mexico ?

----------


## oyarde

> Why? Conservatives are PC fascists.


That makes no sense to me.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> 1) referring to the people here as simpletons drives your credibility WAY down.  Not too many of those here.  Hell, _I_ don't even qualify as one of those/


From the thread title as well as the content of the post, it was clear that the only people he called simpletons were Trump supporters.

He would lose more credibility if he didn't call Trump supporters simpletons.

----------


## JK/SEA

> From the thread title as well as the content of the post, it was clear that the only people he called simpletons were Trump supporters.
> 
> He would lose more credibility if he didn't call Trump supporters simpletons.


explain...if you can..

----------


## Superfluous Man

> explain...if you can..


It's actually pretty common sensical to non-simpletons.

The thread title is: "To you Trump supporters."

And then the first line of the first post is: "Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?"

Naturally, the pronoun "you" refers to the same group in both cases. He wasn't calling Ron Paul supporters simpletons. He was calling Trump trolls simpletons.

----------


## JK/SEA

> It's actually pretty common sensical to non-simpletons.
> 
> The thread title is: "To you Trump supporters."
> 
> And then the first line of the first post is: "Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?"
> 
> Naturally, the pronoun "you" refers to the same group in both cases. He wasn't calling Ron Paul supporters simpletons. He was calling Trump trolls simpletons.


in some cases...both. 

i'm a Ron supporter that voted trump...

i believe the 'simpleton' namecalling is subjective. Lots of 'simpleton' trump bashers in here.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> That makes no sense to me.


Say something a conservative doesn't like. It wont be tolerated. On online "conservative" forums you will be banned on the spot for saying something they disagree with.

----------


## MallsRGood

> i'm a Ron supporter that voted trump...


I'm a square circle.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> But the only way to "assume no trespass" to occur as one moves "hither and thither as one pleases" to any place across the globe, is to assume that one owns all of the places on said globe.


That is a ridiculously false claim. People have been moving around as they pleased without either trespassing or owning all the places on the globe for as long as there have been people .

----------


## oyarde

> Say something a conservative doesn't like. It wont be tolerated. On online "conservative" forums you will be banned on the spot for saying something they disagree with.


Probably , but I imagine the commies would be the same .

----------


## timosman

> I'm a square circle.


I am a triangle with two right angles.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I am a triangle with two right angles.


There's no way you know math beyond a 4th grade level. Who helped you come up with that?

----------


## timosman

> There's no way you know math beyond a 4th grade level. Who helped you come up with that?


Thank you for the compliment.

----------


## MallsRGood

> I am a triangle with two right angles.


Don't be obtuse.

----------


## timosman

> Don't be obtuse.


Looks like you got it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *That is a ridiculously false claim*. I should be able to go wherever I want to. Property rights are an oppressive White Patriarchal invention.


 Thank you for your input!

----------


## Ender

> That is a ridiculously false claim. People have been moving around as they pleased without either trespassing or owning all the places on the globe for as long as there have been people .


Indians believed that the land belonged to God and they were the care-takers.

----------


## undergroundrr

> But the only way to "assume no trespass" to occur as one moves "hither and thither as one pleases" to any place across the globe, is to assume that one owns all of the places on said globe.


Nice context dropping. Implicit in osan's statement is that no government has the right to infringe on its citizens' right to property. And if a government does maintain public transportation infrastructure, its purpose is to facilitate travel between private properties, not to restrict movement between them. 

Yet you seem to think the proper way to guarantee no trespass is for the government to maintain some sort of moat around your "private property" (scare quotes because it no longer _is_ your property when at the disposal of government). That the nation-state will do your bidding in keeping your personal list of undesirable segments of humanity (I guess non-straight, non-white, non-patriarchal?) from approaching your property line within a distance you dictate to that nation-state. And that the nation-state will tax me to maintain your moat. Is that why you support Marxist closed borders?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Indians did not believe in private property rights.  They had it right. We should go back to that.


 Thank you for your input!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nice context dropping.  Allow me to drop in a lil something about gays.  That's the only _important_ context, the only thing I care about**: promoting homosexuality.  Don't ever forget the gay context.  That's the important context. We need to import as many non-straights as possible. And also as many as possible of people who want to _behead_ non-straights.


 Sounds like a recipe for societal success! And also for defeating Marx, of course.




> The last thing we should want a government to do is protect property rights. No trespassing?  No stealing?  No arson?  Pshaw!  What we need the government to do is to protect and promote homosexuality, not protect private property. Plus protecting property rights would require taxes on me, which I don't wanna pay. So forget you and your stupid "property rights."


 Thank you for you input!

----------


## undergroundrr

> Sounds like a recipe for societal success! And also for defeating Marx, of course.
> 
>  Thank you for you input!


h_h, your debating techniques have truly reached unprecedented stud level. You may want to fix the following quote since you're having so much fun with creative editing: 




> No misquoting other members when debating, such as with "fixed it for you."


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Oh don't be tedious.

I'm just expressing my love!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

By the way, if I were debating, you would know pretty clearly what position I was debating on behalf of.

----------


## showpan

The Wall
Walls are not built to keep people out, they are built to keep people in such as prison walls. While the great wall of China may have temporarily deterred only the feeble minded robbers and raiders, it failed miserably as a defensive fortification. The builders of what is left of the Ming Dunasty wall were wiped out as the Manchu marched straight through. If there is a will, there is a way.
President Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. The total length of the continental border is 1,989 miles Land along the border cuts through cities, including San Ysidro, California, and El Paso, Texas, as well as rural farmland, desert, arroyos, steep mountains and wildlife reserves. Rural farmlands rely on the rivers for water. Environmental impacts on those private lands would be tremendous as the wall would have to be built on our side blocking off the flow of water while giving up half the river since the border runs right down the middle in many areas. 
Two-thirds of the land along the border is private or state-owned. Most of that land is in Texas, where much of the border does not already have fencing. The Trump administration would need to use eminent domain to acquire the remaining land needed. Attempts to acquire land would certainly face challenges in court. Historically, wall-related land cases have taken years to resolve, with costly settlements often resulting. Hundreds of property owners were sued just to build the existing chunks of wall. Some 400 relinquished properties ranging in size from a driveway to commercial lots and farms, costing the government at least $15 million in 2012. Some property owners, whose land would be caught between the wall and the Mexico border, are likely to file claims of lost property value, which could slow down any construction on a wall greatly impacting the final cost.
Building the wall would be a tremendous feat whose budget would soon soar astronomically. Even with the repeal of the Davis Bacon Act that would enable the government to hire cheap Mexican labor (ironic to say the least), The costs would multiply multiply quickly. In the remote parts of the dessert, you would have to provide shelter, food and water for the laborers and craftsman since making a daily trip to these remote places would not be feasible. There are no hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc in much of the region.. Roads would have to be built in order to move the enormous amounts of materials, equipment and manpower needed. Portable power would have to be provided. Then, once you get through the vast dessert and reach the rugged mountainous regions, work would come to a screeching crawl. Steep cliffs, jagged terrain, deep washes, loose broken ground would have to be transformed into some kind of footing for such a wall. Even if you switched to fencing, it would still require much excavation for a secure structure. The roads needed to reach these remote places alone would cost as much as a wall or fence. You aren't going to drive concrete trucks through the mountains along donkey paths.Once you have traversed the mountains, there are still the rivers to contend with. And kind of wall would need a solid footing much like building a bridge. The logistics for this would monumental just as it were for the Chinese in the 7th century. 
Trump has claimed that Mexico will be paying for the wall. That is a lie. He would start the wall using our tax dollars and then impose an import tax (tariff) on goods coming in. An import tax may be paid initially by Mexican companies but in reality, they would not pay anything as this cost would be directly added to the price of their goods. That means WE would still be paying for it as the cost of everything we import would increase by the 20% Trump would tax them. In turn, Mexico would place an import tax on our exports creating a trade war that will ultimately cost each and every one of us in jobs and increased costs of the many goods we buy and sell with our neighbor. 
Walls will not keep them out as many of the immigrants that have come into this country did so legally through border check points or have flown into our airports.Once here, they simply did not return. Smugglers have dug many tunnels, most of which are still yet to be found while others will never be found. Ladders were designed to traverse walls. Sledge hammers and battery operated chipping hammers will ensure that the wall is merely a colossal monument built to satisfy small minded individuals with super enlarged egos. 
Trump has targeted the wrong people. it's our own fault that bad people want to come into this country. The poor Mexican worker comes here to survive and feed off a system that was designed to enable them. When H.W. Bush wrote NAFTA, it was enacted not only to open the borders for companies to move freely to exploit cheap labor and resources, it paved the way for a mass influx of desperate workers to artificially manipulate the wages for Americans. It wasn't about helping the people of a poor nation, it was all about breaking the backs of unions so companies could make triple profits more than what they were already making.  Unfortunately, it didn't work as well as they planned since most of the companies that stayed were union. It was mostly non union companies that moved. Then G.W. Bush promised them amnesty and millions came flooding in.
For all intense purposes, people love to be fed what they want to hear. They are nothing more than brainwashed sheep. If anyone had any real intentions of stopping the millions of illegal workers from taking our jobs, they would go after the employer and enforce our existing laws. If they can't find work, they wouldn't stay. This country hands out work visas like it's candy. Why, because the very same billionaires who tell you that illegals are stealing our jobs hire them to replace Americans who refuse to work for 3rd world wages, long hours and no benefits. The illegals are NOT taking our jobs that Americans refuse to do. That is a blatant lie. They are doing ANY and every job they can get hired for. The wall is a gimmick. It's a tool to get people to believe that they are doing something about this grave problem when in reality, they aren't doing anything at all to prevent companies from hiring them. I haven't heard one mention of eliminating the work Visa program either.
Then there is the refugee problem we face. Our government has disrupted the middle east and turned it into a vast killing zone. We bomb them daily killing untold scores of woman and children targeting hospitals, schools and residential neighborhoods. We have created terrorists not just by our illegal interventionist ways, but by directly funding, arming and training groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda to serve our corporations in their never ending thirst for cheaper natural resources and regime change to mega corporate friendly interests. 911 did not happen as a result of us having too much freedoms...it was the direct result, blowback from our foreign policy created by a group of people who's sole desire is to control us along with the worlds currency and resources. 
Until we as Americans come to understand the reality of just what is really happening, this country will remain divided and conquered. Trump claims that we will win. That we will win so much that we will be begging to stop winning. If winning means that we continue to blame the wrong people for what has truly happened to this country as we enter into another cold war, building fake walls to satisfy fake conservatives, then winning means that we have already lost.

----------


## osan

> Why don't you *simpletons* realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?


That's not the way to influence people toward your position.




> They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)


May I take it that you are familiar with the concept of "degree"?




> Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.


Now here we mostly agree.  I'm not a fan of the wall.  I see no benefit to it.  Now, were a zombie apocalypse to descend upon us, WW Z-style, then perhaps a wall would be in order.  I am not, however,  in favor of building one on the slight chance that such an inevitability would come to pass.  I am not a fan of turning America into a Sam's Club version of Berlin, ca. 1962.  But the patrol is necessary.  Welfare and the sort are not the only reasons people come here.  There are bad actors out there who seek to hurt us.  That is political reality.  Even if we assume that we are 100% to blame for their desire to bring us harm, it does not follow that we ought to make it easy for them.  

In an ideal world there are no border patrols because there are no borders.  This world is far from that, and therefore if we do not wish to come to violent ruin at the hands of enemies, earned or otherwise, we must maintain vigil against them.  That is the sad and nauseating truth of the world which some have wrought for all.

----------

