Yes and that works fantastically well doesn't it? The wall would have to be 2000 miles long. 2000 miles! For that to be effective it would have to be heavily guarded.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yes and that works fantastically well doesn't it? The wall would have to be 2000 miles long. 2000 miles! For that to be effective it would have to be heavily guarded.
As far as policies go building a wall is actually one of Trumps more sensible ones. There's not that much wrong with the idea.
If you ignore the that fact that it won't stop people crossing the border and that it would have societal and environmentally catastrophic side effects.
Or that at a minimum it will cost 10 to 20 times MORE than his highest estimate. Or that it is completely unfeasible to build a wall over a lot of the terrain and natural obstacles that are in the way without deviating severely from its course. You could pick his wall idea apart for hours if you wanted to, I think John Oliver destroyed it best though way back in March or whenever it was.
When I run through the scenarios with trump as potus this actually seems pretty close to ideal
She looked in very good healthy at her come back speech.
No taxes returns doesn't show any investment because he runs a corporation which has their own taxes as well, I think he has a very low income and no charity at all.
If she has Parkinson's then she should let someone else run and she's having a lot of red flags lately, the Vice President would destroy trump if he was running.
If someone is determined to miss the point..
I'll dumb it down: What about all those Hollywood honchos and internet moguls who religiously support every liberal cause? And give so generously to the democratic party? How do they prevent the hoi polloi invading the sacred precincts of their Beverley Hills mansions and Silicon Valley citadels? Are they separated from the common people by open ground patrolled by guards, or do they in fact build very high............wait for it...........walls!!!
Which is more effective? What do you think, people?
At present 20,000 agents are employed ineffectually along the US/Mexican border. That's far more than would be required to police a proper fence with open ground on either side, well lit and monitored by remote control cameras.
If someone is determined to miss the point..
I'll dumb it down: What about all those Hollywood honchos and internet moguls who religiously support every liberal cause? And give so generously to the democratic party? How do they prevent the hoi polloi invading the sacred precincts of their Beverley Hills mansions and Silicon Valley citadels? Are they separated from the common people by open ground patrolled by guards, or do they in fact build very high............wait for it...........walls!!!
Which is more effective? What do you think, people?
At present 20,000 agents are employed ineffectually along the US/Mexican border. That's far more than would be required to police a proper fence with open ground on either side, well lit and monitored by remote control cameras.
Dumb it down or dumb it up? Comparing a wall that would have to be the distance from Land's End to John O'Groats trebled to a wall around a Beverley Hills Mansion.
It's the hypocrisy I think
I get his point on hypocrisy but it's irrelevant to what we were arguing about.
Eh?
Of course it will stop most people. A few percent will make it across, but most people will be discouraged, or get caught trying to cross an improved barrier.
As for the moral aspect, either there is a border or there isn't. I think legal immigration should be streamlined and fast-tracked. But I've never had many issues with the idea of an imposing barrier.
It's telling that in pretty much every large nation, there is a powerful 'right' movement gaining momentum. Liberalisation seems to be on the wane.
The majority of illegal immigrants enter the US legally and overstay their visa. And it's easy to get over a wall, to quote trump "maybe use a ladder".
The focus on terrorism makes it easy to stoke the flames of fear.
If someone is determined to miss the point..
I'll dumb it down: What about all those Hollywood honchos and internet moguls who religiously support every liberal cause? And give so generously to the democratic party? How do they prevent the hoi polloi invading the sacred precincts of their Beverley Hills mansions and Silicon Valley citadels? Are they separated from the common people by open ground patrolled by guards, or do they in fact build very high............wait for it...........walls!!!
Which is more effective? What do you think, people?
At present 20,000 agents are employed ineffectually along the US/Mexican border. That's far more than would be required to police a proper fence with open ground on either side, well lit and monitored by remote control cameras.
What the feck are you on about?
Wasting my breath with rational argument in this thread.
You haven't made one yet.
The point about the wall which everyone overlooks is the fact that it's completely fecking pointless. Maybe if it were built 60 years ago, it might work. But when the Hispanic population of the United States currently stands at about 35 million, it's a bit fecking late to go building a wall, unless the desired aim is to keep immigrants from leaving.
It's just vote winning nonsense which plays on prejudice and fear.
It's just vote winning nonsense which plays on prejudice and fear.
It's not rocket science. To prevent people moving from area A to area B you can do one of three things:
- Place a line of human beings along the entire border between A and B and leave them there 24/7.
- Construct a physical obstacle between A and B which is difficult to surmount.
- Create an effective barrier by combining the first two approaches - a formidable physical obstacle plus a human presence to oversee it.
America has never employed more than a pretend version of the first option.
Definitely, that's why footballers houses never get broken into when they're at work.
It's obviously late in the day. The damage to the future stability of American society has already been done.
There was a proposal to build a proper fence before the US congress in the 80s, which would have saved the situation, but the Democrats vetoed it.
Can you explain the damage that has been done to the future stability of American society by not having built a wall in the 80s?
And the environmental disaster of putting a massive, expensive wall that will need perpetual maintenance right next to a river is worth stopping the minority of immigrants who cross the border illegally?
brown people innit
Maybe we're being too unfair, walls are really, really, really hard to get over
I'll pass this on to the US Government.
Some bloke in Ireland has solved the long-standing issue of illegal immigration.
It's impossible to quantify how much damage has been done (if any at all). The United States has always relied upon an immigrant underclass to perform jobs that the American middle class have no interest in. African Americans, Germans, Italians, Irish, etc. It's been going on since slavery. As one group gradually attains political capital, a new group typically emerges and bears the brunt of social stigma (as well as constituting the poorest section of society).
It's an entirely relative notion as to whether immigration damages society. For this notion to hold true though, one would have to possess a vision of what an ideal American society looks like. My view is that the current American society doesn't differ all that much from previous generations -- the only difference is that Hispanics are bearing the political assault in place of Irish, Italians, Germans, Koreans, etc.
Maybe we're being too unfair, walls are really, really, really hard to get over
How would they get down
play the gif in reverseHow would they get down
But then you'd have to suppose that the decimation of the middle class and the stagnant wages of the lower class is because of something like...oh I don't know, failed policies of previous administrations and globalization.
Nah...it's deffo all the Mexicans coming here and picking fruit and mowing lawns.
How would they get down
And it's your last line that makes Trump's campaign so appealing to some, in my opinion. He reduces all the ills of American society into a picture of criminal immigrants -- it's easy to picture and clearly attractive to a considerable portion of the electorate. But he knows as well as anyone that if Hispanic labour were withdrawn, the American economy would pretty much collapse overnight.
It's not all down to fear. How much of the momentum for anti-immigration is a direct response to the liberal elite trying their hardest to shut down debate?
America, Britain, Germany, France and Scandinavia... same pattern everywhere.
This election really is just a cruder version of Brexit. In the UK, Brexit was marketed as an economic opportunity (with autonomous immigration policy). In the US, Trump just says "Mexicans are rapists" and "build a wall". Trump's stated aims are about as realistic as the control of free movement between the UK and the EU. A complete fecking sham, basically. But it's an effective marketing ploy to people dissatisfied with their lives and looking for a scapegoat.
You may be overestimating him, I doubt he could spell his own name correctly 10 times in a row.
- Status