Shumer Takes The Offer Of The Wall Off The Table!

[OldCoyote]

www.pressherald.com/2018/01/23/schumer-wall-offer-is-off-the-table/ 

What a move, this dumps DACA completely back in the laps of the Repos,, This will cost them everything brilliant political move by Senator Chuck Shumer!!

[OldCoyote]

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/trump-offers-dreamers-a-path-to-citizenship-insists-on-other-immigration-curbs-idUSKBN1FE2QX

Now Trump is offering a path for 1.8 million, one million more than original proposed!

[Tennesseer]

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

[tallguy]

Not one dime for that twit's ego trip.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

build transient housing out of it. 

[Gardening Grandma]

Meh. Make it a virtual wall. His supporters won’t know the difference and we’ll save the $25B that Mexico ain’t paying. Win, win, win

[happyhoix]

I was going to suggest building a wall out of tarps stretched over a balsa frame with the tarp painted to look like concrete. It should last until we can get this guy out of office, anyway.

But I like the virtual wall better. No chance Trump might actually go out into the field to visit it, it's not near any of his resorts, so he would never know, and we can use that 20B on the infrastructure.

[Tennesseer]

September 17, 2016:

trump: "Who's gonna pay for the wall?"

trump voters: "Mexico!"


November 8, 2016:

trump: "Who's gonna pay for the wall?"

trump voters: "Mexico!"


January 25, 2018:

trump: "Who's gonna pay for the wall?"

trump voters: "USA"

[Phoenix84]

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

[zibazinski]

Not if it keeps out future voters 

[Tennesseer]

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

It's reported by real news border crossings were way done in 2017. Seems to me existing procedures are working. You want to waste $25 billion on a useless wall. Interesting.

And it will be useless. People will find a way around it.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

So you think it's realistic to build a wall around the entire southern border of our nation.  Interesting.

Everything I've read has said the geological survey alone would take 5 years.   So even if you got your fondest wish and Trump got reelected that only leaves him three years.   No literal wall around our entire southern boarder is going to be built in three years.   You're talking about a project on par with the Panama Canal or the Great Wall of China.

Then this is assuming enough palms won't be greased to keep the project in limbo for eternity.  You're going to have to count on the agriculture lobby's check bouncing.

You're also assuming that employers will not continue to go down to Mexico, load up a truck full of people and then hire someone to drive them up here.   Which is what Tyson has been busted for on NUMEROUS occasions.   A wall doesn't stop a truck, a wall doesn't stop a boarder agent who has been bribed to look the other way.

I much rather invest that money into fixing the immigration system we already have.  If the government would get out of lobbyists pockets and give our system the teeth to do it's job you wouldn't need a literal wall.

[dezii]

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

Supposedly illegals coming into the country from Mexico...according to people who know about these things, supposedly is way down...In fact many illegals here are returning home...afraid of deportation, less work available...

To expect 100% compliance is irrational, never going to happen...To increase border security with more hires of officers, using more drones, possible in some areas actual wall I and it seems most Dems don't have a problem with...but to spend 25 Billion for construction of and then how much yearly to maintain and experts are saying not needed...That u go along it seems and eat up the Donalds ideas as all ways correct which is what I am getting from u...that is interesting.

I don't feel that way about the man ....believe a few more citizens feel the same way.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2018 9:18:54 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Not if it keeps out future voters 

Democrats don't need NEW immigrants for that.  they have two things going for them.

1) the GOP is largely populated by old folks. 
2) immigrants ALREADY HERE have higher birth rates than white folks.

10M illegals are a drop in the bucket compared to that stuff.

[thyme4change]

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

My research says that there is already fencing in the places that it is effective, and a lot of areas the "new wall" won't be effective for a variety of reasons. We funded a huge amount of wall under the Bush admin, with full support of the democrats. I believe the democrats are in favor of continuing border security via technology and patrolling, which has proven to be effective and nimble.

There is a difference between wall and border security. A wall is simple to picture, and seems obvious, but the people who understand the border know that the situation is more complicated.

[bean29]

I actually thought about starting a thread on this today.

Allocating $$ to a border wall, that really won't accomplish much is just political theatre.

I wanted to ask Republicans what their priorities are? Do you think we should build a physical wall? or should we use technology to monitor the border? As someone else pointed out, we are already doing this, and since apprehensions are up, and it seems to be working - what is your budget priority keeping in mind, Republicans also want more money for defense, we already had a large deficit, and taxes were cut.

I think we should invest more in a "Virtual Wall" meaning the virtual wall is some type of electronic monitoring of the border, and intervening when someone is detected crossing the border.  I personally want a permanent solution for the dreamers enough to throw 25 billion at the wall, but...I don't really think Republican Voters really want to put that money into a border wall that is not necessary when other methods will work as well and cost significantly less $$.

If It were up to me though, I would shore up SS/Medicare/Medicaid/Health Care/Defense etc, before I would fund construction of a wall we don't need.

[swamp]

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jan 25, 2018 21:20:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Give trump his money for the wall. Then tear down the damn thing when his highness is out of office.

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

If it actually improved border security, I'd be willing ot consider it. 

Most illegals enter legally and overstay.   A wall doesn't help that. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jan 26, 2018 12:36:17 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2018 12:29:50 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

My research says that there is already fencing in the places that it is effective, and a lot of areas the "new wall" won't be effective for a variety of reasons. We funded a huge amount of wall under the Bush admin, with full support of the democrats. I believe the democrats are in favor of continuing border security via technology and patrolling, which has proven to be effective and nimble.

There is a difference between wall and border security. A wall is simple to picture, and seems obvious, but the people who understand the border know that the situation is more complicated.

 a few hundred thousand people per YEAR flowing through something isn't "effective" by any real definition

But you're never going to be at zero.   There isn't a human built system in history that has not at some point been breached by another human.  Even if you somehow did manage to build a functioning wall across the entire boarder AND staffed it 24/7 with drones and people with snipers you're still going to have people legally going down to Mexico to load up a truck then drive thru on the day they know their paid for boarder agent will look the other way.

You're also assuming the wall will never fall into enough disrepair due to weather, wear/tear that people won't be able to either poke a hole in it or poke a hole under it.

You also won't be able to stop people from coming across the Gulf by boat. Cubans do it all the time you don't think Mexicans aren't going to?   IIRC correctly Trump and the Republicans want to gut the Coast Guard budget in favor of the wall.   So while you are celebrating people not coming over by ground they are going to come over by boat instead.

I suppose the argument becomes what you define as "effective".   Personally I do not think saddling my children's children's children with the debt for this wall is an effective use of money or resources.  We already have an immigration system, fix that first.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2018 12:36:17 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2018 12:29:50 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

My research says that there is already fencing in the places that it is effective, and a lot of areas the "new wall" won't be effective for a variety of reasons. We funded a huge amount of wall under the Bush admin, with full support of the democrats. I believe the democrats are in favor of continuing border security via technology and patrolling, which has proven to be effective and nimble.

There is a difference between wall and border security. A wall is simple to picture, and seems obvious, but the people who understand the border know that the situation is more complicated.

 a few hundred thousand people per YEAR flowing through something isn't "effective" by any real definition

uh.  what?  link, please.

[Deleted]

If you want a 100% secure border, you put up massive signs and let everyone in the south know that the US now shoots to kill border hoppers. You put up drones and after a few people are reported to be victims of the new security measure, then the illegal immigration thing will stop.

The idea of a physical border in this day and age is ridiculous. Almost as nuts as the president himself. Have they not heard of airplanes, tunnels, ladders and the like? Overstaying a vacation visa? /smh

[hurley1980]

Jan 26, 2018 9:49:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

So you think it's realistic to build a wall around the entire southern border of our nation.  Interesting.

Everything I've read has said the geological survey alone would take 5 years.   So even if you got your fondest wish and Trump got reelected that only leaves him three years.   No literal wall around our entire southern boarder is going to be built in three years.   You're talking about a project on par with the Panama Canal or the Great Wall of China.

Then this is assuming enough palms won't be greased to keep the project in limbo for eternity.  You're going to have to count on the agriculture lobby's check bouncing.

You're also assuming that employers will not continue to go down to Mexico, load up a truck full of people and then hire someone to drive them up here.   Which is what Tyson has been busted for on NUMEROUS occasions.   A wall doesn't stop a truck, a wall doesn't stop a boarder agent who has been bribed to look the other way.

I much rather invest that money into fixing the immigration system we already have.  If the government would get out of lobbyists pockets and give our system the teeth to do it's job you wouldn't need a literal wall.

Not to mention other environmental reports that take forever to complete even if there are no issues.  Then you have Right-of-Way to acquire the properties needed on the boarder, and even without Eminent Domain/Condemnation issues tied up in courts, it will take years to acquire all of the land needed. 

As someone who has been working on a large public works project for over 10 years, that JUST started construction last year....this wall will never get build while Trump is in office.  It most likely won't get built at all.  And it shouldn't, especially if Mexico isn't going to pay for it, which they aren't.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jan 26, 2018 14:03:57 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Jan 26, 2018 9:49:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

So you think it's realistic to build a wall around the entire southern border of our nation.  Interesting.

Everything I've read has said the geological survey alone would take 5 years.   So even if you got your fondest wish and Trump got reelected that only leaves him three years.   No literal wall around our entire southern boarder is going to be built in three years.   You're talking about a project on par with the Panama Canal or the Great Wall of China.

Then this is assuming enough palms won't be greased to keep the project in limbo for eternity.  You're going to have to count on the agriculture lobby's check bouncing.

You're also assuming that employers will not continue to go down to Mexico, load up a truck full of people and then hire someone to drive them up here.   Which is what Tyson has been busted for on NUMEROUS occasions.   A wall doesn't stop a truck, a wall doesn't stop a boarder agent who has been bribed to look the other way.

I much rather invest that money into fixing the immigration system we already have.  If the government would get out of lobbyists pockets and give our system the teeth to do it's job you wouldn't need a literal wall.

Not to mention other environmental reports that take forever to complete even if there are no issues.  Then you have Right-of-Way to acquire the properties needed on the boarder, and even without Eminent Domain/Condemnation issues tied up in courts, it will take years to acquire all of the land needed. 

As someone who has been working on a large public works project for over 10 years, that JUST started construction last year....this wall will never get build while Trump is in office.  It most likely won't get built at all.  And it shouldn't, especially if Mexico isn't going to pay for it, which they aren't.

From what I've read a lot of the people whose land this wall would go thru don't want it.   The wall would end up destroying a lot of farm and cattle land which those people depend on for their income.  Which we in turn depend on for food.

So now we're up to paying for a minimum 5 year geological survey,  however long the other surveys take AND having to pay the people whose land this would run thru enough to keep them from tying it in courts forever and we haven't even gotten to actual building stage yet.

It's fascinating to me that people cry about the national debt but are willing to drive our great great grandchildren into debt for a wall as a symbolic "fuck you" to Mexico.

If our representatives were actually interested in solving the problem our immigration system could be overhauled probably at a fraction of what it costs for a wall.

 

[dezii]

Jan 26, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

If you want a 100% secure border, you put up massive signs and let everyone in the south know that the US now shoots to kill border hoppers. You put up drones and after a few people are reported to be victims of the new security measure, then the illegal immigration thing will stop.

The idea of a physical border in this day and age is ridiculous. Almost as nuts as the president himself. Have they not heard of airplanes, tunnels, ladders and the like? Overstaying a vacation visa? /smh

Your seriously suggesting we take the lives of those trying to cross the border illegally..shooting w/ snipers, anti personnel mines and such. Whether adult males...pregnant woman...children  ?  These illegals scare u that much..? [sheesh]

East Germans did that , murdered many....

[NastyWoman]

Jan 26, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

If you want a 100% secure border, you put up massive signs and let everyone in the south know that the US now shoots to kill border hoppers. You put up drones and after a few people are reported to be victims of the new security measure, then the illegal immigration thing will stop.

The idea of a physical border in this day and age is ridiculous. Almost as nuts as the president himself. Have they not heard of airplanes, tunnels, ladders and the like? Overstaying a vacation visa? /smh

That didn't even work for that dinky little wall (comparitively speaking) in Berlin. I just don't understand the lack of critical thinking by the proponents of the "WALL".

If they really wnat to spend that much money, let's use it on improving infrastructure, you know roads and bridges and such. Or improve the safety of areas that are exposed to ever increasing risks of flooding → N.O. is just one place that comes to mind and there are many others.

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2018 14:39:24 GMT -5 dezii said:

Jan 26, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

If you want a 100% secure border, you put up massive signs and let everyone in the south know that the US now shoots to kill border hoppers. You put up drones and after a few people are reported to be victims of the new security measure, then the illegal immigration thing will stop.

The idea of a physical border in this day and age is ridiculous. Almost as nuts as the president himself. Have they not heard of airplanes, tunnels, ladders and the like? Overstaying a vacation visa? /smh

Your seriously suggesting we take the lives of those trying to cross the border illegally..shooting w/ snipers, anti personnel mines and such. Whether adult males...pregnant woman...children  ?  These illegals scare u that much..? [sheesh]

East Germans did that , murdered many....

My point was simple, if 100% border control is necessary, then there is a much more effective and cost-effective way to accomplish the task than a stupid giant fence... If no one entered the border area illegally, then no one would be shot. If someone is stupid enough to do it, then they know the consequences. 

It sends a mixed message to tell people not to enter our country illegally, and then essentially let them in if they can make the long, dangerous walk... Issue them visas to visit family and work like the US used to. They came here, worked, and then when the season was over would go back home where they really wanted to be. 

I happen to personally believe we should allow the migrant workers from the south to have free access to our country for the purposes of working. We used to and it worked well for the agricultural industry and others who take advantage of their cheap labor and lack of an ability to speak out about problems to subsidize our cheap food.

The answer to making the "lazy Americans" work the fields, slaughterhouses, and other undesirable places with horrible working conditions, is to pay a living wage and adhere to the OSHA rules. This would result in a massive increase in the price of agricultural goods in this country. Can you afford a $30 chicken? No, then appreciate those farm workers because their sweat, blood, and unseen tears are subsidizing that $6 chicken you had last night for dinner. And, for all of your fruits, vegetables, and dairy products...
 

[Phoenix84]

Jan 26, 2018 9:49:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Jan 26, 2018 9:11:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

So border security is not a worthy issue to you? Interesting.

So you think it's realistic to build a wall around the entire southern border of our nation.  Interesting.

Everything I've read has said the geological survey alone would take 5 years.   So even if you got your fondest wish and Trump got reelected that only leaves him three years.   No literal wall around our entire southern boarder is going to be built in three years.   You're talking about a project on par with the Panama Canal or the Great Wall of China.

Then this is assuming enough palms won't be greased to keep the project in limbo for eternity.  You're going to have to count on the agriculture lobby's check bouncing.

You're also assuming that employers will not continue to go down to Mexico, load up a truck full of people and then hire someone to drive them up here.   Which is what Tyson has been busted for on NUMEROUS occasions.   A wall doesn't stop a truck, a wall doesn't stop a boarder agent who has been bribed to look the other way.

I much rather invest that money into fixing the immigration system we already have.  If the government would get out of lobbyists pockets and give our system the teeth to do it's job you wouldn't need a literal wall.

I don't interpret "the wall" as an actual wall that will cover the entire border.  "The wall" is a euphemism for a secure border.  And the argument that "it'll never be perfect" is a poor at best.  That's like saying we shouldn't try to fix healthcare, gun control, or immigration policy because "it'll never be perfect" or "it'll never affect every case."  While the argument may be true, it misses the point.  The more resources you direct towards something the better it will be. 

I interpret "the wall" as increasing security at the border, however that happens.  In some places it might be additional drones or electronic surveillance.  it might mean hiring more border patrol agents.  It might be purchasing new or additional equipment that will be useful in tracking down and apprehending people who are entering the country illegally.  In addition, funding for "the wall" could be directed towards hiring more ICE agents and judges who process deportation hearings.  In some cases though, yes, securing the border might involve building a physical wall or maintaining/improving an existing wall.

I'm not an expert in physical security in general, much less for the southern U.S border.  But I know if funding is made available, improvements can be made to the system to secure the country and the nation.   

[Deleted]

Trump wants an actual fence. Not electronic surveillance. 

[happyhoix]

Jan 26, 2018 15:11:20 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jan 26, 2018 13:34:58 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

But you're never going to be at zero.   There isn't a human built system in history that has not at some point been breached by another human.  Even if you somehow did manage to build a functioning wall across the entire boarder AND staffed it 24/7 with drones and people with snipers you're still going to have people legally going down to Mexico to load up a truck then drive thru on the day they know their paid for boarder agent will look the other way.

You're also assuming the wall will never fall into enough disrepair due to weather, wear/tear that people won't be able to either poke a hole in it or poke a hole under it.

You also won't be able to stop people from coming across the Gulf by boat. Cubans do it all the time you don't think Mexicans aren't going to?   IIRC correctly Trump and the Republicans want to gut the Coast Guard budget in favor of the wall.   So while you are celebrating people not coming over by ground they are going to come over by boat instead.

I suppose the argument becomes what you define as "effective".   Personally I do not think saddling my children's children's children with the debt for this wall is an effective use of money or resources.  We already have an immigration system, fix that first.

this is a strawman.  I never said that it had to be 100% to be considered "effective".  I simply challenged that something that fails hundreds of thousands of times per year is not "effective".

we'd have to estimate the number attempting to get in vs those who make it, but if we assume a million a year try to gain entry and 300k make it, it's a 30% failure.

would you describe anything else that fails 30% of the time as effective?  I sure wouldn't?

want to sell some 70% effective birth control?  would you accept a republican solution that gave away free BC, but it fails 30% of the time, or would you pillory the effort and ridicule them...

You do realize most illegals get here by flying into our airports as tourists and then just don't leave, right?

Planes can quite easily fly over a wall.

[Deleted]

And, the really smart folks can always fly to Canada and walk over that border.

I just think the whole wall thing is completely stupid and a waste of money for something designed to keep out the very people large industries require for workers. 

[happyhoix]

Jan 26, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5 @rockhounder said:

If you want a 100% secure border, you put up massive signs and let everyone in the south know that the US now shoots to kill border hoppers. You put up drones and after a few people are reported to be victims of the new security measure, then the illegal immigration thing will stop.

The idea of a physical border in this day and age is ridiculous. Almost as nuts as the president himself. Have they not heard of airplanes, tunnels, ladders and the like? Overstaying a vacation visa? /smh

Actually to stop illegal immigrants from coming here would be very simple.

Make a law that employers who don't check the immigrant status of their employees risk forfeiting their business.

ICE makes one raid on a Tyson chicken plant and padlocks the place if they find one person working there who isn't legal and by tomorrow no other Tyson plants would hire an illegal. By the end of the month, no other American businesses would, either. Immigrants would stop coming here if they knew they wouldn't find a job.

Won't ever happen because that shifts the responsibility from the immigrants themselves to the companies that employee them. Our dirty little secret is that there are many businesses in the States that require cheap illegal labor to earn good profits, and all those businesses have lobbyists who grease palms in DC to keep the status quo.