Migrants easily cut through Trump's wall with a $100 saw

[Kaleredar]

Not really, I would not sit back, to be honest. Illegal immigration is illegal .. I don't know why people don't take it seriously.

So is jay walking. Did you know that illegal immigrants make up like... 3%... of America's total population?

For any crime you have to assess the expenditure required to enforce it and assess ways of curtailing it that are in due proportion to the extent of the crime.

A 12 billion dollar wall made from money stolen from the military is not a sensible reaction to either assessment, were it made in earnest.

So I don't actually trust that the people who want to "build a wall" or increase boots-on-the-ground, extremely inefficient actually want to do anything about illegal immigration. Because they aren't doing what actually needs to be done.

So why give them money, political influence, or even the time of day? As I established, they're not trying to solve the problem.

TLDR; Politicians saying "build a wall" are not trying to solve the problem.

Why should we allow in people willing to break the law? People who don't respect our process? If we want more people in, I'm up for that but let's get the people who are willing to respect the process, there are plenty of them waiting in line and it's not fair we just let them wait while allowing illegals in.

Except the "line," as designed now, is a completely flawed, unnecessarily cumbersome and prohibitory system.

The system as it stands now is not a solution. Every "slight" perpetrated by the existence of "illegal immigrants," both real and, much more commonly, imagined, is due in wholesale to the immigration system itself being flawed. Not because "a wall failed to keep them out."

Because maybe... I don't want to be fucking murdered, raped, or have huge crime coming from northern mexico? Northern mexico is one of the most dangerous places on the world with murder rates at 134 per 100,000 and rape at 542 per 100,000. Why the fuck do you think leaving that area insecure is a good idea?

1) Why would Trump care about what you want? Again, how does that affect his bottom line? Especially when, as established, he actively profits from migrant workers?

2) You're far more likely to be murdered by your fellow American citizens than you are by an '"illegal immigrant." Moreover, I always find it... funny... that people from states like Ohio or North Dakota are worried about "illegal immigrants" perpetrating some crime on them when they live hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the mexican border.

From a pure numbers statistic... there's actually no compelling evidence that illegal immigrants cause an increase in violent crime.

In case you're too lazy to click:

"Most types of crime had an almost flat trend line, indicating that changes in undocumented populations had little or no effect on crime in the various metro areas under survey."

[Pannonian]

1) Why would Trump care about what you want? Again, how does that affect his bottom line? Especially when, as established, he actively profits from migrant workers?

2) You're far more likely to be murdered by your fellow American citizens than you are by an '"illegal immigrant." Moreover, I always find it... funny... that people from states like Ohio or North Dakota are worried about "illegal immigrants" perpetrating some crime on them when they live hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the mexican border.

From a pure numbers statistic... there's actually no compelling evidence that illegal immigrants cause an increase in violent crime.

In case you're too lazy to click:

"Most types of crime had an almost flat trend line, indicating that changes in undocumented populations had little or no effect on crime in the various metro areas under survey."

I was thinking about replying to him that he doesn't need to fear the evil immigrant, as they have lower crime rates, but the problem is: He will call this a fake because it doesn't fit his world view. Like he refuses to acknowledge germany murder rates, because it doesn't feel right.

You cannot bring facts into an emotion fight.

[announced]

From the WAPO article

The engineers estimated that it would take someone 20 minutes or less to cut through a bollard if a team worked in pairs with two saws. The crews might go through multiple blades to complete a cut, the engineers said, but the blades can be changed quickly to resume sawing.

So around 20 minutes, or 10 if you have 2 people. That still takes more time than just walking across a wall-less section or simply jumping a chain link fence like previous parts of the laughable border. The wall is a deterrent, not the end goal.

Perhaps we could ask the Mexicans to monitor the wall on their side for smugglers and can take care of anyone trying to breach the wall? Or we could just post more agents or drones near the more porous areas so they have faster response times.

[Kaleredar]

Well, I'm not arguing for the wall. I don't think we should build it if we don't have the funds to finish it and to do surveillance. I'm arguing against illegal immigration. Jaywalking is illegal .. yeah what's your point? You think I wouldn't' want jaywalkers punished? I don't get what you're saying. Illegal immigrants are stealing immigration spots from legal immigrants because they're taking their slots and we accordingly import fewer legal immigrants because of illegal immigrants already boosting the population. They're stealing someone else life and dream and safety. That's not jaywalking.

...No, they're not. Where are you getting that nonsense from?

Immigration officials don't go about processing a claim only to say "sorry, some illegal dude snuck in last month, so you're out of the running!"


My point with Jaywalking is that... it's illegal, yes. However, I have full faith in police to adequately address jaywalking concerns as they may arise. I do not favor constructing barriers around sidewalks to physically prevent jaywalkers.

If a town has a problem with jaywalking, maybe it's because that town should have more pedestrian crosswalks, not that it needs to make it more difficult for people to cross the street.

Catch my meaning?

- - - Updated - - -

From the WAPO article

So around 20 minutes, or 10 if you have 2 people. That still takes more time than just walking across a wall-less section or simply jumping a chain link fence like previous parts of the laughable border. The wall is a deterrent, not the end goal.

What is the "end goal" precisely?

I've heard nothing- nothing from republicans about immigration reform.

It sounds a lot like a wall is the "end goal," here. Because it means they don't actually have to do anything.

Perhaps we could ask the Mexicans to monitor the wall on their side for smugglers and can take care of anyone trying to breach the wall? Or we could just post more agents or drones near the more porous areas so they have faster response times.

I'm sure the Mexican government is just giddy at the opportunity to help Trump's pet project out.

Maybe if he calls them drug peddling rapists again that'll finally get them on his side.

[announced]

...No, they're not. Where are you getting that nonsense from?

Immigration officials don't go about processing a claim only to say "sorry, some illegal dude snuck in last month, so you're out of the running!"


My point with Jaywalking is that... it's illegal, yes. However, I have full faith in police to adequately address jaywalking concerns as they may arise. I do not favor constructing barriers around sidewalks to physically prevent jaywalkers.

If a town has a problem with jaywalking, maybe it's because that town should have more pedestrian crosswalks, not that it needs to make it more difficult for people to cross the street.

Catch my meaning?

- - - Updated - - -



What is the "end goal" precisely?

I've heard nothing- nothing from republicans about immigration reform.

It sounds a lot like a wall is the "end goal," here. Because it means they don't actually have to do anything.



I'm sure the Mexican government is just giddy at the opportunity to help Trump's pet project out.

Maybe if he calls them drug peddling rapists again that'll finally get them on his side.

He called the Cartel rapists and drug dealers. I think even you can read behind the lines sometimes if you apply yourself.


The Migrant Protection Protocols seem to be helping. I would wager the end game would be to round up all of the illegals currently in the US and move them back to Mexican cities so they can wait until their date in court shows up. Making this plan enforceable everywhere would eliminate the need for smugglers and human traffickers. Why bother crossing the US border if you are just going to get sent back to Mexico anyway?

The wall is just a deterrent. Like how it is harder to walk across someones lawn if they have a gate and a fence around their property.

[Fincayra]

It's not what "I'm going with." It's the factual reality, which, as we're all aware, you have a complicated relationship with.

Fact is, Trump's proposal was to replace the bollard-style fencing with an 18-30 foot tall concrete human-blocking barrier. The wall prototypes as pictured above, all reflected that concept. They were significantly taller and of fundamentally different construction and intent than the border fence. Much more like the slabs of the Berlin Wall or military-style concrete fortifications.

Bollard-style fencing has been there for many years (Bush and Obama put it up across stretches) and is entirely different. It is not remotely related to the the wall a concept as outlined by Trump, or the specific wall prototypes that are now demolished.

The wall is dead and its never coming back.

Yes, I'm sure it's been discussed to death. Trump compromised his plan based on info provided by the needs of the border security people, and to offer a token appeasement to the democrats. He's mentioned it in countless press conferences and presentations on border security.

On topic, a wall (you've already established that we're not building wall, it's at best enhanced fencing) isn't infallible. It is meant to stop MOST of the possible traffic that would go through an area. I knew when we heard about the wall from the beginning that we wouldn't be getting Trump's dream. The pictures you posted earlier in the thread are a small reason why. One of them was obviously a prototype being demolished (for who knows what reason) and you're making it look like it's just a terrible design overall, when it's just a 10 foot section of a wall, where an entire wall would be MUCH stronger than just a single section. I'm not an industrial engineer, and neither is Trump. The people who designed these prototypes were doing so to please Trump, and I am very glad he went with the current design. No, a wall isn't going to stop everyone. Anyone who WANTS to get across it bad enough is going to. Several months ago we had a discussion about the cost of maintaining chain link fencing on the border some 15-20 years ago, and it was pretty high. And that would have just required wire cutters from the hardware store to breach. Articles discussing this problem exist for one reason: to talk shit about Trump. And while I'm usually all game for that (if the shit talk is deserved), I don't think it is deserved in this case. Nothing is impenetrable, and harder materials would have raised the cost on something where he had precious few dollars to spend as it was to begin with. The current border situation is the result of years of refusing to compromise on the issues by either side (from before Trump), and what we have is what we have. If the democrats wanted better border security, they had plenty of opportunities to work with the president. And, if Trump wanted new wall built, he had plenty of opportunities to work with the democrats. Instead we have ineffective security today, which needs looked at badly.

With that out of the way, I'd like to talk a bit about the "morality" of the wall. We've divided up property as a species since we had the ability to. Throughout the centuries hundreds of countries have put up fences, walls, trenches, blockades, embargoes, and countless other borders against other territories. While I don't think the immigration situation at the border is as overblown as it is made out to be, the mere fact that someone can walk across the border and disappear into this country is an immorality all on its own to me. Not because they're a Mexican, but because the journey is dangerous. Incentivizing that journey isn't a good thing. That's why I'm a supporter of border security. It will save lives, both American and Mexican. I don't know the proper solution to that problem. I know a wall would be a good one, if it was a proper fit to the territory. We have natural land with flora and fauna and people who live on the border who simply won't give up their land for border construction, and I don't support emminent domain in this situation. Destroying that land isn't a good thing for this purpose. Moving the wall north or south to preclude this territory would be a decent compromise, but that would require intimate partnership with Mexico, and a spiderweb of a map where the wall would go. All I know is the situation on the border is a shit one. It really is above my paygrade to give proper solutions to it. We have people who genuinely want to find a better life for themselves being used as pawns in a greater game of politics, as well as two mainstream political parties who truely want them to be here for the cheap labor. My heart breaks for all of them in the situation, and it especially breaks for the ones seeking asylum who genuinely deserve it. So, do I think the wall is racist? No. Is it supported by racists? Yes. Do I trust the government to solve this problem? Not for even a nanosecond. Even with a different president and congress, the proposed solution would probably be just as shitty as Trump's. It just wouldn't be percieved as shitty because the media wouldn't spin it as being shitty.

[arandomuser]

and just to think us crazy "open border' democrats only approved money for more border agents, and surveillance, sensors and some FENCing at common entry points. Clearly we should of diverted all of that money to trumps wall instead so that people in midwest america could "feel " safer instead of actually reducing illegal entries

- - - Updated - - -

But that's all putting the cart before the horse.

Comprehensive immigration reform would do far more than ALL of those things, combined, in any way, shape, or form.


I haven't heard a peep from Republicans about reforming immigration for the better at all.

So I'm quite content to sit back and say "until that, no increase in funding." Especially for such an overblown issue as "illegal immigration."

they dont want legal immigration, its the big lie. Is when they say they want you to come here "but legally" Trump reduced asylum 90% and legal immigration by 65%. Its clear they want people, lets say from "norway" than anywhere else. George bush who was actually competent enough to get a fence built allowed millions of immigrants in the US through the legal system, trump has destroyed our legal immigration system. He and his base are ethno nationalist eugenecist through and through.
Chuch schumer even told him, fine we will build your wasteful mullti billion dollar wall if you get the GOP to pass legal immigration reform, trump refused, because he knows he can make a bigger impact on what his base wants (less brown people) by limiting legal immigration than having his pointless wall.

[Powerogue]

To be honest, the argument that the wall can breach is not valid. If there is no will to do the surveillance with the wall, it's useless but if there is a will and there is a system it's not. One cannot be done without the other. Surveillance and control would be impossible to do without some form of wall/barrier.

Alrighty, so we make the wall, which we can't afford, and then add complicated surveillance to it, which we also can't afford.

[Machismo]

Jaywalking is a "transient" violation. You do it and it's over. Every second an illegal immigrant is here he is breaking the law. He/She is not "walking"through the US, they're not transiting here.

As for the immigration officials, he doesn't decide but the overall population growth over the years decides. I'm not saying these people are murderers ... but they messing up the immigration for others. There are billions of people who wanna be in the US, billions. 99.9% of them respect our laws and don't come crossing the border ... why are we rewarding the 0.01% that break the law? I would kick each one of those out and admit a legal immigrant waiting on the visa instead. Clear and simple.

Make them legal, problem solved.

[Rasulis]

From the WAPO article

So around 20 minutes, or 10 if you have 2 people. That still takes more time than just walking across a wall-less section or simply jumping a chain link fence like previous parts of the laughable border. The wall is a deterrent, not the end goal.

Perhaps we could ask the Mexicans to monitor the wall on their side for smugglers and can take care of anyone trying to breach the wall? Or we could just post more agents or drones near the more porous areas so they have faster response times.

20 minutes? Yeah no.

[Cthulhu 2020]

From the WAPO article

So around 20 minutes, or 10 if you have 2 people. That still takes more time than just walking across a wall-less section or simply jumping a chain link fence like previous parts of the laughable border. The wall is a deterrent, not the end goal.

Perhaps we could ask the Mexicans to monitor the wall on their side for smugglers and can take care of anyone trying to breach the wall? Or we could just post more agents or drones near the more porous areas so they have faster response times.

And once the holes are cut, they are there til they are repaired, and by the time they are repaired, the border hoppers already have another hole somewhere else. There's also currently existing tunnels and future tunnels that are relatively simple to build, maintain, and hide.

The wall fence isn't even a deterrent, it's minor inconvenience. A deterrent would be something that actually deters people from crossing.

[jeezusisacasual]

Any trade deal with Mexico / Canada / US should come with a freedom of movement clause to allow migrants to move to follow job prospects for either nation with fewer migration issues but i think that America being a racist nation impedes that idea. Joe the auto worker can have a job in Mexico if they so chose etc etc.

[Endus]

The wall fence isn't even a deterrent, it's minor inconvenience. A deterrent would be something that actually deters people from crossing.

Walls in general only serve basically two purposes;

1> To slow down personnel crossings by a few minutes at best, and
2> To make crossings by transport much more difficult.

The fences and walls do fuck-all to stop people climbing them, or to keep people out of the country. All they really serve to do is prevent vehicular crossings (or crossings by horses, before the automobile). You really need a large breach to get transportation through, since it can't reasonably climb the fence.

If your case is about reducing human and drug trafficking, particularly along danger spots where such traffic has been identified, then sure, a fence or wall can help.

If your case is about people crossing, it's always a complete fucking waste of time and money, since it can be defeated with modern technology like "ladders" and "ropes". And it doesn't matter how high you build it. That cost scales much higher than the cost of the methods used to breach it. It's a contest you can't ever win.

If you look at the famous walls of history, you'll find they're generally of two kinds; large border walls (Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall) whose main purpose was to block mounted raiders and force them into a siege mentality if they wanted to get through, or city/fortress walls, which are small enough to be heavily manned and intended solely for defense during actual sieges. Every attempt to build some large-scale border wall which prevents all crossing, those are inevitably permeable, and it's just a question of how badly you want to get across it.

[Noradin]

Make them legal, problem solved.

But then using their immigration status for blackmail wouldn't work anymore...

[Kaleredar]

He called the Cartel rapists and drug dealers. I think even you can read behind the lines sometimes if you apply yourself.

More specifically he said "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

He didn't specify cartels at all. He said that generally applies to "people from Mexico."

If he meant cartels, he should have said cartels. Because words have meaning, and just because Trump can barely string a sentence together does not excuse him from that.

The Migrant Protection Protocols seem to be helping. I would wager the end game would be to round up all of the illegals currently in the US and move them back to Mexican cities so they can wait until their date in court shows up. Making this plan enforceable everywhere would eliminate the need for smugglers and human traffickers. Why bother crossing the US border if you are just going to get sent back to Mexico anyway?

The wall is just a deterrent. Like how it is harder to walk across someones lawn if they have a gate and a fence around their property.

Because that's all a waste of money that, once again, doesn't solve the problem?

Again. Not hearing any long-term solutions from the GOP here. So why extend them even the most piecemeal part of their policy, when, as I said, it's clearly not going to actually solve the problem?

Jaywalking is a "transient" violation. You do it and it's over. Every second an illegal immigrant is here he is breaking the law. He/She is not "walking"through the US, they're not transiting here.

So?

As for the immigration officials, he doesn't decide but the overall population growth over the years decides. I'm not saying these people are murderers ... but they messing up the immigration for others. There are billions of people who wanna be in the US, billions. 99.9% of them respect our laws and don't come crossing the border ... why are we rewarding the 0.01% that break the law? I would kick each one of those out and admit a legal immigrant waiting on the visa instead. Clear and simple.

Again, this is nonsense, because that's not how the system works. Your spot doesn't get "taken" by an illegal immigrant.

they dont want legal immigration, its the big lie. Is when they say they want you to come here "but legally" Trump reduced asylum 90% and legal immigration by 65%. Its clear they want people, lets say from "norway" than anywhere else. George bush who was actually competent enough to get a fence built allowed millions of immigrants in the US through the legal system, trump has destroyed our legal immigration system. He and his base are ethno nationalist eugenecist through and through.
Chuch schumer even told him, fine we will build your wasteful mullti billion dollar wall if you get the GOP to pass legal immigration reform, trump refused, because he knows he can make a bigger impact on what his base wants (less brown people) by limiting legal immigration than having his pointless wall.

Well I know that; but I'm always amazed at republicans insisting that their representatives are "for legal immigration" when every single one of their actions says otherwise.

And while I'm sure the GOP would love more immigration from countries in Western Europe, they never stop to ask themselves... why the hell would someone from Norway want to move the US and live under GOP leadership? The GOP actively hates almost every tenant of western European governance.

[Endus]

Well I know that; but I'm always amazed at republicans insisting that their representatives are "for legal immigration" when every single one of their actions says otherwise.

There's a simple test, actually.

Ask them if they'd support a broad-scale amnesty for illegal immigrants and simple/easy access to permanent work visas (green cards), where the only real requirement is "do you have a job in the USA?"

They'll find all kinds of reasons why those aren't acceptable, because while they ensure that immigration is almost entirely legal, that's not their actual problem with immigration.

Note that this isn't me saying that's a perfect policy automatically or that they should agree with it. Just that it proves their hostility to illegal immigration isn't the illegality of it.

[Rasulis]

There's a simple test, actually.

Ask them if they'd support a broad-scale amnesty for illegal immigrants and simple/easy access to permanent work visas (green cards), where the only real requirement is "do you have a job in the USA?"

They'll find all kinds of reasons why those aren't acceptable, because while they ensure that immigration is almost entirely legal, that's not their actual problem with immigration.

Note that this isn't me saying that's a perfect policy automatically or that they should agree with it. Just that it proves their hostility to illegal immigration isn't the illegality of it.

Even a guest worker visa like the Bracero program, minus the widespread abuse and mistreatment, would work wonder. A lot of farm workers are seasonal anyway. In California the peak harvesting season for most crops usually lasts between March and November. In early 80s I used to drive drown from Salinas to San Diego in the summer to pick up workers for my girlfriend's parent farm. Those workers would then go back to Mexico in December.

[announced]

More specifically he said "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

He didn't specify cartels at all. He said that generally applies to "people from Mexico."

If he meant cartels, he should have said cartels. Because words have meaning, and just because Trump can barely string a sentence together does not excuse him from that.

So when Mexico sends its people. The question then is, who is Mexico sending across the border? Some of the more obvious answers are: Drug mules/ gang members/ traffickers/ criminals/ and of course illegals. (This is where the part of Trump saying "Some, I assume are good people) (he's talking about the illegals as good people for anyone who doesn't get it and needs a hint)

Some poster also mentioned Trump called government officials rapists. (usually government officials don't cross the border illegally) It's difficult to respond to a remark that stupid.

I'm surprised you need him to specifically mention cartels. he mentions gang members and refers to MS-13 as animals often, although we can't go back in time and rewrite his specific presidential announcement speech so we'll have to settle for using our brains instead.

One of my solutions would be to legalize all drugs to destroy the cartel's drug operations. There would be strict age limits and other restrictions for obvious reasons though (we do still have a fentanyl crisis on our hands).

The real question is, why do migrants come over the border? if we can remove their incentive for coming over, then the wall will be enough.

Any link to Chuck Schumer even saying that phrase? I'd like to see a source for that.

[Kaleredar]

So when Mexico sends its people. The question then is, who is Mexico sending across the border? Some of the more obvious answers are: Drug mules/ gang members/ traffickers/ criminals/ and of course illegals. (This is where the part of Trump saying "Some, I assume are good people) (he's talking about the illegals as good people for anyone who doesn't get it and needs a hint)

Some poster also mentioned Trump called government officials rapists. (usually government officials don't cross the border illegally) It's difficult to respond to a remark that stupid.

I'm surprised you need him to specifically mention cartels. he mentions gang members and refers to MS-13 as animals often, although we can't go back in time and rewrite his specific presidential announcement speech so we'll have to settle for using our brains instead.

One of my solutions would be to legalize all drugs to destroy the cartel's drug operations. There would be strict age limits and other restrictions for obvious reasons though (we do still have a fentanyl crisis on our hands).

So what you're saying is "what Trump meant to say was..." instead of... you know, paying attention to what he actually said. Not gonna fly.

Like I said, Trump's inability to string a coherent sentence together does not dismiss him from what he said.

As for "tact and subtleness" behind Trump's words... this is Donald Trump we're talking about. Name the last thing he did with tact or subtlety.

The real question is, why do migrants come over the border? if we can remove their incentive for coming over, then the wall will be enough.

The incentive for immigrants coming to America is because it's better than where they came from. Which they will continue to do, so long as America provides them a better life.

And while Trump sure is trying his damndest to turn America into a third-world authoritarian state, most of us aren't so keen on that. And some of us take exception to the "We will brutalize you harder than the dictator you escaped from if we catch you" form of immigrant repellent.

[Malaky]

What a bizarre thread. Nobody expected the wall to be impregnable, not even Trump.

What're you on about?