the-pi-guy said:
Let me clarify. You are absolutely correct that a lot of drugs are coming accross the border. What you are wrong about is that most of those drugs are just crossing where there isn't a fence. Again, most drugs get in through legal access points. FIrst off, walls work better with different terrains. Secondly, The Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall were heavily guarded. If the US Mexico border was as well guarded as the Berlin Wall, it would require 4x as many people as we currently have. This brings me back to what I said before. It's not the money saver you think it would be. Fun fact, a small number of people were still able to make it over the Berlin Wall. A wall can absolutely work by stopping people the ~40% of people that are illegally crossing, if you spend the boat loads of money required to do that. |
The initial point was about money getting into Mexico, so where the drugs are coming in isn't really the point, it's where is most of the money being made? More work to get the drugs across and more payoffs more than likely mean less profit.
A mountain usually defeats the need for a wall, sure, so?
Why didn't they just guard the perimeter with the people they had, or add more guards? Why build the wall in the first place if it's useless or way more expensive? Well a few people and millions is a pretty big difference no?
Another initial point was that the U.S. would pay for it up front and reap the benefits and savings over time, so.
the-pi-guy said:
Yes because the average person who's living paycheck to paycheck is spending hundreds of dollars on their phone. @bold: That's a perfect example of circular logic if I've ever seen it. "The wall is justified, because there's criminals. Otherwise why would there be a wall? " Difference is climate change is backed up science. Science shows that illegal immigrants commit less crime than citizens (keep in mind they have to stay low or get deported.) Analysis is still the first step in science. Science isn't just "we'll try everything and see what happens." |
I know more than a few of those people. Can't go out for a beer because it's too much of an expense, and they rarely have food in the house when I put the 6 pack in to keep cool, yet they always have the newest most useless tech to show me, because hey, it's important, I guess.
Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok?
Science shows illegal immigrants commit less crime yada yada. Since when does science trump the law when it comes to the illegal acts?
Correct, but your basically saying the analysts say the wall is a waste so let's not build it. Science demands you build it multiple times to prove it. Why is there resistance to finish the initial wall by the people who always use science to back up their claims?
