It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Walls Don't Work" Argument is the Stupidest One Yet.

page: 1
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+32 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
A barrier is a common sense, tried and true method of security. Walls have been used for thousands of years, in one form or another, since the dawn of civilization.

But in the debate around Trump’s border wall, common sense has long fled the country. Walls do not work, says former president of Mexico Vincente Fox. For opponents of the wall, this argument is de rigueur, passed around like so much propaganda. Consequently, do not build a wall.

We shouldn’t have to explain, even to the most credulous child, that crossing into someone’s property is much more difficult when a 30 to 50 foot barrier stands in the way. It’s simple physics. But also, scaling such a barrier could potentially lead to severe injury and even death, for oneself or one’s family members. The risks associated with such a feat makes the wall a great deterrent.

Sill walls don’t work, say the opponents.

Tell that to the woman who impaled herself while climbing a section of the US/Mexico border wall. She might think twice about doing so in the future, that is if she is still able to walk.

The man who broke both legs doing the same thing might come to admit that, yes, the wall did work in his own case. It's difficult to evade capture without working legs.

The two teenage girls who severely injured themselves scaling the same wall might regret listening to the anti-wall sophistry.

The EMTs at the border wall share similar stories.

Obviously people have successfully scaled the walls, and continue to do so. But before we laugh at how ineffective those walls are, we should have to imagine what it would be like with no wall at all. No wall, obviously, would make it much easier to commit the crimes we are now considering.

Not too long ago, the opposition lamented the images of families being torn apart, of armed border guards, of teargas and riot shields. This is the sort of border security they've been funding for decades. It's no wonder the price tag increases year after year: they just like to kick the can further down the road.

But for a one-time purchase we can erect a wall. A wall doesn't tear families apart. A wall doesn't teargas anybody. A wall just gets in the bloody way, and that's all it needs to do.

The walls don’t work argument is the stupidest one yet.




posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


+6 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


+16 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Jim Acosta discovers a wall keeps illegal crossers out.

Look. He's at an area with a wall, and there is no border crisis happening there. It's almost as if people are going to other sections where the wall is not ...



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.
edit on 10/1/2019 by dug88 because: (no reason given)


+18 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


An equally stupid argument. There are 1 million home invasions each year, why bother locking your door? Or even having a door? They clearly don't work.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome. There is a far greater risk in those who break in than those who enter the country legally.
edit on 10-1-2019 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

The counter argument goes that there are ways to extend the protections along the border.

I've yet to see one that a wall won't help or where it does base those augments around one.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


Totally different set of immigrants and problems. Yes, we have a problem with immigrants over staying visas.

The wall is addressing illegal immigration along the border of Mexico.

Here is the difference between the two groups.

Group A (South of Border) are largely uneducated and unvetted immigrants. We have no idea who they are. They are mostly ill equipped to live in this country.

Group B (Visa Overstays) are vetted immigrants who did not leave when required. Think student attending a university on a F visa or an H1-B.

Group B is not really the highest concern. They aren't likely to be joining MS-13 or who the public is actually thinking about when discussing illegal immigrants.

Both are a problem, but Group A requires more attention and is who the wall is for...



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


No... a wall is being proposed as A PART OF an overall security package.

A lot if it isn't even about illegal immigration and everything to do with national security issues.

Such as the heroin trade... 90% of it in America comes through our southern border, supposedly.

However, the left is framing the issue as an illegal immigration one so they can use pictures of crying children... since pictures of overdoses and sex slaves won't win the hearts of voters.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Jim Acosta discovers a wall keeps illegal crossers out.

Look. He's at an area with a wall, and there is no border crisis happening there. It's almost as if people are going to other sections where the wall is not ...


I saw that earlier and it does deserve it's own thread.

Jim Accoster showing the wall works...



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in support of open borders and generally agree with the idea behind these things. If someone's going to immigrate, they should do it properly. I've met too many people who worked way too hard to do that to agree with someone just going anywhere they please. I just thing a wall is probably not the best way to go about it.
edit on 10/1/2019 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Try walking across your yard, then try walking through a wall in your house. Which one is more difficult and deters you from attempting it further.

Oh who am I kidding, Dems are so used to walking face first into walls they probably enjoy it by now.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Jim Acosta discovers a wall keeps illegal crossers out.

Look. He's at an area with a wall, and there is no border crisis happening there. It's almost as if people are going to other sections where the wall is not ...


Ha, Acosta. My god.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.


We need to do all those other things too. However, a wall stops large numbers of people from crossing over. It is a relatively low cost / low tech solution that works. No, it won't be 100% effective but it will be extremely effective.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.


We need to do all those other things too. However, a wall stops large numbers of people from crossing over.



See I think this is where I disagree. The number of people crossing over the open desert between america and Mexico isn't as high as everyone arguing for a wall think compared to other methods of entry. It really won't stop that many people. If you're going to spend a bunch of money it makes sense to go for something that will stop the highest numberof people.
edit on 10/1/2019 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.


It's a one time cost, excluding maintenance. In 2019 they are spending about the same on general border security. That's 22 percent higher than 2017. That number keeps climbing every year.

You'd rather people enter the country illegally without papers, without a security check, from the third-world, bringing in anything they want, than someone who enters legally but overstays their welcome?



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in support of open borders and generally agree with the idea behind these things. If someone's going to immigrate, they should do it properly. I've met too many people who worked way too hard to do that to agree with someone just going anywhere they please. I just thing a wall is probably not the best way to go about it.


But if the wall helps greatly with illegal crossings, as the boots on the ground say they do, then that frees up all of the resources currently running around trying to stop the illegal crossings to go after overstays. So yes, the wall will help with illegal overstays.

edit on 10-1-2019 by bluesjr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.


It's a one time cost, excluding maintenance. In 2019 they are spending about the same on general border security. That's 22 percent higher than 2017. That number keeps climbing every year.

You'd rather people enter the country illegally without papers, without a security check, from the third-world, bringing in anything they want, than someone who enters legally but overstays their welcome?


No...I think whatever is guaranteed to stop and deal with the largest amount of people for the least amount of money is ideal.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: dug88
How would a wall have stopped these 600,000 people from being in america illegally in 2017?


The wall is being proposed along the US/Mexico border, not at legal points of entry.


Yeah...but the wall is proposed as a solution to illegal immigration. I'm guessing less than 600,000 people crossed that border in the same time period. I just think the wall is probably the least effective solution to the problem rather than that it won't work. It's a bunch of money to stop a very small percentage of illegal immigration when less money could be spent on more effective measures.


Obviously the wall is concerned with those who refuse to enter through legal points of entry along the southern border. I don't think anyone implied it is going to stop those who overstay their welcome.


Yeah....that's worth $23 billion. The arguments I see is that...illegal immigration takes jobs, it allows criminals into the country and generally lowers the quality of life for people in said country. Personally...if my government were going to spend $23 billion to tackle such a problem, I would prefer something that actually decreases the numbers of illegal immigrants within the country and deals with with mass corruption allowing them to stay rather than these mystery people running across open desert into america.

But I guess it appeals more to fearful people to have a giant wall proposed than something like...we will spend money enforcing deportations and cracking down on businesses hiring and aiding illegal immigrants in the country or implementing proper border checks or ya know useful solutions that will actually decrease the number of illegal immigrants actually currently detrimenting your country.


It's a one time cost, excluding maintenance. In 2019 they are spending about the same on general border security. That's 22 percent higher than 2017. That number keeps climbing every year.

You'd rather people enter the country illegally without papers, without a security check, from the third-world, bringing in anything they want, than someone who enters legally but overstays their welcome?


No...I think whatever is guaranteed to stop and deal with the largest amount of people for the least amount of money is ideal.


Nothing works better and is more cost-effective than a massive barrier.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join